in all my Book as that the Kings oath at Coronation is a wicked oath And though I use the tearm vinculum iniquitatis yet by the expressions annexed if he had set them down there would have appeard no such vileness in it as he interprets it the words are thus The bond of the Kings oath may be taken off two wayes either by clearing the unlawfulness of it that it was vinculum iniquitatis and so void the first day c. Now here the Reader may observe that vinculum iniquitatis was used by me onely to note the unlawfulness of the oath in that particular and it s an usual phrase to note the unlawfulness of the matter in any oath yet I did not English it because it might seem harsher in our Language Besides I did not assert that the Kings oath was unlawful in that point unless it did engage him to maintain Episcopacy as then it stood which the King hath declared it did not in that he hath offered their regulation by Presbyters How false then is the Doctor in this also in positively affirming that I make the kings oath vinculum iniquitatis When I do it onely upon a supposition which the king denies yea and which I did imagine the king might deny and so declined that way of invalidating the bond of the kings oath as appears plainly in my Treatise But whether that argument that I brought did prove it unlawful to swear to maintain the Bishops in the power they then executed will appear when I come to discover the sillyness of the Doctors Answer And if the oath be proved in that sence unlawful then I hope tits no offence but necessary in dispute so to call it unless we be to flatter Superiors in what ever they do and so not honour but Idolize them and lay snares for their feet But with musing on these and other blasphemies fire was kindled in the Doctor What were these other blasphemies Those he names not nor are we ever like to know But that the fire was kindled is evident by the fruits of it but such a fire that I doubt not but that the Reader will judge that he might for it more pertinently have cited James 3.6 then Psalm 39.4 After to present me more odious he cites a place out of Doctor Burgess's fire of the Sanctuary touching imprecations and Seditious raylings against the Rulers of the people and rude bitter unseemly speeches uttered against them Also out of Master Wards Sermon before the Commons about suffering vile men to blaspheme and spit in the face of authority And affirms all this Master Geree hath done undeservedly Hath he used imprecations or bitter railings against the Prince Hath he used rude bitter unseemly speeches against him Hath he blasphemed or spit in the face of Authority Convince all these or any of these and you shall finde him ready to repent and ask God and his Prince forgiveness But if he hath not done all no nor any of these then is Doctor Boughen a malicious Slanderer and whose agent he is in these accusations he may easily see if he be pleased to view Joh. 8.44 and Revel 12.10 But hath not Doctor Boughen in truth done that to the Parliament which he falsely accuseth me to have done against the Prince And is not the Parliament an Assembly of Gods Psalm 82.1 And neerest in honour and Authority to the king Nay hath not he done worse to the king then any thing that he laies to my charge For is not perjurie worse then through incogitancie to swear to some thing that seems good but is not lawful which is all that can be objected to me to have said in reference to the King And doth not Doctor Boughen while he saith to abolish Episcopacie is no more against the kings oath then to take away their Votes in the House of Peers pag. 87. and that he cannot consent to abolish Episcopacy without perjurie pag. 123. charge the king with perjurie in consenting to a Bill for taking away the Bishops priviledg of Sitting and Voting in the House of Peers Then let him consider who is neerer Simon Magus and who hath more need to pray forgiveness in this particular As touching Simon Magus I am sure I never profer'd money for any Ecclesiastical Gifts nor Livings and so am free from Simony And to clear me from being a Magician I Printed a Book against judicial Astrologie at the same time with the Treatise which the Doctor would Answer which hath nettl'd Lily and Booker no great friends to the king neer as much as my Case Resolved did Doctor Boughen He closeth with two things First He that answers a Book is bound to confute all but what he approves This I deny unless he mean all that is pertinent and weightie For impertinent triflings and railings of which the Doctors Book hath too much deserve no answer nor the waste of Paper The other is The guides he wisheth the Reader to be led by in judging viz. Reason Scriptures and Authority And therein I fully close with him so far as Autority the third is guided by the two former Scriptures and Reason And so far onely it deserves respect And thus far for his Epistles Reader observe that in this Treatise D. B. stands for Doctor Boughen And D. D. for Doctor in Divinity The Contents of the several Chapters CHAP. I. ANimadversions on Doctor Boughen's first chapter wherein he playes with the Introduction to the dispute and herein is discovered his subtilty in the whole and ridiculous trifling in this part of his book Page 1. Chap. 2. Wherein is cleered that the National Covenant is not to abolish Episcopacie root and branch Nor is Episcopvcie of Christs institution in answer to Doctor Boughen's second chapter pag. 6. Chap. 3. Wherein it is cleered That Prelacy as it stood in England was an usurpation on the office of Presbyters In answer to Doctor Boughen's third Chapter p. 15. Chap. 4. Parag. 1. Wherein it is cleered That Episcopacie is not to be upheld by our Protestation and that there may be ordination without it in answer to Doctor Boughen's fourth Chapter p. 20. Chap. 4. Parag. 2. Wherein is shewed That the National Covenant doth not engage to uphold Episcopacie In answer to Doctor Boughen's fifth Chapter p. 31. Chap. 4. Par. 3. Wherein for a ful answer to what Doctor Boughen hath said to prove Episcopacy Christs institution This Question is resolved Whether a Bishop now usually so called be by the Ordinance of Christ a distinct officer from him that is usually called a Presbyter The one a successour of the Apostles endued with power of Ordination and other jurisdiction The other the successour of the Presbyters ordained by Timothy and Titus Endued with power of administring Word and Sacraments p. 36. Chap. 4. Parag. 4. Wherein is shewed the impertinency of Doctor Boughen's sixth Chapter against perjury p. 50. CHAP. V. PARAG. I. Shewing That the Clergies rights are as alterable by
argument runs not on the men but the office it self as it then stood excluding Presbyters from part in government which was not the act of any extravagant Bishop but the ordinarie custome of them all so not the men but the office it self was in an abusive posture in excluding Presbyterie from participation in government which is the thing to be proved Which thing you confess I endeavour to prove by Syllogism which you set down parag 3. That power which despoyls any of Christs officers of any priviledg or duty indulged or injoyned them by the word of God that power is an usurpation against the word But this Prelacy did as it stood in England ergo English Prelacy was an usurpation against the word of God Parag. 4. You think to retort this argument on the Parliament to prove them as well to be an usurpation because they have sequestred and dispoyled many of you Presbyters of preaching and ruling in their Congregations But herein I must tell you you bewray your own not the weakness of my argument for my argument runs not upon any particular officers whether justly or unjustly despoiled But of all the officers as they are officers of which Episcopacie was guiltie excluding all Presbyters from partnership in government And had you had your wits about you that can put the dul man upon others this you might easily have seen and that any in the Syllogism notes not particulars in any office but the kinds of officers prescribed by Christ But Parag. 5. You would teach me to speak had you said say you that power that wrongfully dispoyls any of Christs officers and then you tell me I have not learnt it seems to distinguish between justly and unjustly But it seems you though a D. D. have not learnt to understand plain sence For in that sence that my words should be taken can I pray you any kinde of officers be wholly dispoiled of a privileledg or abridged in a dutie lest on record by Christ justly Sure then there must be some power that can controul Christs institution without injustice or usurpation You add as wise an amplification that Gods word and mine are two Gods word saith Non est potestas nisi a Deo there is no power but of God Rom. 13.1 But you say say you of me that there is a power which is an usurpation against the word of God It seems then you think that there is no usurped power in the world or Church no not the Popes claim to both the swords Sure you are a learned interpreter of Scriptures whereas its plain the Apostle speaks onely of all kinds of lawful civil powers not denying but some may usurpe a power that belongs not to them as the Pope doth and it s in question between you and me whether Prelacie did or no. You add I cannot distinguish between the office and the abuse Will you then acknowledg it was an abuse in Episcopacie to ingross all government If you do you grant the question if not you trifle Do you not know Master Doctor that these be two things an usurp'd power and an usurpation in power If Episcopacie have no inflitution from Christ it s an usurp'd power an office without institution that question I wave If there be institution for Episcopacie yet if Presbyterie should govern with it and be excluded this is not an abuse of persons but an incroachment of one office upon another This I accuse prelacie of as it stood one would think this were plain enough to a vulgar capacitie yet you run on in your mistake And Parag. 6. Mention divers examples of particular officers and abusing their power in unjust censures or using it in a just way Which is meer trifling as I shall make it appear by your last instance about Bishops depriving Ministers For I question not now the Bishops or you for calling Truth Heresie nor for the abuse of power in suspending or depriving for unjust causes but for doing it solely without the counsel and consent of a Presbyterie wherein I shall hereafter clear to you they usurp more then the practise and counsels of former Bishops allowed them This is the plain state of the business and its ridiculous to undertake the answer of a Treatise and mistake the plain state of the question But Parag. 7. You come to the Minor and that 's trifling still on the same mistake but to seem to say something at last you say It is as false aspeech to say Prelacy dispoiles any as to say Judicatory wrongs any Where still you bewray your ignorance in comparing an act to an office but may not one Court dispoil another Did not you or some Prelates think these Courts did dispoyl them of their rights heretofore that granted Prohibitions in point of tythes c. and so the Civil power incroach on the Ecclesiastique Why else were some Judges so frown'd on by some Prelates for such prohibitions Parag. 8. You come to my proof which I set down Presbyters are by Christs warrant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their Congregations as well as preach you adde in your own character to as well as much why you know best others may guess For proof I bring four Scriptures the first from 1 Tim. 3.5 If any cannot rule his own house how shall he take care for the Church of God Here is care saith the Doctor to be taken for the Church but no rule given to the Presbyter in the Church unless you will allow as much power to rule in his Parish as he hath in his own house Is it so Doctor is there none given because none is exprest Is there not rule in the Church implyed Hear Theophilact a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. in 1 Tim. 3.4 Again in ver 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the house is but as a little Church If therefore he know not how to rule a little and easily circumscribed and known Church how shall he govern so many souls whose mindes he cannot know To the same purpose Chrysostome b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for the Church is a certain house but if the Rector of the Church have assistants in government so hath the husband the wife in his house Now what the Rectors fellows in government are whether lay-Elders or no let the Doctor inquire He concludes it is far more easie to govern an house then the Church therefore he that cannot govern an house c. So you see that place gives by implication government to a Presbyter If you object what Chrysostome after hinteth as though the things here spoken were meant of one of your Bishops first you your self judge the contrary next it will do you no good for he saith the Apostle passeth from Bishops to Deacons not mentioning the order of Presbyters because between a Bishop and a Presbyter there 's almost no difference for the care of the Church is committed to them to wit Presbyters and what
he said of Bishops belongs also to Presbyters Bishops being only in ordination above them Thus Chrysostome Presbyters then were not excluded from governing So Theophylact gives the same reason why Presbyters are not mentioned Quia quae de c. Because what he spake of Bishops belongs to Presbyters for to them the office of teaching and government of the Church is committed being only inferior in regard of election And for what you object about Deacons that we allow them no rule in the Church It 's false they have rule in their sphear that is in disposing the treasury though not persons of the Church they being not over persons which the Presbyter is but the Treasurie The next proof is for the Doctor happily misprinted 1 Tim. 5.21 instead of verse 17. which I believe the Doctor could not but suspect but he was loth to meddle with it yet if he mean to replie I must now minde him of it 1 Tim. 5.17 It is thus written Doctor Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine These you will grant were Presbyter-Bishops for to allow any other at Ephesus would marr the market and see here is ruling distinct from teaching ascribed to Presbyterie Parag. 10. You come to the third Scripture Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls c. Here rule is given to Presbyters Now here the Doctor is pitifully puzled and comes off poorly He asks who are these rulers here mentioned are they Presbyters only Again that he speaks of Presbyters I deny not but that he speaks of Presbyters onely that I deny Good Doctor am I to prove that Presbyters only are rulers or that Bishops are not the only rulers as they were with us If then Presbyters be here meant and they be rulers the Holy Ghost ascribes power of ruling to them which is the question so now I have confitentem reum And your simile Parag. 11. of commanders in an Army helps me not you for though Captains and Lievtenants be not sole rulers they are co-rulers in an Army you know both over their Companies and other Officers in a Counsel of war So if there be Bishops in the Church which you here beg yet they are not to be sole Governours as they stood with us What you have concerning Timothy Parag. 11.12 though I deny not the things it will not serve your turn sith Timothy was not a Bishop in your sense but an extraordinary Officer an Evangelist a distinct office Ephes 4.11 and ascribed to Timothy 2 Tim. 4.5 he had therefore an office and power above a Bishop of your fancle though afterwards from the custome in the Church and some acts that Bishops did like his but not solely he was allusively only if not abusively as Walo Messalinus hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called a Bishop But this digression about Timothy was but to bafflle the Reader and to take him off the plain evidence of the former Scriptures for the close that such power was not in presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops par enim in parem non habet potestatem Your rule holds while they are single but a company of one kinde is above one single one of the same rank a Presbytery is above any one Presbyter as well as a Synod of Bishops above one Bishop and so a Presbytery may exercise power over one of their Presbyters as well as a Synod of Bishops over one of their fellow Bishops You come to the fourth place 1 Thess 5.12 Parag. 13. We beseech you brethren that ye know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you In answer to this if the Doctor go not against his own conscience he hath but little science First he saith that a great friend of Presbytery saith this place is paralel to that 1 Tim. 5.17 And so say I too And then if it be not cited as you know who cited Scripture with mutilation there will be ruledom for Elders The Elders that rule well But you leave out these words and onely take the latter That these Presbyters are worthy of double honour who labour in the word and doctrine Whence you gather ruling is nothing but labouring in the word and doctrine A collection just like that Matt. 4.6 of Christ casting himself off the pinnacle from Psalm 91.11 lamely quoted You add Theodoret Those that are over you in the Lord that is they that offer up prayers and supplications for you These words of Theodoret you bring cunningly as though they onely expounded the words that are over you Whereas it is all he saith to the expression of admonishing whereby its plain Theodoret by his exposition rather denotes the person intended there to be the Minister then describes his whole work I appeal to your own conscience whether you think the genuine meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to pray for people but in Calvin whom you cite afterwards how egregious is your fraud for though the words you cite are in him yet they are in opening that other part of the text for their works sake but when he comes to that wherein government is how plain is he to my purpose Qui praesunt in domino Hoc additum videtur ad notandum spirituale regimen Which are over you in the Lord. This seems to be added to note the spiritual government praeesse in Domino dicuntur qui Christi nomine mandato Ecclesiam gubernant They are said to be over them in the Lord who govern the Church in the name and in the command of Christ. You abuse Calvin as much in misciting his institutions lib. 4.2 3 5 15. where he speaks not of 1 Thess 4.12 but of Timothy and Titus to whom in the government of the Church he ascribed a Presidency not a Monarchy as his words shew Falluntur si putant c. They are deceived if they think that Timothy or Titus did usurp a kingdom in the Church to dispose of all things at their own arbitriment Praefuerunt enim tantùm ut bonis salutaribus consilijs populo praeirent non ut soli exclusis alijs omnibus agerent quod placeret They were over others onely that they might go before others with good and wholesom counsels Not that all other being excluded they alone might do what they pleased So that this is spoken of those that you call Apostles not Presbyter-Bishops Thus it is apparent how ungroundedly you confine the rule of Presbyters to prayer instruction admonition advise But you say this is all the rule that you can finde belonging to Presbyters All that you will finde you should have said for you might have found it in the name Bishop which is a name of authoritie and rule used by Heathens sometimes for the Rulers of Countries and Provinces who are called Episcopi And why else did that Presbyter that had the chief
Philippi to Saint Paul which is more evident in the same phrase used of those 2 Cor. 8.23 expounded by Bilson himself of messengers from the Churches pag. 75. or else that notes them to be secundarii Apostoli that is as Salmasius takes it Evangelists and so extraordinary Officers but more of this in the next Section Next you proceed to the example of best reformed Churches wherein we agree with you to reform is in primaevam formam reducere but that form is in Scripture that 's our first Christian story and there we finde no Bishop but what is a Presbyter others that are abusively called so were not properly such but Officers of an higher kinde whose Office being extraordinary dyed with them For your particular quotations first that of Zanchi Exempla veteris Ecclesiae nobis debent esse instar praecepti the Examples of the ancient Church ought to be to us as a precept is to be understood of the Church under the Apostles registred in the Scriptures and so the Ministers of London whom you cite also speak expresly that Scripture-examples are obligatorie and that will not serve your turn But for the quotations out of Zanchy that in his conscience they were no better then Schismatiques that counted it a part of reformation to have no Bishop in degree of authority above their true fellow Presbyters I have sought it earnestly in the place cited but cannot finde any such thing de vera reformandae Ecclesiae ratione but in other places I finde the contrary In a short confession of his faith when he was seventie years of age cap. 25. de Eccles. Gubernatione he speaks to this effect He acknowledgeth only Pastors and Teachers to be left by the institution of Christ as ordinary Ministers The superintendency of one taken up by men as a remedy of Schism he dislikes not but from the tyrannie into which that presidencie degenerated he concludes Quo proprius acceditur in ordinibus Ministrorum ad simplicitatem Apostolicam eo magis etiam nobis probetur at que ut ubique accedatur dandam esse operam judicemus In the Orders of Ministers the neerer we come to Apostolicall simplicity the more is it to be approved and diligence should be used that every where such propinquity to the word should be attained Here you have Zanchy directly against what you would have him say as also on the fourth Commandement de diversis Ministrorâ—â—â— generibus he cleerly agreeth with me that Pastors mentioned Eph. 4.11 are the highest Officers now left in the Church and those the same mentioned 1 Tim. 3. Titus 1. Bishops or Presbyters which he proves to be all one and that superioritie that in process of time one had above another was but by humane grant For what you cite out of Melancthons Epistles touching Bishops It is but one mans private opinion and that when they were in that case that we a long time were and still in the greatest part are without any government setled and undoubtedly the Church had better be under a government that hath some rigour or tyranny in it then under no government so to shake off Bishops as to be under no government is as Melancthon truly saith inexpedient if it were lawful and such a liberty as Luther said is Libertas minimè utilis ad posteritatem a liberty no wayes profitable to posterity But what is this to the Covenant which resates not to persons but to Churches ' Now it is apparent that the Churches of Germany have reformed Episcopacie so that they have no such Apostle-Bishop as you dream of but Presbyterie at the most with the superintendency of one in their Presbyteries neither hath that any weight that you speak of the Convention at Auspurg for they were then but in a way of reformation it was but the dawning of the day with them and they could not see all things at the first but we see when they come to settle the order of their Churches they setled Presbyterie not Episcopacie And yet I deny not that if the Bishops would then have been reasonable they would have admitted their jurisdiction for peace-sake as Melancthon saith redimere pacem And truly Sir though I maintain that the King for peace may abolish Episcopacie Yet I am of that minde and wish others were so too redimere pacem duriori conditione as Melancthon said to redeem peace with an harder condition with Episcopacie so regulated as at first to preside and rule in his Presbyterie But onething I may not pass for whereas Melancthon saith that they did grant to Bishops potestatem ordinis jurisdictionis the power of order and jurisdiction you enquire What is this power of Order certainly a power that Presbyters had not that is a power at least to ordain Ministers But here Master Doctor you bewray too much ignorance for a D. D. for in power of order not only Protestants but most Papists make Bishops and Presbyters one for that is to perform as officers prayers consecrate sacraments c. and power of jurisdiction only they make a Bishops peculiar For what you prosecute touching power of Ordination to be only in their Bishops not Presbyters I will speak more fully to that in the following Section In the mean time I must tell you that in quoting Salmatius Parag. 15 Of this Chapter you shew egregious negligence in reading or which is worse deceit for the words you cite out of him touching Timothy and Titus that they were Bishops indeed of the same right and of the same Order whereof at this day they are accounted who govern the Churches and are over Presbyters This he brings only by way of explication of Theodorets opinion but when he comes to deliver his own He saith pag. 63. That Timothy was rather super-Episcopus above a Bishop an Apostle And again pag. 69. He saith of them per abusum igitur impropriè Episcopi appellabantur they were improperly and abusively called Bishops Thus also you use the London 1. D. who you say confess that their government is not above 80. years standing whereas they assert the institution of it by Christ and the restitution only for 80 years when they did likewise reform the corrupt doctrines in Poperie And do not you speak against your conscience when you say Calvin would have crusht that government in the bud that sometimes you make a Geneva invention Who would think a D. D. should be such a citer of authors But to conclude this Section if Bishops have no place in Scripture the best reformation must be to abolish Episcopacie though well limited they may be tolerated and that they have no place in Scripture is the work of the next Section CHAP. IV. PARAG. 3. Wherein for a fuller answer to what the Doctor hath said to prove Episcopacy Christs institution this Quession is resolved whether a Bishop now usually so called be by the ordinance of Christ a distinct Officer from him that is usually called
Presbyters and gives not so much as any hint of any singular Bishops but the company of Presbyters or Bishops over the Church of God vid. Blond Apol. pro sanct Hieron p. 11 12. Polycarpe in an Epistle to the Philippians Be ye subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ and here you see but two offices and therefore yet the Presbyters ruled the Church in Common Blond ubi supra p. 14 1â— where many more witnesses may be seen And in this the Master of the Sentences consents too lib. 4. Dist 24. de Presbyteris unde Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuêre quia illud est nomen dignitatis non aetatis and a little after excellenter tamen canones duos tantùm sacros ordines appellari censent Diaconatus scilicet Presbyteratus quia hos solos primitiva ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli habemus Thesis 11. Amongst these Bishops or Presbyters there was one who by the consent of the rest either by their free election or for his priority in conversion and ordination had a preheminence of honour above the rest for order-sake who had no new ordination or none for a great while but what he had from his fellow-Presbyters who chose him and exalted him without any further ado So Hierom ep 85. ad Evagrium which he confirms from Alexandria For saith he Alexandriae c. At Alexandria even to Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops The Elders did always name one Bishop chosen out of themselves and by them placed in excelsiori gradu in an higher degree of honour not office Now whether in their choice they did only look at merit or whether they did a good while till as * Ambrose or Hilary on the Ephesians Quia primâ—m Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur c. For he calls Timothy who was created a Presbyter by him a Bishop because at first Presbyters were called Bishops that one with-drawing another did succeed but because the following Presbyters were found unworthy to hold that primacy the way was changed a Counsel providing that not order of time but merit should make the Bishop constituted by the judgement of many Presbyters lest an unworthy man should rashly usurp it and be a scandal to many Ambrose saith it proved inconvenient advance him that was the next senior it is argued both waies though in my opinion Blundel hath made it most probable that according to Ambrose his expression it went by senioritie for certain yeers in his preface to the fore-cited Book Some think it went by senioritie in some places and by election in others Thesis 11. This preheminency that one had above the rest was by Ecclesiastical custom not by Divine institution and advanc'd him onely to an higher degree or dignity not to another order distinct from his fellow-Presbyters so that still he must derive his succession from the Presbyters or Bishops that were to be ordained in every Church and is to finde his place in the divine Catalogue of officers Ephes 4.11 under astors and not Evangelists or Prophets That this preheminence was not from any divine institution but Ecclesiastical ordination Jerom is express The Bishops must know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custome then Divine disposition Hieron in Tit. So Augustine ep 19. Although according to the words of honour which the Churches use hath obtained Episcopacy is greater then Presbytery c. Yet See bere the precedencie of Bishops is an honour of words and a fruit of use And this may be further cleared from what was first done in conferring this preheminence It was but a bare act of the rest of the Presbyters as appears by the example brought by Hierom in the Church of Alexandria They chose out of themselves and set him in an higher degree This they did of themselves and by themselves without any Divine command Let it be produced if there be any yea without any example in any of the Churches in the Scripture and they did it by themselves without the concurrence of other and they could not set him in an higher order Presbyters cannot make an Apostle Thirdly this may appear from that little difference that was between such a Bishop and a Presbyter in the fathers times Chrysost Theophylact Hilary on 1 Tim. 3. Inquiring the reason why the Apostle passeth from directions about Bishops to directions about Deacons no mention being made of a Presbyter Give answer First Hilary or Ambrose Quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus Because of an Elder and a Bishop there is but one ordination both are Presbyters but a Bishop is first And Chysostom Because a Presbyter doth so little differ from a Bishop to wit in nothing but ordination saith he In nothing but election saith Theophylact Now where the difference is so little that one direction for qualification will serve for both there is plainly acknowledged a difference in dignity or degree of excellencie onely not in order or office That conceit then of Theodorets that they that are now called Bishops were heretofore called Apostles and those that are now called Presbyters were then i. e. in the Apostles times called Bishops is it self too groundless a fancie for you Doctor Boughen to ground your distinction of apostle-Apostle-Bishops and presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops as though our now Bishops were apostle-Apostle-Bishops and so of an higher Order and indued by that order from Jesus Christ to many peculiar acts which a Presbyter could not do And that they are not only an higher degree of presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops indued with power by humane wisdome to proceed and order those actions which by divine right belong to all their fellow-fellow-Presbyters who are to joyn with them in these acts of jurisdictions This distinction I say of yours it hath no bottom to bear it up Vide Morton Appl. Cathol l. 1. c. 33. Crim. tertia For first you see its directly contrary to Hierome and Ambrose or Hilary and many others who make Bishops in their times to be the same with Presbyters or presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops as you call them Nay it differs from other Fathers who though they acknowledg not an Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter yet they take that which you say is spoken of a Presbyter-Bishop 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. of such Bishops as were in their time which you would have to be Apostle-Bishops 3. It hath no ground in Scripture The Scriptures sets no other orders but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers which are those Presbyter-Bishops spoken of Acts 14.23 Acts 20.28 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. Now the three first are extraordinarie and ceas'd the latter only remain And therefore the Bishop for what of him is divine must be a Pastor and that 's the same with a Presbyter-Bishop else shew us some institution for him To talk of Timothy and Titus is vain being it is witnessed by Scripture confes'd by all that they were
Evangelists which is extraordinary Successors they may and must have in the work of ordination but in their office they have not but the same work is done by Pastors succeeding them in those acts of Discipline as well as in those of teaching and administring the Sacraments Neither need we be moved with the appellation which the Fathers bestow on them calling them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete and saying that St. Paul in them taught all Bishops For when Scripture calls them Evangelists and reckons Evangelists among extraordinarie offices that Christ hath given what authoritie is of force against this testimony Therefore we favourably interpret the saying of those Fathers that they call them Bishops with relation to the custome of their times who called them Bishops that did those acts that Timothy and Titus did not that they were properly so For they were of an higher order and did these acts as Evangelists which their successors are to do as ordinarie Pastors Neither will their being Evangelists hinder the use of their examples or the precepts given to them For the same acts done by whatsoever officer are to be done by the same rule and therefore as directions given to them for preaching so for acting in government are to be followed by other ordinary Officers upon whom by their decease the power and care of their acts are devolved though of an inferior order Timothy was to imitate Paul an Evangelist an Apostle and every Pastor is to imitate these Evangelists in such acts as are common to Evangelists with them Thesis 13. All Presbyters being of the same Order and that the highest of those that are now in the Church have by divine law equal power in places where the Holy Ghost hath set them Pastors and Bishops as to preach the word and administer Sacraments so to do all other acts of government when called requisite for the edification and perservation of the Church and the Bishop who is but primus Presbyter made by man for Orders sake can rightly challenge no Monopoly or sole interest but only a presidencie to guide rule and order that Presbyterie wherein acts of jurisdiction are exercised whether acts of ordination or deposition binding or loosing excommunicating or absolving This I prove by these reasons Argument 1. Those who are truly and equally the successors of the Apostles in ordinarie and necessary acts of the Ministry to those by their office belong all the acts of jurisdiction that are necessary and ordinary acts of jurisdiction But Presbyter-Bishops are such successors of the Apostles ergo The Major is clear of it self the Minor I prove thus Pastors are truly and equally successors of the Apostles in necessary and ordinarie duties of the Ministry as appears Ephes 4.11 Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors The three former were extraordinarie temporary and ceas'd so the Pastor must be the successor if they have any But Presbyter-Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Chost to feed it are equally and truly Pastors ergo The minor is clear from the definition of a Pastor which is an officer set over the flock of God to feed it definitio competit omni essentia non variatur gradibus See Acts 20.28 Argument 2. Those that by divine law are equall in the power of order those are equal in the power of government or jurisdiction All Presbyters first and second are equall in power of order ergo For the Minor that all Presbyters are equal in the power of order it may appear by the definition of the power of order Lib. 5. of the Church cap. 27 the power of order saith Field is that whereby persons are sanctified and inabled to the performance of such sacred acts as other men neither may nor can do as is the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments Now all Presbyters See Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 39. as Field confesseth are equal in the power of Order yea not only he with other Protestants but many School-men and other Papists also as he there shews For every Priest saith Durand in regard of his Priestly power may minister all Sacraments ea quae sunt ordinum saith Aureolus omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo ita quòd in potestate nullius imò nec Papae est illa auferre in 4. sent Dist 24. Art 2. Sect. tertia ratio c. And this also appears because they must all sit under the same title of Pastors Ephes 4.11 For the Major I prove it thus Power of jurisdiction is indeed but a branch of the power of Order A man by the power of order is made a Minister of Christ and so consecrated to serve Christ in all ministerial services required of such a Minister of Christ Now these services are to edifie the Church either by food or physick to further their salvation by word or rod of Discipline Now both these being ministerial acts and orders making a man a Minister hence it follows that they that are equall in orders in actu primo in regard of power when they have a call are equally inabled to the exercise of discipline or jurisdiction as well as preaching and consecrating Sacraments both being acts of that office to which he is advanc'd by orders And thus much Field doth ina manner confess Three things saith he are implyed in the calling of Ecclesiasticall Ministers First An election choice or designment of persons fit for so high and excellent imployment Secondly the consecration of them and giving them power and authority to intermeddle with things that pertain to the service of God to perform eminent acts of gracious efficacy and admirable force tending to the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men and yield unto them whom Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood all the comfortable means assurances helps that may set forward their eternal salvation Thirdly the assigning and dividing out to each man thus sanctified to so excellent a work that portion of Gods people that he is to take care of c. Now here plainly under assurances means and helps to set forward salvation acts of Discipline must needs be contained 1 Cor. 5.5 6. and this flows from power of order as its habit is actus primus induing a man with power * There is indeed this difference between acts of jurisdiction other acts of order the one every Presbyter may do alone the other only in a Presbytery So imposition of hands 1 Tim. 4.14 was in and by the Presbytery so censures 2 Cor. 2.7 by many But a Minister may preach baptize administer the Lords Supper alone and this was the use of the ancient Churches who had their Presbyters mentroned both in Scriptures and Fathers Now to streighten the Presbyter in this act of his orders he hath recourse to that feeble shift That the Bishop only is Pastor and the other Presbyters are but as it were curates under him which if true it is enough to
having never had institution nor induction it was never profer'd me but because he it seems hath been so ready to swear all must be in that bond but what if I had taken the oath I know no engagement to inhibit me to seek the abrogation of Episcopacy from the oath sith I was never forbidden by the Diocesan to seek it nay I can assure him that Dr. Bishop of Glocester Smith who imposed hands on me and in whose dioces while he liv'd I exercised my Ministry was of Ieromes mind that a Bishop was an humane creature as he exprest himself in conference to a friend of mine and so not unalterable For his 3 Parag. Touching Smectimnuus making a Bishop and an Elder all one a and thence his wonder how they indure my proposition being he knows that Author speaks of Bishop and Presbyter in a Scripture-sense which anon will cut his combe and I speak of a Diocesan Bishop as now he stands as he confesseth Parag. 4. That his quirk about Smectimnuus and the Masters of the Assembly is ridiculous trifling fitter for a boy disputing in Parvis to lengthen out an argument then for a D.D. writing a book in a case of moment But now to the motives which he saith I produce for the abrogation of Episcopacy he should have said for writing this case about it For the first no hope of the Kings and kingdoms safety without union between the King and our Parliament he doth not deny it but yet he divides them seditiously Our King and your Parliament I acknowledg him as my King pray and act for him in my sphear as my Soveraign the King hath written to them as his Parliament yet the Dr. divides them though he cannot deny no safety without union For his petitions made in Scriptures phrase they are from him as his heart is which I leave to God and in a good sense say Amen For the Second ground there is no probable means of union without the Kings condescention in point of Episcopacy This parag 6. and 7. he denies not but adds some things out of his own distempered minde viz. unless he lay down his lands c. Which he cannot prove though I am truly sorry that he hath any colour to set them off as credible to any For the third If the King should do it renitente conscientia it would be sinful c. To this Parag. 8. he saith that I perceive and in a manner confess that this he must do for you say it would be sinful to himself Thus you perswade our Soveraign into sin c. Was there ever a more false or irrational passage dropt from a D.D. pen do I say it absolutely when I only say if he should condescend renitente conscientia or do I perswade to sin when I shew such inconveniences of sin as cannot be ballanc'd But by way of amplification we have another piece of Divinity worthy such a D. D. Every reluctance of conscience makes not a grant sinfull but when my conscience checks me on just grounds Is this catholike doctrine I am sure it is not orthodox for it is point-blank to Saint Paul speaking of those that act against conscience for want of light in indifferent things and so not on just grounds Rom. 14.17 compared with verse 25. The kingdome of God is not in meat and drink But he that doubteth is damned if he eateth because he eateth it not of faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sin For the last that the Coronation oath is prest by learned pens c. he first takes notice of my confession Parag. 9. Wherein he might observe my candor to my Antagonists and therein read my intentions that not out of distaste to persons but out of love to peace and with a quiet and well affected heart to those I oppose I wrote the resolution of this case but the Doctors blood-shot eye can see none of this He hath not so much ingenuity as the Heathen virtus in hoste No he was resolved to carry on his Book with railings and scoffs and I am resolved neither to envy nor to imitate him being well assured that such dealing will prejudice both the work and Author with any pious and prudent Reader Next he trifles about an expression touching the Kings condescention I beseech you do you dream who told you that his Majesty had condescended to this impious and anti-christian demand saith he Whereas he knows the context of my words evidence them to be spoken hypothetically not catogorically But we must give him leave to catch at shows that wants real exceptions For his other expressions That desire of abrogation of Episcopacy is impious and anti-christian This will appear but froth unless he can make his Diocesan Lord Bishop an Ordinance of God which will now come to tryal CHAP. II. Wherein it is cleared that the Covenant is not to abolish Episcopacy root and branch nor is Episcopacy of Christs institution in answer to Dr. B. Second Chapter Case of Conscience Resolved NOw the bond of the Kings oath may be taken off two wayes either by clearing the unlawfulness of it that it was vinculum iniquitatis and so void the first day For quâ— jurat in iniquum obligatur in contrarium And if Prelacy in the Church be an usurpation contrary to Christs institution then to maintain it is sin and all bonds to sin are frustrate And truly as Prelacy stood with us in England ingrossing all ruledom in the Church into the hands of a few L. Bishops I think it may be cleared to be an usurpation by this one argument That power that dispoyls any of Christs Officers of any priviledg or duty indulged or injoyned them by the word of God that power is an usurpation against the word of God But this did Prelacy as it stood in England therefore English Prelacy was an usurpation against the word of God The Major is cleer of it self The Minor is thus proved Presbyters are by Christs warrant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their own congregations as well as preach See 1 Tim. 3.5 5,17 Heb. 13.17 1 Thess 5.12 Now as Prelacy stood in England the Presbyters were not onely excluded from all society of rule but which was more prejudicial to the dignity and liberty of the ministery were subjected to a lay-Chancellor and was not here usurpation against Gods direction Now what saith Dr. Boughen you say true saith he that the oath which is Vinculum iniquitatis is void the first day c. And hitherto your argument is good and in it he will joynissue c. Cap. 2. Parag. 1. See what a work this passage hath on the Doctor taken together and considered when the blood was down now all goes current yet this is the place for which he spit so much poyson of aspes in his Epistle to the Reader I hope the Reader will observe and by appealing from the Doctor in passion to the Doctor out of passion
see how injuriously he hath traduced me for one that blasphemes and spits in the face of authority Well now upon this the Doctor will joyn issue and will readily acknowledg that if Prelacy in the Church be an usurpation against Christs institution then to maintain it is to sin and all bonds to sin are frustrate but yet Parag 2. He adds he hopes I use no tricks but by Prelacy mean Episcopacy properly so called Doctor I do use no tricks a good cause needs them not but I doubt you will be found to use tricks presently and that poor ones that is to change the state of the question For when I implead Prelacy as unlawful I implead it not absolutely but as it then stood in England But the Doctor proceeds and thinks that my medium is an arrow for his bow and makes a triple assay to hit me with it but is unlucky in all as will presently appear first thus If Supremacy in Parliament be an usurpation contrary to Christs institution then to maintain it is to sin But supremacy c. ergo it is sin The major you prove by 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man whether it be unto the King as supream or unto governours as those that are sent by him I answer the Apostle gives no other supremacy to the King here then I give him Pag. 9 of my case that is to be the Supream Magistrate from whom all power of execution is legally derived and this is competible with that supremacy which I give the Parliament Oh but saith the Doctor every rational man cannot but understand that there cannot be two supreams in one Kingdome But Master Doctor Rational men will see a difference between a Supremacy and the Supremacy that is Supremacy absolute and in a kind There be more Supremacies secundum quid in some respect though not more in one kingdome absolutely and this I shall make you confess to be my meaning in asserting more then one supremacy in a kingdom and to be a truth or I shall make you deny not Reason onely but your own words when I come to answer your last Chapter His second Argument is against Ordination by Presbytery but in that he begs the question and therefore he refers us for the proof that Ordination by Presbyters is against Christs institution to another place where we shall meet with it Thirdly He argues If Episcopacy in the Church be no usurpation but Christs institution then to endeavour the extirpation of it is sin But Episcopacy is Christs institution ergo This he doth but propose here and endeavours to prove hereafter where his proofs shall be examined He proceeds parag 3. That you your Assembly and Parliament have made and taken an Oath to extirpate Episcopacy is too notorious to be denyed Sir your are the confidentest man not onely in uncertainties but falsities that I have heard It 's neither true that I made the Covenant nor notorious that I have taken it neither is it true that the Covenant is to extirpate Episcopacy but onely according to my argument Prelacy as it then stood that is by Arch-Bishops Arch-Deacons and the rest in your c. Oath as is plain by the expression of the second Article And therefore you must prove not onely as you say Episcopacy but Episcopacy as it then stood not to be contrary to the institution of Christ before you can prove the Covenant in that clause to be a bond of iniquity or exempt the Kings oath from unlawfulness in that clause if it binde to maintain Episcopacy as it then stood But say you The Order of Bishops is Christs institution And yet ye have sworn to up with it root and branch The former you endeavour to prove and the latter you take for granted which is very false for there is no such expression nor hint in the Covenant as root and branch But Christ you say was the root of Episcopacy who is called the Bishop of our souls from him it takes its rise You are good at affirming but where 's your proof Why its evident in the Apostles strictly so called who had their orders immediately from Christ parag 4. A goodly argument as though an Apostle and one of your Lord Bishops were birds of a feather Whereas toto caelo differunt An Apostle was an Officer extraordinary immediately called and inspired of God and his office to indure for a time and your Bishop is an ordinary officer called by man who you would have to endure for ever But to them say you he gave power to ordain Apostles False and Atheological An Apostle cannot be created but by God and had his knowledg by inspiration from God this is confest by Divines on all sides See Bilson perp Govern chap. ◠pag. 106. But you will prove they had power to ordain Apostles Mat. 10.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greeks understand thus a gift ye have received a gift give But what Greeks Will they understand things against the letter of their natural language The English of the words to every smatterer in greek is freely you have received freely give and the meaning is plainly that they should not make merchandize of their gift of miracles For the whole verse runs thus Heal the sick cleanse the lepers raise the dead cast out devils Freely you have received freely give But what is this to power to create Apostles which speaks onely of their dispensing their gift gratis And so the Authors in your margent such as I can meet with for the most part take it ut sit ministratio gratuita muneris gratuiti that there might be a free administering of a free gift Hil. in Matth. Can. 10. Ergo ne quid in ministerio nostro venale sit admonemur Therefore we are admonisht that nothing in our ministry be set to sale Ego minister Dominus absque pretio hoc vobis tribui vos sine pretio date ne Evangelij gratia corrumpatur Hieron in Mat. 10.8 Now what are these to your purpose Only Gennadius from this proves ordination should be without price but this must be but by way of allusion For do you Mr Doctor think that the Apostles had power to create Apostles given them here whilst Christ was alive I hope your second thoughts will be wiser That Christ renewed the Commission of the Apostles Joh. 20.21 As my father sent me so send I you is granted but that they as you affirm upon the strength of this commission ordained some other to be Apostles conferring on them the same honor and power which they had received from Christ Is an assertion I know not whether fuller of boldness or ignorance yea in part a very Bull. For first one part and one of the principlest parts of their honour was to be called immediatly by Christ which they could not confer on others unless you can make Christ and the Apostles individually one which is impossible Besides that there
were many other honours peculiar to the Apostles themselves not communicable to their successors You may read in Bilsons perp Govern chap. 9. pag. 106. But you say this is evident in S. James Bishop of Jerusalem Epaphroditus Bishop of Philippi and in Apollos Bishop of Corinth But for S. James that he was an Apostle Scriptures witness indeed Gal. 1.19 but that he was ordained of the Apostles in that Scriptures are silent nor hath Jerome any such words but that he was called an Apostle illud in causa est omnes qui dominum viderunt eum postea praedicassent suisse Apostolos nominatos He was therefore called an Apostle because all that had seen the Lord and afterwards preach't him were called Apostles Jerom. in Gal. 1.19 But to make a man truly and properly and Apostle was required somewhat more scilicet immediate inspiration and mission by Christ as may be gathered from S. Pauls proving his Apostleship from these Gal. 1.11 12 15 16 17. And James was an Apostle truly and properly yea a chief Apostle Gal. 2.2.9 And so he is mentioned in the Scripture as an Apostle in Jerusalem not a Bishop of Jerusalem See Act. 15.2 13 23. Here Iames is contained under the name Apostle with the rest without any hint of precedency there as Bishop And therefore whereas he is called Bishop of Ierusalem sometimes by the ancients that is to be taken but in an allusive not a proper sense because he exercised his Apostolical function there while others exercised theirs else where and some of the Apostolical power was emulated in the Fathers times by Bishops But a Bishop there properly he was not for that were to degrade him an Apostle being an office extraordinary and so higher then the ordinary office of Bishop And such degradation is not onely injurious But if the resolution of the Chalcedon Counsel be true cited by Bilson pag. 280. To bring back a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter is sacriledg Then certain to bring down an Apostle to the degree of any ordinary Officer as a Bishop is cannot want guilt And for Apollos if he were Bishop of Corinth I pray you why did not Saint Paul write to him when he blames them for not excommunicating the incestuous person and blame him for that neglect of discipline and enjoyn him to see it done and not the Church Or why doth he say that the censure was inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2.6 if Apollos were their Bishop who alone had power of excommunication If he be contained under the title of Apostle 1 Cor. 4.9 which Calvin approves not yet is he called Apostle in a large not strict sense as contradistinct to other Church-officers Ephes 4.12 For Epaphroditus indeed he is called in the Epistle to the Phlliippians Your Apostle but that is most generally taken as Walo Messalinus confesseth by Greek and moderne Interpreters to hint not the name of a Church-officer but a messenger from the Church to Saint Paul as our last translation takes it and the words following imply part of his message he that ministred to my wants And though Walo Messalinus dissents yet he confesseth his exposition not to agree so well with propriety of speech But these you say are confessed to be Apostoli ab ipsis Apostolis ordinati First this is false for neither Calvin nor Messalinus speak of their Ordination And the very phrase an Apostle ordained of Apostles shews that the title Apostle is taken improperly But Parag. 5. you say Apostles they were at that time called but afterwards the name Bishop was setled on them For this you cite Theodoret. The same persons were sometimes called both Presbyters and Bishops but those who are now named Bishops were then called Apostles but in process of time the title of an Apostle was reserved to those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles properly and truly so called And the name of Bishop came appropriated to those who were lately called Apostles For answer to this First I observe you have given us a clear confession out of Theodoret that Bishops and Presbyters were all one divers names of the same office Secondly those that Theodoret affirms that being in his time called Bishops were formerly called Apostles were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles truly but onely called so because they had preheminence over others in his times as the Apostles had over others in the first time of the Gospel Thirdly he gives us no proof that those that are now called Bishops were formerly called Apostles and his conjecture is not infallible Nay is it not apparently false that the name of Bishop came appropriated to those that were lately called Apostles but were not so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for was not the name of Bishop continued common to Iames Peter and others that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles truly so called Continued I say by the Fathers calling them Bishops allusively But though the name of Bishop was given to Apostles by the Fathers It cannot be shewen where those that are now called Bishops were called Apostles as Apostle signifieth a Gospel officer by the Scripture If they were let the Doctor produce the place where in Scripture any ordinary officer was stiled an Apostle which if he cannot do Theodorets assertion in one part contrary to the plain expressions of the Fathers and in the other without ground of Scripture cannot have much force on any unprejudiced Reader The Doctors inference is observable Hence is it saith he that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops and Apostles Bishops in the post-scripts of the Epistles which were written to them by S. Paul but Apostles by Ignatius Theodoret and many others Whence plainly it appears that the post scripts of the Epistles were not Saint Pauls but some other later then Ignatius and Theodoret And so have no force to prove Timothy and Titus Bishops Parag. 6. You add Bishops then they were called c. That is They were so called by men that spake of officers in the Scriptures according to the stile of their own times but in Scripture-sence they were a degree above Bishops Apostles or Evangelists and in that sence speaks Walo Messalinus whose name you abuse Parag. 7. You argue They that have the same name and office with the true Apostles are of the same order with the true Apostles But Bishop Timothy and Bishop Titus and Bishop Epaphroditus have the same name and office with the true Apostles This argument you seem to glory in but with how little reason the Reader shall see For whereas you say Bishop Timothy and Bishop Titus and Bishop Epaphroditus had the same name and office with the Apostles This is manifestly false First for the name neither have Timothy nor Titus the name of Bishop or Apostle given them by Scripture and for other authors as Ignatius and Theodoret that call them Apostles you must remember Theodorets distinction of some that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and others that were
speak of to make good his cause against them We may also infer if the difference be so little as he acknowledgeth as indeed it is not much then may we sure infer that if the Ordination of the one be compleat the Ordination of the other cannot be effentially defective Augustine is impertinently cited by you Sine nostro officio est plebi certa pernities Without our without the Episcopal office there is certain ruin to the people For though Augustine were a Bishop and wrote to a Bishop as you say yet by that without our office he plainly means the office of the Ministery in general not of Episcopacie For he makes it lawful to flee in that Epistle as Paul did when there be others to look to the Church Fugiant saith he ubi ab alijs qui non ita requiruntur non deseratur Ecclesia sed praebeant cibaria consenvis suis qui aliter vivere non possunt Let them flee where the Church is not forsaken of others that have not such an eye upon them but they will minister spiripual food to their fellow servants which otherwise cannot live Now what were those others not Bishops for there were not many of them in one City or Countrey but Presbyters But now you will prove it by the Protestation and Covenant First by the Protestation You have vowed in the presence of Almighty God to maintain the true reformed Protestant Religion expressed in Doctrine of the Church of England Add I pray you against all Poperie and Popish innovations And you must remember again presently upon the framing of the protestation there was an Explanation put forth before it was taken in the Countrey or Citie that under the Doctrine of the Church of England the Discipline then in the Church of Egland was not included So your Argument from the Protestation is of no value But yet let us see what you can say for this out of the Doctrine of the Church of England First the ordinary way to heaven is by the Word and Sacraments No man may preach and administer the Sacrament but he that is lawfully called and sent none are lawfully called and sent but they onely who are called and sent by those who have authority Bishops and onely Bishops have authority to send in this kinde Article 39. Here you play leger-demain for the Article holds forth the way of ordination by the Book of Consecration to be a lawful way but not the only lawful way For the Composers of those Articles knew very well that there was another way of ordination in other Churches whom they alwaies held as sisters which they did not with the Papists condemn though the Article approve the English way and that being held forth as a lawful not the onely lawful way it hinders not but others may be authorized to ordain as in other Reformed Churches and therefore if the Protestation for the maintenance of the Doctrine of the Church of England were without exception against the Discipline it will not prove your no Bishop no Priest The Book you say was composed in the dayes of King Edward the sixth by those holy men who after were blessed Martyrs But these men I must tell you were not of your minde that the distinction of Bishops from Presbyters was any other then what Jerome had taught them by humane custome * Dr Downam in answer to his reply is driven to this If the Bishops better informed concernning their functions had now reformed their judgements that is to hold their offices not by humane but Divine disposition In his answer to the Replyers Preface who had prest him with the judgement of Whitguift and Jewel nor held the power of the keyes belonged onely to them for in this Book of ordination they charge the Presbyter not only with care in Word and Sacraments but the Discipline of Christ too And whereas you add That the Articles were confirmed 13. Elizabeth and subscription enjoyned You should remember it was with limitation so far as they contained the Doctrine of the Church not the discipline You conclude thus far with the Protestation But yet a little further I pray you For the Protestation adds that the Doctrine of the Church of England is to be maintained against all Popery Now you may finde in Bellarmins lib. de Clericis your argument of no Bishop no Priest so no Sacrament so no Church wherein all Protestant-writers oppose him English and others and therefore surely the Doctrine of the Church of England rightly understood condemns your position which is a position in Popery to overthrow Protestant Churches CHAP. IV. PARAG. 2. Where in is shewed that the National Covenant doth not engage to uphold Episcopacy In Answer to Doctor Boughens fift Chapter IN your fift Chapter you attempt to prove that the solemn league covenant engageth to maintain Episcopacy I might tell you this is nothing to me nor to the matter for whatever you fancie of the Covenant they that framed it will follow it in their own sence and if any Covenanters be of that minde as you are that not your but moderated Episcopacie that is a Super-intendencie over a Presbyterie be neerest the word of God yet they were not so considerable as to be able to make peace without abrogation of Episcopacie nor without peace to preserve King and Kingdom If they could then my Treatise were answered by change of circumstances that argues the lawfulness of the Kings condescention chiefly in that circumstance But to the matter it self you have not nor do you here bring any thing to satisfie First Parag. 1 2 3. You come with your Crambe his coctâ That no salvation but by hearing and Sacraments nor these without mission The Apostles were sent of Christ and they sent others Titus and Timothie to ordain Ministers To all which I have answered before and in part cleared it That the Apostles and Timothy and Titus their assistansts as Evangelists were extraordinarie officers and ceased and that the onely ordinary officers now are Pastors and Teachers Ephes 4.11 Touching whom the Apostle gives direction 1 Tim. 5. Titus 1. under the name of Bishops and Elders and these are Successors of the Apostles to all that power that is ordinarie and neceslarie in the Church and among these ther 's by Gods law no prioritie but of gifts and order delegated by election But for any Bishops that are of the same order with the Apostles it s a strange and groundless notion Almost all Divines tell you that Apostleship was an extraordinarie office that ceased and though an Apostle may be said allusively to be a Bishop yet a Bishop may not be said to be an Apostle yet these things you over with again in this Chapter and tell us of two sorts of Apostles the Apostles of Christ and the Apostles of the Churches Philip. 2.25 2 Cor. 8.23 Whereas I have shewed you that for Epaphroditus he is said there either to be a messenger onely from
make a Bishop despair as well as a Presbyter to be despised for how can he discharge the cure of souls in an hundred miles circuit But the contrary is evident in the Presbyters of Ephesus Acts â—0 28 the Holy Ghost had placed them Bishops to feed the stock of God Neither is his objection from the Angel of the Churches Rev. 2.3 weighty for if there be not a Syâ—echdoche in the word Angel which Rev. 2.10 Some of you c. seems plainly to manifest yet its clear he had only a priority of order not of charge And the prioritie of order was ground enough for directing to him what belonged to and was communicated to all as now it is to any temporary president of a Classis or as the things that concern the whole Houses are directed to the Speaker of either The same is plain of the Elders of Alexandria whose superintendent had no other charge from God but only a precedencie of honour and order from themselves Besides all Presbyter-Bishops set over charges by the Holy Ghost are of those Pastors Eph. 4.11 And I hope no modest learned man will think that any President or Bishop then was the sole Pastor or that these Presbyter-Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Ghost could not act in their Ministrâ— without leave of him and therefore those rules of restraint mentioned in Fathers and Counsels were but invasions on the liberties of Presbyters who had their cures not from the Bishop but from the Holy Ghost Argument 3. To whom the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are equally given they have equall power of jurisdiction but to all Presbyter-Bishops the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given and equally given ergo The Major is clear for the keys of the Kingdom of heaven contain all jurisdiction that 's without all question and the Apostles are hereby usually proved to be equall in jurisdiction because the keys were equally given to them For the Minor the keys are appendants to the office of the Minister The Apostles with mission had the keys John 20. and so the confession of the Church of England agrees harmoniously with the rest in this that the power of the keys is equally in all Ministers Harmon of conf chap 18. p. 362. So at the ordination of a Presbyter the key of Discipline was given to the Presbyter as well as that of Doctrine in the Church of England And if there be an equalitie in that order whereof the keys are an appendix they must have the appendix following in equality likewise that are equal in that order Argument 4. That to which a man hath right and in acting is restrained only by custom novell constitutions or Ecclesiasticall Canons that by Gods law he hath equal right to with others But presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops are restrained from or limited in acts of government to which they have right only by custome novell constitutions of Emperours or Ecclesiasticall Canons ergo Jure Divino power of government is in them equally with others For the Minor that they have power of government I have formerly proved because it is an act of their office for the exercise of it sometimes in ordination Paul witnesseth 1 Tim. 4.14 and for government Jerome gives clear testimonie Ecclesiae olim communi Pres by â—erorum regebantur consilio and they did consecrate their Bishop in Alexandria from St. Mark to Heraclas as he witnesseth So did they ordain with the Bishop and without the Bishop the Chorepiscopi the City Presbyters till inhibited by the Counsell of Ancyra held in the beginning of the fourth Centurie Panormitanus is express olim inquit Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant sacerdotes pariter conferebant omnia Sacramenta in lib. 1. decret de consuet cap. quarto Here is the right and practise asserted Now for prohibitions if any out of the word shew them for the Fathers they declare what the custome was in their times Counsels and Emperors made laws only limiting power to prevent inconveniences and as Jerome saith contra Luciferianos many reservations were made potius ad honorem sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem * Decreto Hisp. Synodi 2. Presbyteris quibus cum Episcopis plurima ministeriorum communis est Dispâ—nsatio edicitur ut quaedam novell is Ecclesiastiâ—is constitutionibus sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterorum ac diaconorum virginum consecratio c. And therefore I conclude the power of government of binding and loosing and of ordination is by divine right an appendant to the office of a Presbyter-Bishop and as there is no proof for so no â—eed of your Apostle-Bishop And so the chief corner-stone of your whole Book which you relate to from chapter to chapter is found but untempered mortar that is crumbled away when it comes to hard canvassing and your building must down with it We are indeed much prest in this question with the authoritie of Fathers But I say first the most ancient as is to be seen in Blundell * Apol. pro sententia Hieron speak but of two orders of Gospel-Officers in their time which they sometimes call Bishops and Deacons sometimes Presbyters and Deacons Only Ignatius is urged as a great friend of Bishops but indeed he is too great a friend for he doth so far exceed in his expressions and so differ in that from other writers of his time that for that and many other things all or the greatest part of his Epiâ—â—les lie under great suspition of subornation or corruption vid. Blond Apol. pro sanct Hieron Cooks censura patrum Secondly the most rationall of the Fathers as Hierome and Augustine have witnessed not speaking obiter or popularly but purposely giving their judgment in the thing that the difference between Bishop and Presbyter is the issue of custome and use not divine institution Thirdly the Fathers generally give the Bishop but a Presidency not a Monarchy in jurisdiction They ascribe to him a Presbyterie in which and with which he was to ordain and censure and without which he was not to act in these things And this plainly enough shews that the Bishops Presidencie was but for order sake not that power rested only in him for that power that is restrained by Divine ordinance to one order may not be interposed in by another * See Forbesii Iren. p. 180. where he dispures against the Papists thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministerium solis Episcopis à Christo tributum est id non potest Papa c. committere Presbyteris At ministerium conferendi ordines potest Papa c. committere Presbyteris Ergo c. the Levites might not joyn with the Priests in offering sacrifice because it was a particular above their sphear appropriated to the Priests which neither in the absence of the Priest nor by his leave or commission a Levite might do But we know at first ordination was in the City and Country Presbyters and forbidden
orbi commune saith Beza in respon ad Sarav de grad Minist pag. ult But who knows not the great defect amongst us of congruous maintenance for Parochiall Pastors by whom the work of the Ministrie is chiefly to be performed And if those large revenues of the Prelates were directed to supply with sufficient maintenance all the defective Parishes in England there would be no danger of sacriledg And this would not be to ruine but to rectifie the devotion of former ages and turn pomp into use and impediments into helps A work for which following generations should not need to pitie the king as put upon it by misfortune but rise up and call him blessed whose many other disasters ended in so good and usefull a work Had the motives of Henry the 8. been as honest to cast off Papall jurisdiction as the act was holy and the improvement of Abbey lands as conformable to divine law as the dissolution of Abbeys to the rules of Divine wisdom He might not only have been honourable in our Annals but if I may so speak a Saint in our Calender It was the circumstances of actions in themselves glorious which made them a dishonour to him though advantagious to the Church which circumstances being avoided in the thing in question God and good men will highly approve it which is the only reall and regardable honour Thus far my first opponent CHAP. IX Wherein is shewed that the converting of Bishops Lands to maintain preaching-Ministers would not be sacriledg but a good work in answer to Doctor Boughen's 15. Chapter I Come now to answer to your 15. Chapter wherein you dispute the Case whether it be lawfull to confer Bishops Lands on Presbyters and first you say the Church is like our Saviour Christ between two theeves Independents and Presbyterians but neither of them for our Saviour But the best of it is your tongue is no slander for if preaching Christ be being for Christ I dare boldly affirm that the most of either of those that dislike Episcopacie are far more for Christ then you and your Prelates a few only excepted and of them the more they be for Christ the less violent usually for Bishops especially for your Apostle-Bishops which they account a fancie After you say I like theft so I and my fellow Presbyterians may be gainers but your position is false I abhor theft as much as you do nor do I look at the gain of my self or Presbyterians but of the Church of God for I am no pluralist whatever D. B. is nor do I nor many other Presbyters expect any more means if this should be but that the Church may have more Presbyters apt to rule well and labour in the word and doctrine and be examples to the flock we having found in experience that scandalous livings occasion scandalous Ministers And this we think is in the power of king and Parliament to do without theft The revenues annext to Cathedrals being intended for the best good of the Church But Parag. 2. You acknowledg I am against sacrilegious alienation but I and Master Beza cannot prevent it Who can help it We have cleared our own souls yet if the Prelates would have consented to resignation when this case was first presented I verily believe that dishonourable alienation had been prevented Parag. 3. You confess I would fain set a fair gloss upon a detestable fact But every thing is not detestable which you call so that which would tend to have Christ more preacht would be profitable to the Church and acceptable to God For Ordination we have spoken before and shewed that Presbyters have as much power from God to ordain as your Prelates and are as good Bishops onely the other by custom gradatim have rob'd them We shall have a choyce peece when you come to examine Divine right I shall wish the Divines to be more careful to provide patience to bear your railings then perspicacity to discern your subtilties For you are not like to trouble their heads with much of the latter Parag. 4. You say If there be a diversion of the waintenance who shall make the conveyance and When it s made it s not valid without the proprietary and that is God c. and what is separated to holy use cannot return to common Good but what is given to God may be improved to the utmost for God and that 's the aim and would be the issue of the diversion â—poken of that Christ might more preach'd even to those that have long sate in darkness and in the shadow of death Nor is every diversion as you say Parag. 5. a turning â—out of the right channel But out of the former channel and the latter may be better and so righter in regard of the chief intentions of the Donor And this done by the unquestionable authority of the Land will I doubt not be approv'd by as wise and as honest men as you Do not you your self pag. 119. say concerning Abbies and Pryories That good and pious men have wisht that the abuses had been pruned off and that the land had been disposed of according to the Donors intentions What 's that but diversion from the corrupt way of Abbeys and Pryoryes to support other pious and charitable uses Parag. 6 7 8. You tell us a story of the antiquity of endowing Churches and the riches of them And that the use and Dominion of Church-goods belong'd to Bishops and this not onely by custom but by Canon But withal you say at his charge as it were the Presbyters and other Clerks of the Church Were fed Sure you have told a good tale for your self for by it it appears that the wealth wherewith the Church was endowed was not given to any persons but the Church in which the Bishop had no propriety but power of use for what he himself needed and of disposing the rest to Presbyters and other Clerks which now the Bishop neglecting and many Parishes in his Diocesses wanting preaching Presbyters for want of maintenance and many that preach'd wanting subsistance and the Bishop who you say should maintain them maintaining Princely * I my self once saw the Bishop of Yorke riding towards London with fourty five men in his Livery And I wondering at the number was told by one of them that there was above twenty left behinde that wore their Lords Livery State a number of Serving-men c. To divert a great deal of the maintenance to preaching Presbyters would be a returning of it into the old channel by your own confession But Parag. 9 The Bishops followed the steps of the Apostolick Church for Act. 4. we read that the well minded when they sold their lands laid the prices at the Apostles feet not the Presbyters How could they when there was as yet none ordained But after by the Apostles direction there were Deacons set over this business of Church-treasures Good and those Deacons continued and distributed Church-goods some to
honour in rule and after by manifest usurpation ingrost all appropriate the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to himself but that the word notes rule And this title is given to all Presbyters Act. 20.28 Feed the flock over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops Over-seers This is said of all the Presbyters without any hint of distinction and doth not this note government Let me ask you a question have you not read Bilsons perp government of the Church of Christ Can you finde no rule belonging there to Presbyters It s then because you cannot see wood for trees pag. 140. He notes government to be comprehended under the titles of Shepherd Watchmen Over-seers Rulers Guides and these titles belong to all Presbyters And pag. 141. The government spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 He makes common to Pastors Prophets and Teachers and producing that of Jerom Communi Presbytorum consilio regebantur Ecclesiae He adds of his own That Elders at first did govern by common advice is no doubt at all to us This is it which is doubted and denyed by us that those Elders were lay-men pag. 158.159 And after to prove that the Presbyters were not Lay but Ecclesiastical he produceth Jeroms words with approbation Bishops and Presbyters were at first all one and what doth a Bishop save Ordination which a Presbyter doth not Bishops must know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custom then truth of the Lords disposition and ought to govern the Church in common pag. 150. And all this he cites out of Jerome for his own defence That what Jerome spake he spake of teaching not ruling Presbyters But what need I add particulars the sume of his 11 Chapter is not to deny but taking it for granted that in Primitive times there was a Presbyterie that was joyned in government with the Bishops without which he neither could nor ought to do any thing in point of censure taking I say this for granted he endeavours to prove those Presbyters consisted onely of teaching not lay-Elders Chapter 14. Setting out the use of Presbyters in the fourth use he hath these words The government of the Church was as first so constituted that neither the Presbyteries should do any thing without the Bishop nor the Bishop without a Presbytery pag. 307. Thus far Bilson How clear is that of Tertullian for the rule of Presbyters Nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu summumque futuri judicij praejudicium est siquis ita deliquerit â—ut a commucicatione orationis conventus omnis Sancti commercij relegetur Praesident probati quique seniores honorem istum non praetio sed testimonio adepti Thus it is as clear as the Sun that ruling is injoyned as a duty and given as a priviledg to the Presbyter of which it was dispoiled in England by Episcopacie and therefore to maintain Episcopacie in that posture was to maintain it in usurpation against Christs disposition and so unlawful But you require Parag. 14. one place of Scripture that allows Presbyters to excommunicate or absolve of their own authority I answer in all the places where they are made Church-Governours they are inabled in a regular way to pass all Church-censures and of those places I have produced and asserted many as also where the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven are given to the Ministerie in general in the Apostles and the place above cited in Tertullian doth it not extend to excommunication and that censure to be pass'd by Elders But do you shew me on the contrary in Scripture a Bishop that is an ordinary Pastor distinct from a Presbyter indued with sole power of rule in the Church I will be of your mind Your instances of Timothy and Titus will not serve your turn for that they were Evangelists Bilson confesseth more then once the Scripture never calls them Bishops They are called so by the ancients because they did those acts that by humane custome were afterwards appropriated to Bishops in regard of presidencie but they did them not as Bishops which they are not called but as Evangelists which they were and were called in Scripture For your speech in this clause of particular mens silencing it 's impertiment and for the cause it 's delivered in your railing Dialect which I pass by and of the same railing strain is all your 15. Parag. only you tell us by Scriptures we are made subject to Bishops and I have told you and you confess in Scripture Bishops and Presbyters are all one only you have a vain conceit of an Apostle-Bishop of which more anon Parag. 16.17 You endeavour an answer to that that the Presbyters were subjected to lay-Chancellors but it is only by way of retorsion direct answers you are not furnished with but refer us to the Doctors Commons and yet I doubt not but you have taken the oath with an c. that swears to perpetuitie more then Chancellors but how do you retort first we have set many lay-Chancellors for one as the Parliament and Committees ridiculous when we speak of Ecclesiastical Officers to retort touching those that are civil But secondly you retort that though we complain of one lay-Chancellor we subject Gentry and Commonalty to many Lay-Elders and say not say you that there be preaching Elders with them lest it be return'd upon you that the lay-Chancellor is but the Bishops Officer in such cases of Judicature c. But I will say that they have preaching Presbyters amongst them and more then you can say for Chancellors yet they are to be chosen by the people in general over whom they are to be and though you say the Chancellor is but the Bishops Officer Yet it is apparent in the woful experience of many Ministers that he is such an Officer that without and against the Bishops minde hath convented and suspended Ministers which is more power then the Bishop ought to have Episcopus sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest auferre non potest confest by Bilson perpet govern pag. 107. where the Counsel of Hispalis 2 ca. 2. and Counsel of Afric ca. 26. are cited what you add about institutions by Chancellors is nothing to me who never yet had institution nor hath it any sense in it that it should be against Gods direction to receive institution from a lay-Chancellor as our land makes a Rectorie an inheritance wherein the Civil Magistrate doth protect us You conclude Parag. 18. That my first argument you hope is sufficiently confuted You have done your best it 's like yet it stands in full force and vertue That if the Kings oath bindes him to maintain Episcopacie as it stood in practise and as it is in your famous c. oath It is an engagement in that point to what is against Scriptures rale and primitive practice therefore an obligation to what is unlawful and in that point invalid In the close you cannot give off
without calumniating though never so irrationally I say in answer who ever they be that hinder the Ministers of God from any part or dutie of their calling required of God usurp upon them and they that maintain them in that maintain them in usurpation this is a truth without derogation from any authoritie and so I close this second chapter CHAP. IV. PARAG. I. Wherein it is cleared that Episcopacy is not to be upheld by our Protestation and that there may be ordination without it in answer to Doctor Boughen 's fourth chapter Case of Conscience Resolved BUt though this way of invalidating the Kings oath be most satisfactory to some yet to those that are not convinc'd of the unlawfulness of Episcopacie it will not hold and so it would cast the resolution of this doubt about the oath upon another question touching the unlawfulness of Episcopacie which is a larger field I shall therefore endeavour to shew that though for argument sake it be granted that Episcopacie be lawful yet notwithstanding that his oath the King without impeachment may in this circumstance consent to abrogate Episcopacie To answer this passage you descend cap. 4. but there begin with such notorious trifling as I never saw in a man pretending to learning For Parag. 1. You infer if Episcopacy be lawful then the Kings oath is not vinculum iniquitatis egregiam laudem c. who knows not that on that supposition the oath is lawful You adde but mine own conscience began to check me for this because I say it is only satisfactory to some You are mistaken sir The reason why I disputed the oath on a second bottom was because though I thought you and men of your affection might interpret the Kings oath to maintain Episcopacie in that usurping height wherein it stood that by his oath you might keep up your own absurd c. oath yet I perceived that his Majestie and other impartial Judges might interpret Episcopacie in a more moderate way as it is now come to pass his Majestie offering to bring Episcopacie to that tenor that they shall do nothing without their Presbyters and with such moderation many count it lawful nay few count it unlawful therefore I disputed the case under the second notion though Episcopacie were lawful understanding as you may perceive by the scope lawful only not necessarie yet the King might consent by Bill to abrogate it After having spent parag 2. in impertinent slander according to your custome parag 3. You ridiculously descant upon two phrases satisfactory and not hold though being applyed to divers persons your own conscience tells you there 's no incongruitie in them And then you tell what pity it is that I have to deal with learned and rational men and not with Ignoramus and his Dulman Sir to ease your passion I have to deal with both In my first attempt with the first which I ingeniously acknowledg in this second with the latter which I have in part and shall more clearly evince and that in the next Paragraph For I having said that the King without impeachment of his oath might in this circumstance consent to abrogation of Episcopacie You ask what I mean by circumstance whether the Kings oath or Episcopacie and run on in a childish descant unworthy of paper when any but a Dul-man may see plainly enough what I mean by in this circumstance that is according to the grounds of the question in the former page In this state of the nation that no hope of safety without union between King and Parliament no hope of union without abrogation of Episcopacie for the Houses had abrogated it and the sword was in their hands Next Parag. 5. You confess the King may abrogate what is lawful I thank you Doctor you have given me the question for if the King may abrogate what is lawfull then the reason why the King cannot consent to abrogate Episcopacie is not his oath in your judgment but because it is an ordinance of God and more then lawful Well now let us try it there prove Episcopacie to be the ordinance of Christ I will yield you the cause This you say Parag. 6. You have proved already cap. 2.6.7.8 And I there have shewed the weakness and sophistry of your proofs and shall do it more hereafter But you proceed Parag. 7. That Episcopacy is the onely order to which Christ hath given power to ordain Presbyters and Deacons c. What you deliver here is apparently false for first Christ gave power immediately to Apostles to do it and the Apostles to the Evangelists this power they exercised in Ecclesiis constituendis in constituting Churches And these extraordinary officers dying and their extraordinary offices ceasing as almost all confess what parts of their office were of perpetual use as praying preaching administring Sacraments and the use of the keys were left to those ordinary Officers Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 And under them are comprized all ordinary teaching Ministers without any distinction from God the distinction that followed after was but humane for order and to avoid accidentall inconveniences as Ambrose and Jerome witness most plainly and unanswerably unless men set themselves nodum in foirpo quaerere let the reader view the places in Bilson where he brings them to prove the Presbyteries were of preaching not of lay-Elders against lay-â—lders and let his view be impartial and I doubt not but he will approve what I assert You proceed no Bishop no Priest no Priest no Lords Supper Now indeed you reason like a Catholique but a Roman Catholique for just so Bellarmine and others of that leaven argue against Protestant Churches to un-Church them with whom though you may joyn yet all those that according to their profession are true Protestants and imbrace other reformed Churches as dear sisters will not thank you but disdain you and your assertions that do obliquely un-Church the most of them And that which our Divines answer to them shall stand good maugre your teen and skill For they holding and proving that a Bishop and Presbyter differ not by Gods law but humane And knowing that Presbyters are the Pastors meant Ephes 4.11 And that those Pastors are the successors of the Apostles to exercise all perpetual acts of ministerie whereof ordination being one they must needs by divine law be invested with it The Bishop you plead for was but primus Presbyter a chief Presbyter elected to guide and govern the Presbyterie in acts of government For all antiquitie acknowledgeth the Presbyterie did govern with him and ordain with him Now if the Presbyters elect one to be President though not for life why shall not their act be as valid as if the Presidencie were for longer continuance Sure while learned Bilson gathers from the Presbyterians grant of a President in the Prebyterie by Divine law or light of nature though not the same man perpetually that their Presidens differ not materially from those Bishops that the Fathers
a Presbyter The one a successor of the Apostles indued with power of ordination and other jurisdiction the other the Successor of the Presbyters ordained by Timothy and Titus endued with power of administring word and Sacraments Neg. FOr the sounder and clearer resolving of this question I shall proceed by way of Thesis fetching things from the first original barely proposing only what is confest by all but proving those things wherein there is any controversie or whereon the controversie hath dependance Thesis 1. first its agreed amongst all that all the teaching Officers that can challenge Livine institution are set down in an intire Catalogue Eph. 4.11 And gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and therefore all that cannot derive their pedigree from one of these must be in the case of those Neh. 7.64 Thesis 2. That of these Officers some were extraordinary some ordinary Thesis 3. That Apostles Prophets Evangelists were extraordinary officers for the first planting of Churches and Pastors and Teachers ordinarie Thesis 4. That the extraordinary officers were temporary and the ordinary to be perpetual in the Church Bilson perp govern p. 300. The office of Evangelists was extraordinary and temporary Field of the Church lib. 5. c. 22. And indeed whatsoever is extraordinary is temporary Thesis 5. That Apostles were the highest of extraordinary officers and Pastors the highest of those that were ordinary Apostles are named first and all that are named before Pastors are acknowledged extraordinary Ephes 4.11 Thesis 6. That in the extraordinary Officers there were some gifts and acts peculiar to them as such as to the Apostles immediate calling divine inspiration infallibility in doctrine universal charge and in the Evangelist to be an assistant to an Apostle not to be perpetually fixt to any place but for the finishing some special work as Timothy at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 Titus at Creet cap. 1.5 3.12 Secondly There were some qualities and actions which though required in and done by them as extraordinary officers in an extraordinary way yet are of necessitie and are in an ordinarie way perpetually to be continued in the Church of God as abilities to teach and rule the Church and the acts of teaching praying ordination of Ministers Church-censures c. See Bilson perp govern chap. 7. pag. 106 107. Thesis 7. That these Pastors Eph. 4.11 that are the highest ordinary Officers are Successors to the Apostles in all that power and authoritie and all those acts flowing from it which are necessary perpetual and ordinary in the Church of God This also is clear power and authoritie require a subject divine power and authoritie a subject of divine institution Now no other remains of those of Gods institution but Pastors and Teachers which if they be not the same Pastor is the chief The other as temporary are ceased therefore Pastors must be their successors in all this power and in them must the commands for execution be kept without spot or unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 And to them must that Apostolical promise be performed Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you to the end of the world Thesis 8. The Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 are no other but Synonymaes with those Elders ordained in every Church Acts 14.23 and in every City Tit. 1.5 This is clear for those Elders that were here ordained were officers of Christs giving The Apostles would ordain no other it had been sacrilegious presumption but they were neither Apostles Prophets nor Evangelists Ergo if Christs they must be under either Pastors or Teachers Thesis 9. These Elders were by the Holy Ghost also stiled Bishops and were indeed Bishops aliud aetatis aliud officii nomen and of them it is that direction is given under the name of Bishops 1 Tim. 3. Herein Jerome is most plain seconded by Ambrose or Hilary an approved Author under his name who though they differ from other fathers who understand by Bishop Hieron in Ep. ad Titum 1 Tim. 3.2 Bishop distinct from a Presbyter such as was in their times Yet Jeromes reason preponderates all because drawn out of the bowels of the Text 1 Titus 1.5 6 7. Attend saith he the words of the Apostle who having discours'd of the qualities of a Presbyter after infers for a Bishop must be blameless c. Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same Again if any yet doubt saith he whether a Bishop and a Presbyter be not all one let him read the Apostle Phil. 1.1 Paul and Timotheus the servants of Jesus Christ to all the Saints which are in Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Philippi saith he was a City of Macedonia and certainly in one City as now they are called more Bishops could not be But St. Paul thus wrote because at that time Presbyters and Bishops were all one If yet this seem ambiguous saith he that Presbyters and Bishops were all one it may be proved by another testimony It 's written in the Acts of the Apostles when St. Paul came to Miletum he sent to Ephesus and called to him thence the Elders of that Church to whom amongst other things he spake thus Take heed to your selves and to your flock over which the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to feed the Church of God c. Observe this diligently saith he how calling the Presbyters of one City Ephesus he afterwards calls them Bishops he adds Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5.1 2. and concludes these things that we might shew that amongst the Ancients Presbyters and Bishops were the same Thesis 10. After the decease of the extraordinary Officers Apostles Prophets Evangelists and their Office with cause of it with them the Church acknowledgd no other Church-Officers as instituted of Christ but only the two mentioned 1 Tim. 3. Titus 1. 1 Bishops or Presbyters 2 Deacons Clemens mentioned Phil. 4.3 who is witnessed by Tertullian to be ordained of St. Peter himself de prescrip in an Epistle to the Corinthians writes thus The Apostles preaching through the Countries and Regions their first fruits whom they had tryed by the spirit they appointed for Bishops and Deacons to believers Here you see by the Apostles were constituted but these two Offices Bishops and Deacons of whom he afterwards saith that those that have humbly and unblameably ministred to the sheep-fold of Christ those we may not think may be justly thrown out of their Ministry whence he infers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It 's a filthy thing beloved yea very filthy and unworthy that conversation which is in Christ Jesus to hear that the most strong and ancient Church of Corinth for one or two persons should make a faction against their Presbyters He concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You therefore who have laid the foundation of sedition be instructed to repent and be subject to your Presbyters so whom he called Bishops he now calls
them only with a Proviso unless they had the consent or commission of the Bishops which prohibition doth plainly shew that before they were used to ordain without him and after might with his leave Fourthly the Fathers differ more from the high Prelatists then from the Presbyterian For the Presbyterian alwaies have a President to guide their actions which they acknowledg may be perpetuall durante vitâ modò se bene gesserit or temporary to avoid inconvenience which Bilson in his preface and again and again in his book of perp gover takes hold of as advantageous because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintains but now the high Prelatists exclude a Presbyterie as having nothing to do with jurisdiction which they put as far above the sphear of a Presbyter as sacrificing above a Levites to wit an act restrained to an higher order whereas the Fathers acknowledg a Presbyterie and in divers cases Counsels tye the Bishop to do nothing without them and so its clear the high Prelatists are at a further distance from the Fathers then the Presbyterians Fifthly for that wherein we differ from the Fathers we have the Plea of one of the most judicious of the Fathers Augustine who being prest with the authoritie of Cyprian answers lib. contra Cresscon 2. cap. 32. His writings I hold not as Canonicall but examine them by the Canonicall writings And in them what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise what agreeth not I refuse with his leave This is our apologie in dissenting in this thing from some of the Fathers wherein you see we follow a Father and in that wherein Bilson makes use of him to put off the authorities of some learned men of his age and adds God suffers the best of men to have some blemishes lest their writings should be received as authentique p. 15.2 Lastly if we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacie wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them then we yet I would have them to consider in how many things we jump with the Fathers wherein many of them have been dissenting both in opinion and practice as touching promiscuous dancing especially on the Lords day 2. Touching residency of Pastors in their Churches which excludes also pluralities 3. Frequencie and diligence in preaching 4. Touching the abuse of health drinking or drinking ad aequales calices 5. Touching Bishops not intangling themselves with secular affairs or businesses of State in Princes Courts 6. Touching gaming at Cards or Dice and such like so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers against us in this one point wherein themselves also are at a distance from them while we keep closer to the Fathers then they do in many others And thus Doctor I shall leave it to the judgment of the indifferent reader whether apostle-Apostle-Bishops be not a meer fancy of your own framing and indeed now there be no other but presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops one of which for Ecclesiastical custome for pious ends had some power added to his Presidency for order which afterwards degenerated into tyranny CHAP. IV. PARAG. 4. Wherein is shewed the impertinency of the Doctors sixth chapter against perjury which the Author of the Case detests as much as be TO come now to your 6. Chapter where you propose the question whether the King without the impeachment of his Oath at his Coronation may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacie And then tell us Parag. 1. This question hath two branches 1. Whether a Christian King be bound to keep his oath 2. Whether he may not c. But did not your eyes dazzle when you made this division Did I ever question whether the Kings oath was obligatory so far as it was lawful and in that sence that it was intended and so dispute whether the sence of it were not the same of that with the people that ingageth only till alteration by consent in Parliament Did not I express in the preface that unless it did appear that abrogation of Episcopacy might stand with the sence of the oath the King ought not to consent how falsly do you then affirm that I perswade the King to break his oath and how useless is this whole chapter either taking for granted what is not proved that Episcopacy is a truth and ordinance of Christ or proving what is not in question that oaths are to be kept perjury to be avoided wherein you are so vehement that you faâ—l into rank anabaptistry pag. 34. asserting that oaths therefore must be avoided lest we fall into condemnation as though all oaths were unlawfull for fear of perjury You do also admixe so many foul and bold slanders uttered with such bitterness and such evident falseness that any but a partial reader will detest them and therefore I think them unworthy any answer If I had said as that Court-Preacher Herles answer to Doctor Fern. p. 3. that the King is not bound to keep any oath he took to the people to be ruled therein by law His oath was but a piece of Coronation-show he might take it to day and break it to morrow c. On such a man you might have spent some of your zeal against perjury but to me it is impertinent as the judicious reader shall plainly see by that which follows now to be set down out of the Case resolved which supposes the oath ought to be kept and only enquires after the true sense and intention of it and this may satisfie this impertinent chapter The Case Resolved THe usual way of clearing this assertion is thus The King is sworn to maintain the laws of the Land in force at his Coronation yet no man questions and the constant practice shews that it is not unlawful after to abrogate any upon the motion or with the consent of his Parliament The meaning of the oath being known to be to maintain the laws while they are laws but when they are abrogated by a just power in a regular way they are then wiped out of his charge and oath So the King by his oath is bound to maintain the rights of his Clergie while they continue such But if any of their rights be abrogated by just power he stands no longer engag'd to that particular And this I conceive to be a sound resolution For the Kings oath is against acting or suffering a tyrannous invasion on laws and rights not against a Parliamentarie alteration of either But here steps in my first opponent and though he disputes modestly onely proposing what he holds forth A nameless Author in a Book impleading all War against the King to serious consideration yet he objects subtilly and his Discourse runs thus The oath for maintenance of laws is made Populo Anglicano to the people of England and so may be taken off by a future act because it is by their own consent represented in Parliament But the oath to maintain the priviledges
out of season as Timothy was to do 2 Tim. 4.1 2. But you are mistaken when you say that the Priests are in Scripture called the horse-men of Israel and the chariots thereof For that was spoken of Prophets not Priests viz. of Elijah and Elisha Parag. 16. You argue Alogically the King can have no Subsidies granted without them because none hath yet been granted a non esse ad non posse non valet argumentatio As ill do you abuse the Scripture against the King and Parliament as Removers of bounds who have rectified it confining Clergie men to their own sphear Divinity leaving seculars to secular-men therefore your curse causeles shall not come To parag 17. I say I delivered not ex tripode but out of the marrow of the act it self that the votes of Bishops in the house of Peers was taken away as incongruous to their calling and I infer nothing else to be taken away unless it seems good to King and Parliament whose wisedom and conscience I dare far better trust then yours and you abuse your Reader to say I argued from the bare fact when I argue from the fact with its ground to the like on the like warrantable ground And that the abolition of the one is no more against the Kings oath then the other which you confess yet you say flatly 123. If the King yield to let down Episcopacy he breaks his oath what then do you lay to his charge implicitly in consenting to the abolition of their votes but perjurie Is this you that can calumniate others without cause as spitting in the face of authoritie and yet do this and present it to the King himself to read his own doom But you distinguish between priviledges that are the grants of God and such as are of the favour of Princes such as sitting and voting with Peers The distinction is good and helps to clear what I intend that the King may alter the Prelacie in question which is but the gift of Princes not God See the erudition of a Christian man on the Sacrament of orders And Princes may revoke their own grants but for that jurisdiction which you say is a grant of God I confess it is but by him setled on Pastors the highest degree of Church officers now and those are presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops and therefore the setling of it on them in general is but restitution no donation of any thing new to the Presbyters nor unjust detraction from the Bishops who had without the grant of God ingrost all power into their own hands Case of Conscience resolved AGain when this oath was framed the Church was indued by the ignorance of the times with divers unlawful immunities in all which respects the oath was invalid being vinculum iniquitatis and some were pared off as light shined forth And why may not the great revenues of the Bishops with their sole jurisdiction in so large a circuit be indicted and convict to be against the edification of the Church and it be found more for the glory of God that both the revenue be divided to maintain a preaching Ministerie and their jurisdiction also for the better over-sight and censure of manners And then is there as good a plea notwithstanding the oath to alter this useless anti-Evangelical pompe and domination of a few as to antiquate other immunities arising from the error of the times not the tenure of Scripture Were indeed the priviledgs in question such as were for the advantage of the Church to further her edificacation or had the Prelates been good Stewards and innocent in the use of them then had the plea carried a fairer shew But these having been so many forfeitures by abuse and these great promotions and jurisdictions being as unwieldy to a spiritual souldier as Sauls armour to David and so do not further but hinder the work of the Gospel whose strong holds are to be vanquisht not by carnal pomp but spiritual furniture mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.4 I see no just ingagement to maintain such cumbersom greatness adding onely glory to the person not vigour to the main work of the Ecclesiastick Again thus I argue If the king may consent to alter the laws of the Nation notwithstanding his oath then so he may also the Clergies immunities for those rights and immunities they either hold them by law or otherwaies If by law then the Parliament which hath power to alter all laws hath power to alter such laws as give them their immunities and those laws altered the immunitie ceaseth and so the kings ingagement in that particular If their immunity be not by law it is either an usurpation without just title which upon discovery is null Or it was given by Papall power in times of darkness which being an Anti-christian usurpation is long since abolisht in this kingdom CHAP. VII Shewing that the Monarchicall jurisdiction and great revenues of the Bishops may be divided to the advantage of the Church in answer to Doctor Boughens 13. Chapter THis passage of my Case you attempt to answer chap. 13. and tell us that there 's a great cry against the jurisdiction of Bishops as inconvenient and prejudiciall to the the Church against unlawful immunities Anti-evangelicall pom pcumbersome greatness and forfeitures by abuse and these you say are cryed out of but none of them proved I answer the very expression were so clear of things obvious to every impartiall eye that proof seem'd needless and sure I am you would disprove it if you could it stands you upon which not doing it may pass for currant yet one quirk you have in this 1. parag on the word unlawfull immunities You argue if they were held by law then not un lawfull but legall I answer legall they were because allowed by mans law yet unlawful because against Gods law Your next quarrell is at the expression when the oath was framed the Church was indued by the ignorance of the times But you complain parag 2. I tell you not when this time was but what then do you not know it was in times of Poperie and do you think there was as much true light at Westminster then as now as you intimate in this parag Sure if you do you have not only a Bishop but as they say a Pope in your belly Parag. 3. You take notice that I conclude the Kings oath is invalid in these respects vinculum iniquitatis then you mention 5. particulars 4. of which you say you have quitted already but I have therein disproved you and do not you think that to exempt malefactors from trial that fled to Churches for sanctuarie and the Clergies exemptions from secular punishments which multiplied many slaughters by them as Daniel witnesseth in his story of Henry 2. pag. 83. and yet Becket Arch-Bishop of Canterbury asserted this as one of the liberties of the Church which the king had sworn to maintain pag. 84. I say did not these and such like think you flow from
motion I may also justly take occasion to give notice that our Reformation hath been counted defective for keeping up Episcopacy in its height and not either abolishing it or at lest bringing it within the ancient limits with a Presbytery which now is offered by the King And what other reformed Churches can the Author name but it was part of their Reformation to take away Diocesan Episcopacy Parag. 15. You express a needless grief to hear from a Preacher of the Word that the Bishops must lay down wealth honour and Mytres or else the Crown must run an hazzard Are you sorrie to hear a Preacher speak the truth hath not the Crown run an hazzard in this respect as well as others But whereas you say I give notice of what hath been the cause of my factious preaching you falsly slander for though I know no cause that I should have had to grieve to see the Bishops stript of their greatness in a fair way yet I have as seriously and sincerely grieved for the hazzard of of the Crown as your self and have been as far from furthering it For that you add that few of the Bishops have gained so much by the Church as their breeding cost their parents It will be credible but to a few except to those that know at what rates they made friends in the Court to procure them Parag. 16. You tell me I might have done well to have directed this passage to the Parliament Truly you say true and those that know me know I have not been backward to press and perswade a condescension on their parts as well as on the Kings and that in writing too which on as good an occasion as I had to print my Case may see the light But the Bishops have not been so innocent as you make them for schism they did not prevent it but partly made it by casting out both Ministers and people for their own inventions that willingly and peaceably would have held communion in all Gods ordinances partly occasion'd it by neglect of good Discipline and rigorously requiring conformitie to humane ceremonies for Heresies they did foster them How did the most of them connive at Papists advance Arminians and Socinians while they pretended against Socinianism Blasphemie in one kinde they hinder'd not in that they let blaspemous swearers pass without discipline and enjoy the priviledges of Sacraments Atheism they promoted by hindring the preaching of the Gospel which they were enemies to for the most part to uphold their dumb Ministerie and for fear their idleness should be censured They taught rebellion against the Lord in teaching men to prophane his Sabboths They hindred not but occasioned blood-shed in oppressing Scotland with illegal impositions stirring up the King to war against them and to break his Pacification with them which was the egg that hath bred this cockatrice that is like to destroy all This I speak not of all but some of them nor out of a delight I have to rake in other mens sores but to shew you that Bishops grew not into such odium among the people for nothing nor were they without miscarriages that occasioned such a violence against them and yet for my part I grieve that the peoples dislike of them had not acted in a more orderly and regular way Parag. 17. For Seldens distinction between the Abbot and the Abbey it seems he is better at relating distinctions then practising them And its good to observe that distinction where the man is Gods instituted Officer but that neither Abbot was nor Diocesan Bishop is but both humane creatures Parag. 18. Your quarrell is at my expression of bringing Bishops to moderation which you in a jeering way say is annihilation but as wise a man as you may be deceived for though that relation or title of Episcopacie be taken away wherewith man hath exalted them yet they may retain that place that God hath given them to serve him as Pastors in some parochiall charge as they did before their Episcopacie which he that disdains or thinks nothing or that it is too low for him I dare be bold to say it is too good for him Parag. 19. For that you say that the King suffers for the Bishops obstinacy the more disrespective they not to yield that he may be enlarged if that would do it you know what Gregory Nazianzen not inferior to any of them did for peace for what you relate here and else-where in an accusatorie way of what is done to the Bishops and Clergie I might object what hath been done to the Clergie of the other side when under opposite power but I have neither furthered nor approved the oppressions of neither side but bewail them and fear Gods judgments for them And therefore in your Parag. 20. is slander out of malice or mistake that I have preacht for the Bishops wealth or Mytre c. but your opinion is at last if others be so violent to put him to it the King and his posterity must perish e're you will consent to part with your greatness and honour Sure if you count those that put the King upon this strait his enemies no wise man will count you who will rather let him perish by the rigour of others then relieve him by your condescension good friends you love greatness so that you will rather lose it with him then release it to contribute to his preservation Is this your boasted of affection and loyaltie This shews what you pretend love to the King for to uphold your own greatness not his further then it upholds yours Parag. 21. You conclude that if the Bishops knew themselves guilty of the difference between the King and Parliament God forbid but they should part with all they may c. And if they will remember the beginning of it in Scotland with the occasion they may see guilt enough especially he that called it Bellum Episcopale who it is to be feared spake the minde of the rest But yet they cannot give up what is Gods nor would I have them but for God and to God for his glory both to promote a blessed peace and to set in its proper sphear Presbyter-Bishops of his own appointing and support more able of them to feed the flock of God that may live divers years without one Sermon for many a Diocesan Bishop Case of Conscience Resolved BEsides this argument there be other insinuations brought in by the same Author that it would be dishonourable to the Kings memorie to be an unfortunate instrument to pull down Cathedrals and impoverish them c. Answ To abolish Prelacie and seize the revenue of Prelates to private or civill interest undoubtedly could neither want stain nor guilt such kinde of impropriation as hapned in the dayes of Henry the 8. was cryed out of all the Christian world over Illam bonorum Ecclesiasticorum dissipationem cum detestando sacrilegio conjunctam tecum cum bonis omnibus deploramus scelus universo
the Pastor some to the poor some to other pious uses but when your Prelates grew Lordly the like not that and therefore by little and little they changed the Deacons office and made themselves proprietaries of the great revenues and thereby great Princes and you can abuse Scripture to confirm it as the Papists do to exalt the Pope But Paul say you commanded Timothy that the Presbyters be well provided for 1 Tim. 5.17 And to what purpose was this charge unless he were to provide for the Presbyters of his Church For very good purpose as the Apostle shews you himself 1 Tim. 4.11 These things command and teach He was to teach it others to perform it for though he set Presbyters on work in some sense yet it was not for himself but Christ and his Church and they who reap'd their spirituals were to pay them temporals 1 Cor. 9. And you dream when you talk of Timothyes table or allowing maintenance Alas he had no Palace then he kept no Prince-like table to feed his Presbyters these fancies will be ridiculous to learned men especially to Bishops to lay the charge on them to maintain all the Presbyters in their Diocess Yet you say in those times Bishops and Presbyters were used to live in the same house What all the Presbyters in a Diocess and in the Apostles time Alas Sir they were like their Master they had no houses but what they hired nor no tables but where they sojourned as appears by Divine story With what face can you deliver such improbabilities But Parag. 10. You enquire Whence the want of maintenance for preaching Presbyters ariseth and you answer it is from the appropriation of tythes at the dissolution of Abbeys This is true in part but not in the whole for I believe the greater part of Appropriations are held of Bishops and Deans and Chapters and if the Bishops be to maintain the Presbyters and withhold the tythes who is the thief now At least thus far the attempt is just to restore their impropirations And I must tell you this too That there was scarce any Gentleman of any ingenuitie or affection to religion but he made a far more considerable addition out of his impropriation to the incumbent then either Bishops or Deans and Chapters Though the one purchased them when the other swore they came into them freely Nay some Gentlemen resigned their impropriations freely I can hear of no Bishop that hath done so though you say they are bound to maintain their Presbyters You close with a jeer but therein discover your ignorance Impropriations were injurious you confess and if they be not valid in law why do not you supply the cure of some great impropriation and recover the tythes in a legall way if you cannot my position is truth and so not dissonant from the God of truth Parag. 11. You bring my words that if Bishops Lands were bestowed on Presbyters This would be not ruine but to rectifie the devotion of former ages which you say is somewhat like Cardinall Woolsey's pretence who dissolved fourty small Monasteries of ignorant Monks to erect two goodly Colledges for the breeding up learned and industrious Divines was not this to turn impediments into helps was not this as fair a pretence as mine yes the very same and I think few godly and rationall men will disallow it But you would prove by the event that this was not accepted of God because his Colledges were not brought to perfection But vulgus res eventu metitur it s for vulgar capacities to judge of things by the event not Doctors of Divinitie And had Cardinall Woolsey think you no other sins to make God blast his design but this pious attempt Sure no man that knows his story will so judg but this gave occasion to profuse sacriledg but occasions are not alwaies culpable of ill events unless they becauses also as this was not but the covetousness and igonrance with other lusts of ill-guided men Parag. 12. you enquire what the meaning of these words is this will turn pomp into use I answer not what you say but so that wealth which of late served for the useless pomp of one only Princely Lord Bishop would provide many able preachers for the use and edification of the Church But you proceed and say that the power of Bishops which were the main impediments to schism and heresie we have covenanted to root out and have brought in all helps to irreligion and Atheism c. But this is but a false suggestion of yours for though the power of Episcopacie as Jerome saith was first erected to prevent schism yet amongst us of late as I have shewed it was the great occasion of schism the fautor of divers heresies That there have of late appeared more heresies and schism among us then formerly is not because Episcopacie was pul d down but because we were so long without Presbyterie setled which is yet but lamely done for where that is setled it would far better prevent the rise and growth of heresie then Episcopacie as King James demonstrated to Mountague Bishop of Bath and Wells demanding of him upon the occasion of Legatts Arrianism what the reason should be that Scotland was so free from schism and heresie when England was far more pestered with both The relation out of a learned Author you may take as followeth When Legatt the Arrian and Weakman Scoti paracl contra Tileri praen from the relation of a Courtier of good credit lib. 1. c. 8 that affirmed himself to be the Holy Ghost were put to death Mountague Bishop of Bath and Wells ask'd King James seriously whence it was that England did bring forth Sects heresies schisms insomuch that many families before we were aware separated from us and fled away whereas no such thing was observed to happen in the Church of Scotland To whom the King as most skilfull in this cause most wisely answered That such was the Discipline of the Scotch Church that it was impossible for such things to fall out amongst them for first saith the King you must know that every Church hath its Pastor alwaies resident and vigilant in his parish and this Pastor hath joyned with him Seniors and Deacons which every week meet together at a set time and place for the censure of manners that almost the whole flock is known by face to the Pastor and the conditions disposition and religion of everyone is made apparent no heresie therefore can spring up in a Parish without notice taken by the Pastor and to prevent the rooting of any error in a Pastor They have every week their Presbyteries composed of all the Pastors in a Shrievalty or Deanrie in the chief City of that precinct and this not only to decide the more weighty questions touching manners but also to try doctrine it self Here do prophesie at least two whereof the first doth only open the text and expound it The second doth give the
sence and intention of it which the review of the Covenant saith is all the obligation of an oath Parag. 9. You speak about the change of the condition of the Clergie as though the intent were to make it slavery Sure Sir it s far from my intent The English Laytie are not slaves He that saith the Priviledges of the English Clergie that they hold by law are inviolable to them while the law remains but that the laws concerning them are alterable makes them not slaves but equall in freedom to any English Lay-subject But Parag. 10. You would pretend to a little subtiltie for you say the change of the Clergies condition from Popery to Protestancy was for the better or for the worse I answer undoubtedly for better morally for now we are in Christs way Let every soul be subject c. Rom. 13.1 Then we were in Anti-Christs way but yet in a civill respect we have not such exemptions or liberties as we had we are more under uncivil power but this is for the better for that libertie that is without Gods leave is not indeed a priviledg but a snare to the partie holding it I confess with you that the intent of the Kings oath was to protect his subjects in their severall places dignities and degrees and not to suffer them to oppress one another but not to deny any Bill that upon advisement shall be presented and manifested to conduce to the weal publique You proceed Parag. 11. The intention of the oath is to maintain the ancient legall and the just rights of the Clergie I have answered it is to maintain them against illegall oppression but not against legall alteration that you should prove but do not The continual practice of the nation is with me wherein by divers statutes many Canonical Priviledges have been altered as 25. H. 8. all Canonicall Priviledges contrariant to the Kings Prerogative and civil laws and 1 of Elizabeth in giving power to the Crown to exercise all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction by whom she will appoint and this is all that I affirm that Priviledges are alterable by an orderly way in Parliament and therefore you may take the Ghostly Fathers place to the man of sin which you would bequeath to me you are fitter to serve the Pope then I you hold no Bishop no Church but such passions I look at but as winchings when an argument pincheth For Parag. 12. I consent to Sir Edward Cook in his opinion of the Kings engagement to maintain the rights and inheritance of the Church nor is he against my limitation for it s known what his opinion was of the power of Parliaments That they might alter what ever they saw inconvenient to publikeweal In your parag 12. You wilfully slander me that I would perswade the Laytie that the Clergies weal is their woe I only affirm that if all such Priviledges of the Clergie that are in their nature alterable be made unalterable by the kings oath that let the kingdom sink or swim the King cannot consent by Act of Parliament to alter them then are they inconsistent with the people and this I say again And I am carried thereto by evidence of truth and not any caninus appetitus after wealth and honour Those that know me will but laugh at your rashness in these mistaken calumnies The former part of your 14. Parag. is passionate non-sense the latter part is a contradiction for you say if this oath be not against legall alteration in the true and literal sense c. The King may not without violation of his oath pass a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacie What I pray you is legall alteration of any thing here in England but alteration by consent of the King and Parliament How can this oath then if it be not against a legall alteration be against an alteration by Bill in Parliament which is the only legall alteration of Priviledges founded on law in England you are the strangest opponent that ever I met with you make nothing of giving the cause and railing at me for carrying it To as little purpose is all you conclude with parag 15. Whereas I say he may pass a Bill you wonder I say not he must pass a Bill you add I say that which is equivalent He cannot now deny consent without sin but yet Sir this must arise not from any authoritie of the Houses but from the condition of the King to preserve or restore peace to his kingdoms For the kings negative voice I alwaies asserted it as well as you both in word and writing but I affirm he hath power of an affirmative voice to confirm any thing that is for good of his people which he hath not nor ought not to swear away It may be you will say true if abolition of Episcopacie were for the good of the nation I answer that 's to pass to another question and to grant this in hand but besides the King and Parliament are to judg of the goodness of it for the nation and if they erre they are answerable to God alone Case of Conscience resolved SEcondly I answer from the expressions of the oath it self as they are set down by the same Author pag. 74. To protect the Bishops and their Priviledges to his power as every good king in his kingdom ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under their government Here you see the engagement of the king is but to his power as every good King ought in right to protect c. Now such power is no further then he can do it without sinning against God and being injurious to the rest of his people When then he hath interposed his authoritie for them and put forth all the power he hath to preserve them if after all this he must let them fall or support them with the bloud of his good subjects and those unwilling too to engage their lives for the others priviledges I think none need question but that he hath gone to the extent of his power and as far as good Kings are bound in right for it is not equall to engage the lives of some to uphold the honours of others That were to be cruel to many thousands to be indulgent to a few Suppose a king put a Commander into a City and give him an oath to maintain the Priviledges of it and keep it for him to his power and this Commander keeps this town till he hath no more strength to hold it unless he force the Townes-men to arms against that priviledg which he hath sworn to maintain If this Governor now surrender this town upon composition doth he violate his oath I think none will affirm it Such is the case with the king in this particular when he hath gone as far in their protection as is consistent with the weal of other his liege people which he is sworn to tender he hath protected them to his power and his obligation is no further by the
words of the oath The only objection as I conceive which lyeth against this is that though it be not in the Kings power to uphold them yet it is in his power not to consent to their fall Answ If the king should be peremptorie in denyal what help would this be to them Such peremptoriness in this circumstance might indanger his Crown not save their Miters Besides though it be in his power to deny assent to their abolition in a natural sence because voluntas non potest cogi yet is it not in his power in a morall sence because he cannot now deny consent without sin for if he consent not there will evidently continue such distraction and confusion as is most repugnant to the weal of his people which he is bound by the rule of government and his oath to provide for CHAP. XI Shewing that the King is not bound to protect the Bishops honours with the lives of his good subjects in answer to Doctor Boughen's 16. Chapter I Proceed to the answer of your 16. Chapter entituled how far forth the King ought to protect the Church and Bishops You begin it is confessed to my hand that the King is engaged to his power to protect the Bishops and their Priviledges as every good King ought in right to protect the Bishops and Churches under their government It is confessed that these are the expressions of the oath as it is set down by the Reviewer but you should conceive that I propose these two clauses as limitations of the kings engagement that is 1. To his power 2. only so far forth as in right he ought and I do not say the engagement is put upon him by the Author as you ignorantly suggest but that these are the expressions of the oath delivered by the Author but he is not in right bound to protect their priviledges against an orderly alteration by act of Parliament if any appear inconvenient to the whole body for that is not right Parag. 2. You confess the King is not bound further to exercise his power in protection of Bishops then he can do it without sinning And I after prove he cannot so protect them as to denie a Bill in that circumstance of affairs he and the land were in without sin what you answer to my proof will be seen in the sequel of this Chapter How I have answered your proofs that he cannot let fall Bishops without mischief to his people c. in your eighth Chapter let the Reader judge In that you say parag 3. That the Kings interposing the power he hath vexeth my confederacy Is I doubt your wilful ignorance for the frame of my Book might clearly enough hint unto you that I neither was of nor liked any confederacie against the King Neither have I as you say parag 4. Confest that what the King hath done is right Right it is indeed upon his principles But I do not think the King is bound in right to maintain Bishops in statu quo in the state wherein they were and he is willing now to regulate them by their Presbyters But whatever I confess in justification of the King is not as you say the justification of an enemy unless he that pleadeth prayeth suffereth for the King and his just and Kingly libertie be his enemy because he is against the usurping power of Bishops Parag. 5. If after all this he must perforce let the Bishops fal you and your schism have much to answer for Still a Slanderer it s none of my schism to force the King to let them fall for though I prove he may let them fall and that it is for the advantage of the Church that they should fall yet I was alwaies against forcing him to it for I think it is much more reason that his conscience should be left free in its determination then my own or any private mans in as much as God hath set him in so high a degree of eminencie in his Kingdoms But that you say the sword was never drawn on the Kings side to maintain Religion established They never learn'd to fight for Religion It is an ignorant speech misbecoming a D. D. For what juster cause of War or more weightie then to maintain Religion establish'd It s true we may not fight to set up a Religion which is true against the laws and authoritie of the land where we live that were against the direction to Christians under Heathen Emperors Rom. 13.1.2 But to joyn with authoritie to maintain Religion establish'd supposing it true with the last drop of our blood is the most glorious quarrel and so I doubt not but the Royal partie learned though not from you yet from better Divines For your clinch about good subjects It s frivolous for the War costs blood on both sides and the King loseth on both sides for all are his subjects and I doubt not but he hath good Subjects on both sides in regard of meaning and intention though its true one side must needs be in a grand error Parag. 6. You confess it is an hard case for one man to engage his life for the maintenance of anothers priviledges But who did so Not a man say you engag'd himself but by the Kings command which you after prove and state the question us you please But this is but to shuffle and alters the state of a question to elude the force of an Argument which you cannot answer That which I said was it was not equal for the King to engage by his command the lives of some to maintain the priviledges of others which I spake upon this supposition That if the King had condescended in point of Episcopacie the War would have been at an end Laws restored to exercise c. For both City and the Scotish Nation would have closed with him and for this cause alone viz. to maintain power of Bishops I say it would not have been equal to have engaged the lives of others nor were they willing as I have been informed Nobles nor others It may be the King thought condescention in this would not have set him and his people in quiet possession of their rights but I cannot but wish that it had been tryed that nothing lawful had been omitted by which there was any hope to have saved a great deal of misery that his Majestie his Royal relations and the whole Nation hath suffered But Par. 7. You deny them to be others priviledges and affirm them to be the peoples because they reap spirituals from them But truely I must tell you that the people reaped but little in spirituals from many of the Bishops who seldom preached themselves and rob'd many people of their spirituals by silencing their Ministers and though there were no Bishops in England the people may reap spiritual things from the Clergie as plentifully if not more then ever they did as well as without them they do in other reformed Churches But what you add That in
resoluteness so I mean it but I will strive hereafter even in expressions to cut off occasion from them that seek occasion But you say his not consenting to the fall of Bishops may keep him from sin But you beg the question for I argue by my instance in a Governour of a town that there is no sin in resigning upon composition and your proof that it is a sin to consent to abolish Episcopacie because an ordinance of Christ waves the bonds of the oath and argues from the thing the vanity of which I confuted when I met with it Chap. 4. Parag. 16. You answer though the King cannot save your Mitres but endanger his own Crown yet say you he shall avoid sin and save his soul for without consent no sin Neither in consent is there sin in this case as I have proved and then a king I hope may do all that may be done without sin to save his Crown but in the mean time the land may see how tender you are of the king that rather then you will consent to his signing a Bill when it may save his Crown he shall lose it It 's a sign you love the Crown for your Mitres sake and if there must be no Bishops then let there be no kings neither Rightlike him in the Tragedie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Parag. 17 18. You examine that I say in a naturall sence it is in the Kings power to consent to the abrogation of Episcopacie not in a morall sence because he cannot now deny without sin the distinction you acknowledg and say it should be the Kings care that he incline not to sin I say so too he must venture all rather then sin and if I thought it were sin I should chuse death rather then perswade him to it but you confidently conclude the King breaks his oath and sins if he consent This I deny the oath engageth not to dissent in this case as I have proved yet were Episcopacie an institution of Christ I confess also it were sin to abolish it but I have proved it a brat of humane power and what man sets up you confess man may pull down But I prove that the king cannot deny his assent to abrogation of Episcopacy now without sin for else such confusion will follow as is most repugnant to the weal of his people this confusion we have felt but what saith the Doctor to this Parag. 19. Thus shall sin vary at your pleasure sin it shall be now that was none heretofore Why Sir is that strange that circumstances should change the morality of actions I am ashamed that a D. D. of mine own mother Universitie should discover such ignorance in Divinitie Was it not a thing unlawful in the Apostles time after the Decree Acts 15. to eat things strangled and bloud where offence was taken but cannot you without scruple now eat a good blood-pudding or a strangled capon truly if you cannot you would get more scorn then followers for such a silly fancie But you proceed Parag. 20. Where there is no law there is no transgression Is there no law for a King to tender the weal of his people yes sure that that requires him to be honoured as a father and therefore if he withholding his assent occasion the keeping up confusion repugnant to the weal of his people undoubtedly there 's a law broken unless there be some superior law to check this Oh but Judge Jenkins saith it s against the oath of the King and Houses to alter the government for religion But I pray you ask the Judge whether it be against their oaths to alter the religion from Popery to Protestancie and withall whether is greater the religion or the external government of it and if without perjury they alter the greater why may they not the less for the trouble that the learned in law shall be put to on alteration If you compare it with garments rolled in blood let the Reader judg whether you be a prudent esteemer of matters But you retort Parag. 21. If the King do consent to abrogate Episcopacie there will follow confusion repugnant to the weal of his people Your reason is that there are as many for Episcopacie Common-Prayer is another business as against it though not so mutinous I answer the danger of confusion is not from the number or quality alone but also from the power of opposers which then was very great and the adverse party weak therefore your retortion was feeble I confess the sins occasion'd by this confusion endanger temporal and eternal weal of people that 's it that makes me so study the healing of it Parag. 22. You infer that I mean to continue these distractions unless Episcapacie be abrogated But you are mistaken in me though I have no good conceit of Episcopacie yet I had rather it had continued though to my burthen and suffering then have seen so much sin and misery by an unnatural war but your expressions carry it that your minde is so Episcopacie may be held up Scelera ipsa nefasque hac mercede placent You are as much mistaken in objecting ambition or avarice to me as a cause of these evils I have by Gods grace followed the dictate of my conscience above these twenty years against my civill interest and I hope I shall not now become such a slave to lust to do such a horrid thing to serve it You close this Chapter Parag. 23 24. with paraleling our present times with the conspiracie of Corah and when you can prove by Gods Law such a difference between Presbyters and Bishops as God made between Priest and Levites it will give a pretty colour to the business but as long as Gods Word tells us that Presbyters are Bishops and Pastors nor hath he left any distinct orders among Pastors you may please your self and credulous followers with your conceit but shall not convict those of any guilt that for peace-sake move that man would abolish that difference of order which the wit of man made and the corruption of man hath made hurtfull God make the Scepter of the King flourish but as for your Episcopall Mitres they have been so stained by those that wear them that well may they get power but I believe they will never get beauty and glory in our Israel again Case of Conscience Resolved THirdly I answer that this Opponent in this Dispute argues upon this ground that the supream jus Dominij even that which is above all laws is in the King which under favour I conceive in our State is a manifest Error There 's a supremacie in the King and a supremacie in the Parliament But the supremacie or the supremum jus Dominij which is over all laws figere refigere to make or disanul them at pleasure is neither in the King nor in the Houses apart but in both conjoyn'd The King is the supream Magistrate from whom all power of execution of laws is legally derived The