the Laytie may be altered by King and Parliament without breach of his oath so also the laws that concern the rights of the Clergie be alterable by the same power As impertinent false and absurd is your reply Parag. 15. that I argue from any rights of the Kingdom to all the rights of the Clergie when the same sign any is used in both places as your self set it down but three lines before The Star-chamber and high Commission Courts stood by law yet these were abolisht so may Bishops and their Courts and yet ample liberties and immunities may belong to the Clergy and as usefull to the Church of God and more suitable to his Word as hath been shewn and therefore your question whether it be lawful to take away all that the Clergy hath is meerly to make shew of saying something when indeed you are destitute of a rationall answer for do I infer that the King may take away all that the Clergy hath or only such particulars as upon consideration to him and his Houses of Parliament seem inconvenient let the reader judge Parag. 16. But you say it cannot be done by a just power because justice gives every one his own according to Gods command Render to every one his due Good Doctor doth this prove any more the injustice of altering laws concerning Clergy then concerning Laity are not their laws their rights and inheritances but with this proviso that they may be judged on by Parliament whether convenient or inconvenient and accordingly either continue or receive repeal with the consent of the King and no wrong done for the laws are but their due with that restriction so the case is with the Clergy till you disprove it which though you would fain do yet for ought I see you are at your wits end by your fillings up parag 17.18 with such things as contain nothing towards an answer but somewhat to confirm my assertion out of Augustine charity prefers publique good before her own private interest So some priviledges of the Clergy are to be submitted by them to publike interest promoted by peace and union At last you come to say something to the purpose that the only regular way to abrogate any of the rights of the Clergy or Laity is at their own motion or consent made and delivered by their representatives in Parliament or convocation Is this true in the general was it true of the abrogation of the Popes Supremacies and such live immunities of the Clergy as their Sanctuaries for criminall offendors c. could not there be an alteration of these regularly attempted without it had proceeded from the representative of the Clergy Sure then I doubt they had stood much longer then they did to the prejudice of the Church and kingdom Reason it is I confess that if any of their Priviledges be in question that they should be heard and their reasons weighed but if after all they can say it appears to the King and Parliament that some priviledg of theirs is inconvenient to weal-publique it may be altered without them if they be froward and yet we allow them the priviledg of subjects for all other subjects have their priviledges thus subjected to the wisdom of king and Parliament and yet this no tyranny but good and needfull policy and so also 20. 21. parag which are the last of this chapter are answered CHAP. V. PARAG. 2. Wherein is shewed that the distinction that is between Clergy and Laity and their priviledges in this Kingdom hinders not but the priviledges of the one are alterable by King and Parliament as well as of the other in answer to Doctor Boughens 11. Chapter IN your 11. Chap. Parag. 1. You say to grate the very bones of the Clergy I tell you that this oath was so framed when the Clergy of England was a distinct society or corporation from the people of England I do say indeed that the Clergy and Laitie were distinct Corporations but not for that end that you mention to grate the very bones of the Clergy but to deliver the laborious Clergy rather from that tyrannie that they were not so long since under by a few usurpers or abusers of power and I do not only say but prove that the Clergy and Laitie were such distinct corporations as that they were under two Supremacies and that I say was popery deny it if you have the face but first you ask when this oath was framed which is but a cavill sith you know it was framed before Henry 8. in whose daies the Pope lost his Supremacie here We read of the oath before the Altar according to the custome in William 1. Dan. histor pag. 36. But you say his Majesties oath is grounded on the word of God according to the promise Kings shall be nursing fathers I answer the question is not whether the king doth well to maintain the rights and priviledges of the Church he is bound to maintain the just rights and priviledges of Church and Laytie both but the question is whether as notwithstanding his engagement to the Laytie he may at the motion or if it like you better at the Petition of the Houses alter any law that concerns the people he may not also on the like petition alter what concerns the Clergie therefore you must speak to this or you speak not ad idem and proceed by the fallacie ex ignoratione elenchi I would have you also know the Bishops are not the Church that is a Popish fancie Church is otherwaies taken in the note you touch parag 3. even for the whole body of the Jews Parag. 4. You seem to oppose my assertion that now the Clergy and Laytie are one body politique but by a weak reason Why then are the Bishops thrust out of the House of Peers as though every societie of the body politique were to have a party in the House of Peers neither were they thrust out as you uncivilly express it but excluded by a legal Bill After Parag. 5. You confess what before you made semblance to deny that the Clergy are not a severall and distinct body but a severall state or Corporation under the same body which I willingly grant but thence infer if they be but a distinct member of the same body then the heads of the body politique under which they are have the same power over them and their priviledges as over the other part of the body the Laytie It is therefore needless and useless pains to prove that a Clergie-man and others may have distinct relations Parag. 5. 6. 7. Who denies it but it s a false calumnie that the Ministers and Stewards of God are cut out of all for the thing aimed at in this treatise is but to restore to some of them what others without warrant from God had usurp'd from them Whereas you inquire parag 8. If this distinction between Clergie and Laytie be a branch of Popery You must add so distinct as to be under
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
now comes a precious one He believes it well appears That supremacie over all Laws to make or disanul them is in the King alone at the Petition of both Houses Ridiculum caput for it s as much as to say it s in the King alone with the help of others a notorious Bull. That power is in a man alone which he can execute without the concurrence of others but this the King cannot do without the Houses manifesting their consent and desire by Petition Besides have you forgot the statute your self quoted pag. 85 That no Act of Par liament be passed by any Sovereign of this Realm or any other authority whatsoever without the advice and consent of the three Estates of the Kingdom c. Oportet te esse memorem But you will come to Scriptures Fathers and moderne Authors as Parag. 6. ' Peter ascribeth supremacie to the King 1 Pet. 2.13 14. But that is clearly as I have said as Supream Magistrate to whom others are subordinate and this admonition must be with limitation too where Kings are supream You do not think that the Apostle doth level all Kings and give them all one equal supremacie No the Apostle had no power nor would not attempt to alter the constitution of Nations Now Grotius will tell you some Kings are not supream Those of Athens were under the power of the people those of Lacedemon under the Ephori See Grot. de jure bel pac lib. 1. cap. 2. parag 8. The sentences out of Fathers which you quote parag 6 and 7. speak of absolute Monarchs which you ignorantly or flatteringly say ours is but our King denies it calling our government a mixture of all the three and a regular Monarchie Collect. of Declar. c. pag. 320. 321. And that sentence cited by you out of Grotius will confute you That 's the supream civil power cujus actus alterius juri non subsunt Whose acts are not subject to another mans censure For those acts that any do by the Kings authoritie are the Kings acts and the Parliament hath power to disanul these acts and punish these agents as the King informeth Collect. of Remonstr pag. 321. to shew the compleatness of our government Our Law indeed saith the king can do no wrong that is he cannot work but by Agents and the law takes no notice of him in it but of the Agents to punish them But you proceed Parag. 8. I â—â—ow say you you relye more upon the laws of the Land then upon the Word of God But I believe therein you speak against your conscience what you produce that the king is the supream Head is no more then what I ascribe to him to be supream Magistrate and in that he is alone and the head one and therefore the Bull of two Supremacies you speak of is but a Calf of your own fancie What you say Parag. 9 10. 13. Touching the Parliament being subjects and petitioning to him as subjects and that Bills are not in force without him I confess but these onely denie that supremacie in the Parlament which I never asserted but do not assert the supremacy in the king to make or un-make laws without them Therefore all this is trifling Par. 11. You ask What supremacie can be in that Court that cannot lawfully Convene till the King summonthem There is this The supremacie of a Court as you confess to be the supream Court that is there is no appeal from them but appeals from all Courts to them and you know they can reverse decrees in Courts which the King cannot he can pardon not reverse sentences They can reverse Verdicts but not pardon offenders You add Parag. 12. The King is to regulate them for the time I acknowledg it this Parliament onely excepted by a particular Statute made in this Parliament with the Kings assent And for the manner The king himself saith they are free and have priviledges of their own For the great Lawyers judgement you speak of in Richard the 2. time That if any in Parliament proceed upon other Articles or in other manner then is limited by the King c. they are to be punished as Traytors I wonder you will mention it sith that great Lawyer was flattering Tresilyan who by such ill Counsel helpt to over-throw his Sovereign and in a Parliament held in the 13 year of Richard 2. was for this by the Lords in Parliament condemned to be hanged drawn and quartered which was presently executed on him as our Historians shew Your Collections Par. 14. were disproved before what you say ' for the Kings regulating Courts of justice You mistake the Law is their rule and that regulates them which if they transgress he may punish them but the law they are sworn to follow against any private instructions of his that 's clearly known You sum up your arguments Parag. 15. But they are all short of your conclusion for they conclude not against the Parliaments being a supream Court which is all I assert and you confess in the following page Nay in this page parag 17. and what you have parag 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Are superfluous For they onely concludet he King to be supream Magistrate but exclude not the Parliament from being the supream Court you say but yet it is the Kings Court I deny it not I denie him onely to be above it in the capacitie of a Court though it sit by his writ Therefore all you do here is but lis de lana caprina meer trifling And as captious a conceipt is that that you conceive not They have power to make and alter laws at pleasure for there is great danger in altering laws without urgent cause Who doubts it What need you prove it But to make up want of proof in things to be proved Who knows not that wisedom and moderation in Law makers is to regulate that power that they may put forth upon any that they put it not forth but upon just occasion Parag. 22. You infer If the King cannot do any thing against the legal rights of others so nor Parliaments True they ought not to over-rule or alter the rights of other but for the publike good but for that they may you know there were many had legal rights in offices in Star-Chamber and yet for publike good the King condescended to a Bill of abrogation Parag. 23. You tell us ' The King is above law That is say you Common-law But this is your fiction for the King saith he is a regular Monarch that is regulated by laws so in a sence under them The common custom of our Nation is that actions may be commenced against the King at the Common-law therefore you speak against experience in saying that the king is above the Common-law which appears also in that the Judges of the Common as well as Statute-law are sworn not to denie or delay justice to any for any Letter or Prohibition of the king And though his taking
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
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-Bishops be not a meer fancy of your own framing and indeed now there be no other but 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
of the Clergie is made to such a part of his people Clero Anglicano and particularly taken by him after his oath to the whole Realm which were needless unless it meant some other obligation This seems saith the learned Author to make it a distinct obligation and not releaseable without the Clergies consent I answer taking it for granted that the oath is thus taken by the King That oath was so framed when Clerus Anglicanus was a distinct Societie or Corporation as I may so say à populo Anglicano from the people of England This distinction between the Clergie and Laytie we may observe in our Historians Daniel in the life of William the first gives this for a reason whâ— the Clergie did so willingly condescend to him because they had their â—rovince a part whence they supposed a security to their priviledges how ever the Laytie were inslaved The same distinction of the Clergie and Laytie is observed by him in the life of Henry the second pag. 83. And this was not onely in England but other Nations Secularium petentes fastigia in legum lationes seorsum ab alijs quae civium universitatis proruperant Omnem Clerum ab hinc decernentes exemptum Civile schisma principatum supremorum pluralitatem inducentes ex ipsis quam velut impossisilem humanae quieti certaâ—â— hujus inducentes experientiam demonstravimus 170 1 Marsil Patav. defens pacis part 2. cap. 23. Now being the Clergie and Laytie were distinct bodies the Clergie holding their rights by priviledge distinct from the laws of the land an oath to maintain the laws of the land secured not them But as another body they had another oath for their securitie But now this distinction of the Clergy from the Laytie that they should be a distinct Province of themselves being a branch of Poperie is with it quite extinguisht And Laâ—tie and Clergie are now one bodie politick and under the same rule for all priviledges of the Clergie that are contrariant to the laws of the land were abolisht in the raign of H. 8. As undoubtedly that was that any Society should be exempt from secular power for that was to set up two Supremacies And therefore though the oath be continued in that order that it was when the Laytie Clergie were distinct bodies yet now that this distinction is abrogated and they are made one the oath to the Clergie cannot be stronger or more inviolabse then that to the Laytie for the preservation of the laws of the land both subject to regular alteration Thus far the case CHAP. V. PARAG. 1. Shewing that the Clergies rights are as alterable by King and Parliament as the Layities in answer to Doctor Boughen's 10. Chapter HEre you invert the method I went in but without just ground for I followed the Authors I answered in that order in which they came out in publike and to that I shal hold you and therefore now I must come to the 10. Chapter reserving the seventh eighth and nineth to their due place In your tenth Chapter you 'r hard put to it and make a great noise to little purpose First Parag. 1. You make an inference and quarrel with it It s lawful for the King to abrogate the rights of the Clergy ergo He may abolish Episcopacy It s for all the world as if one should say It s lawful for the King to take away the rights of Lawyers ergo He may also take away Judicature But you are bad at Paralels for there may be Ecclesiastical Judicatures without your Bishops which are but the issue of humane custome as Jerom tels you Then Parag. 2. You raise a fort against a fort It s lawful for the King to abrogate the rights of the Clergy it is therefore lawful for him to abrogate Presbytery I answer we speak not here of lawfulness in general but with relation to the Kings oath and sure you do not think that I conceive the Kings oath makes it unlawful for him to abrogate Presbyterie that is Presbyterial government But for what you say touching the order of Presbyters parag 3. and the order of Bishops there I must tell you that the King cannot take away the one because all confess it to be an Ordinance of Christ But for that of Bishops it s an ordinance of man as I have proved and so alterable Your fourth and fifth Paragraphes arae digression from this Question Parag. 6. You say Well bound he is by his oath to maintain the laws of the land while they are laws c. But how long are these laws in force till abrogated by just power in a regular way To this you subscribe adding but the just power is in his Majestie by your own confession to maintain and abrogate laws I Answer If by power to abrogate laws you mean that they cannot be abrogated without him I confess it but if you mean it as sometime you seem to import it that it is in his power without concurrence of others I may well deny it because he doth not assume to himself such power Your 7 8 9. parag I shall let pass as having nothing of consequence to the case in hand though they contain some extravagant expressions Parag. 10. You examine my words that if any of the Clergies rights be abrogated by just power he stands no longer engaged to that particular Here you quarrel for want of adding just power in a regular way which was not excluded but included in my expression and you your self confess parag 12. when you say just power goes alway in a regular way But you think I left out that expression in a regular way because I am not able to set down a regular way wherein the Clergies right may be abrogated Sure you are deceived for that is the regular way wherein all their canonical priviledges that are contrariant to the laws of the Land are abrogated that is by the King and Houses of Parliament See then how childishly you trifle Parag. 10 22. And with as little reason do you break out parag 13. What a Clergie man and a Preacher of the Word of God and altogether for ruine and destruction Surely this is your corrupt gloss I am for paring off that which is humane addition that the Ministerie which is of Gods institution may be more free and shine more bright and this too to deliver the King and Kingdom from a destroying war Is this to destroy or preserve Let the Reader judge And therefore for your impertinent reviling from Corah and Judas they will but reflect shame on your self neither do I detract from my office when I bring Ministers into the same rank with other Subjects in regard of their humane and alterable honours or priviledges for I speak of none other Next Parag. 14. You ask what rights of the Clergie I would have abrogated An idle question to raise an odium the question being in general whether as the laws that concern the rights of
out of season as Timothy was to do 2 Tim. 4.1 2. But you are mistaken when you say that the Priests are in Scripture called the horse-men of Israel and the chariots thereof For that was spoken of Prophets not Priests viz. of Elijah and Elisha Parag. 16. You argue Alogically the King can have no Subsidies granted without them because none hath yet been granted a non esse ad non posse non valet argumentatio As ill do you abuse the Scripture against the King and Parliament as Removers of bounds who have rectified it confining Clergie men to their own sphear Divinity leaving seculars to secular-men therefore your curse causeles shall not come To parag 17. I say I delivered not ex tripode but out of the marrow of the act it self that the votes of Bishops in the house of Peers was taken away as incongruous to their calling and I infer nothing else to be taken away unless it seems good to King and Parliament whose wisedom and conscience I dare far better trust then yours and you abuse your Reader to say I argued from the bare fact when I argue from the fact with its ground to the like on the like warrantable ground And that the abolition of the one is no more against the Kings oath then the other which you confess yet you say flatly 123. If the King yield to let down Episcopacy he breaks his oath what then do you lay to his charge implicitly in consenting to the abolition of their votes but perjurie Is this you that can calumniate others without cause as spitting in the face of authoritie and yet do this and present it to the King himself to read his own doom But you distinguish between priviledges that are the grants of God and such as are of the favour of Princes such as sitting and voting with Peers The distinction is good and helps to clear what I intend that the King may alter the Prelacie in question which is but the gift of Princes not God See the erudition of a Christian man on the Sacrament of orders And Princes may revoke their own grants but for that jurisdiction which you say is a grant of God I confess it is but by him setled on Pastors the highest degree of Church officers now and those are Presbyter-Bishops and therefore the setling of it on them in general is but restitution no donation of any thing new to the Presbyters nor unjust detraction from the Bishops who had without the grant of God ingrost all power into their own hands Case of Conscience resolved AGain when this oath was framed the Church was indued by the ignorance of the times with divers unlawful immunities in all which respects the oath was invalid being vinculum iniquitatis and some were pared off as light shined forth And why may not the great revenues of the Bishops with their sole jurisdiction in so large a circuit be indicted and convict to be against the edification of the Church and it be found more for the glory of God that both the revenue be divided to maintain a preaching Ministerie and their jurisdiction also for the better over-sight and censure of manners And then is there as good a plea notwithstanding the oath to alter this useless anti-Evangelical pompe and domination of a few as to antiquate other immunities arising from the error of the times not the tenure of Scripture Were indeed the priviledgs in question such as were for the advantage of the Church to further her edificacation or had the Prelates been good Stewards and innocent in the use of them then had the plea carried a fairer shew But these having been so many forfeitures by abuse and these great promotions and jurisdictions being as unwieldy to a spiritual souldier as Sauls armour to David and so do not further but hinder the work of the Gospel whose strong holds are to be vanquisht not by carnal pomp but spiritual furniture mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.4 I see no just ingagement to maintain such cumbersom greatness adding onely glory to the person not vigour to the main work of the Ecclesiastick Again thus I argue If the king may consent to alter the laws of the Nation notwithstanding his oath then so he may also the Clergies immunities for those rights and immunities they either hold them by law or otherwaies If by law then the Parliament which hath power to alter all laws hath power to alter such laws as give them their immunities and those laws altered the immunitie ceaseth and so the kings ingagement in that particular If their immunity be not by law it is either an usurpation without just title which upon discovery is null Or it was given by Papall power in times of darkness which being an Anti-christian usurpation is long since abolisht in this kingdom CHAP. VII Shewing that the Monarchicall jurisdiction and great revenues of the Bishops may be divided to the advantage of the Church in answer to Doctor Boughens 13. Chapter THis passage of my Case you attempt to answer chap. 13. and tell us that there 's a great cry against the jurisdiction of Bishops as inconvenient and prejudiciall to the the Church against unlawful immunities Anti-evangelicall pom pcumbersome greatness and forfeitures by abuse and these you say are cryed out of but none of them proved I answer the very expression were so clear of things obvious to every impartiall eye that proof seem'd needless and sure I am you would disprove it if you could it stands you upon which not doing it may pass for currant yet one quirk you have in this 1. parag on the word unlawfull immunities You argue if they were held by law then not un lawfull but legall I answer legall they were because allowed by mans law yet unlawful because against Gods law Your next quarrell is at the expression when the oath was framed the Church was indued by the ignorance of the times But you complain parag 2. I tell you not when this time was but what then do you not know it was in times of Poperie and do you think there was as much true light at Westminster then as now as you intimate in this parag Sure if you do you have not only a Bishop but as they say a Pope in your belly Parag. 3. You take notice that I conclude the Kings oath is invalid in these respects vinculum iniquitatis then you mention 5. particulars 4. of which you say you have quitted already but I have therein disproved you and do not you think that to exempt malefactors from trial that fled to Churches for sanctuarie and the Clergies exemptions from secular punishments which multiplied many slaughters by them as Daniel witnesseth in his story of Henry 2. pag. 83. and yet Becket Arch-Bishop of Canterbury asserted this as one of the liberties of the Church which the king had sworn to maintain pag. 84. I say did not these and such like think you flow from
allow all this and in as full words pag. 4. of Case resolved but I affirm this office by its incroachments excluding Presbyters and Canonical priviledges which it challengeth is grown burthensom instead of useful and the incumbents for the general much degenerate both neglecting the main of a Pastors office preaching and abusing their power to the hindring of it in others And for that which you add of the forfeitures of other Corporations as that of Drapers or Grocers or the City of London it self I believe if the King had conquer'd you would have been as ready as any to have impleaded the Companies of London of forfeiture for assisting in the War against him And who knows not that Corporations may and often do forfeit and lose their Charters of priviledges by abuse and misdemeanours For what you say ' of Parliaments power Parag. 6. I would you would alwaies speak so modestly By Parliamentarie power when I speak so largely I take it as containing the three estates the King the head and the Lords and Commons as the body yet I abhor to think of ascribing to them power to make that which is unjust just as I do disdain that comparison of the witness brought by me against Episcopacie to that brought against Naboth by suborned Knights of the Posts for the testimonies I brought were out of the Scripturures of Truth But Parag. 7 8 9. We have a great out-cry made but the best is it s a great deal of cry and little wooll The out-cry is at these words If King and Parliament release the engagement in the case of money the engagement were gon in law though not in equity The Order would be valid in law though in jurious First you question the validity of an Order of Parliament but you should remember I speak of an Order past by King and Parliament and that amounts to a law and later laws over-rule former Then you bid men take heed of their purses for I speak of sums of money But this is but to make a noise for you know my Opponent brought in the instance of money and I did but answer about it But the greatest out-cry is at this gon in law not in equity valid in law though injurious behold say you law without equity God bless me from such law I say so too but the Divinity is good enough by your leave For were not the Statutes in Queen Maries time laws though injurious And the Martyrs brought to a legal tryal by the Statute-laws of the Land though injurious ones This is so plain that no rational man can deny it and all the shew you make to the contrary is but from the word Jus because that properly signifies such a constitution as is just But if an unequal Statute may not be called Jus properly may it not be called Lex or a Statute-law your own word * Your self say pag. 40. Lex non obligat subditos in foro conscientiae nisi sit juste The law binds not Subjects in the Court of conscience unless it be just But then this implyes in foro humano it doth which agrees to what I say but that you have a minde to quarrel pag. 94. l. 12. shews that you are not so ignorant as not to know it nor so impudent as to deny it And therefore your accusations here of Divinity without conscience c. are Sophistical and childish or malicious whereas you say I stretch my conscience and justifie a power in the Parliament to do injury and not onely so but a power to make laws to justifie this injury It s a most false slander I say there is in King and Parliament that Peerless power that their agreement makes a law but if they stretch this to unjust things they abuse their power and become injurious and sin yet we have no plea against them in law that is in foro humano but in equity and conscience Parag. 10. You quarrel in like manner with those words So if there be no injury the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation which your dulness or passion makes you not understand and so you play the ape with them The meaning is this The King and Houses being the supream power what they ratifie stands firm and what they abolish no man can claim by any constitution of the Nation And in matters not injurious they may lawfully put this power committed to them into act Now Parag. 11. It may appear that you well understood what I meant in distinguishing between law equity in that you say What is according to law true law is lawful Why do you say true law but to note a distinction of laws Some are made by lawful authoritie and so valid in foro humano in mans Court yet that authoritie observes not the right rules of equitie but abuseth power to decree unjust things and so it is a law but not a true law that is not a law for that intent that laws were ordained to prevent injury not decree it I conclude therefore that you make these rehearsals of law without equity ad faciendum populum against your own conscience but the intelligent will see and deride this beggarly fraud Parag. 12. You harp upon the old string that an office can forfeit nothing And I grant it of such an office that is of God and of such priviledges as are necessarie or usefull but neither is Episcopacie such an office nor their large jurisdiction and great pomp such priviledges Parag. 13. Runs on the same string touching an office instituted of God which Episcopacie is not though Ministrie be And then kindly as often formerly grant the question that of priviledges perchance there may be a forfeiture where they prove prejudiciall to the publike good and so waves the question from that which is de jure of right which he hath been disputing all this while to that which is de facto of the fact of prejudice to the publike in which question how confident soever he be in the negative I must mind him that not he and the Prelates nor I that are parties but the King and Parliament must be Judges For what you say out of the great Charter Parag. 14. ' We grant to God and confirm the Church of England free c. I answer but the Bishops are not the Church you do not I hope approve that popish language they were then but a part and an unsound part being vassals to the man of sin Yet William the Conqueror did ill to appropriate Church-lands for covetousness and for it might miscarry so did they for the same cause rob the Temples of the Heathen Deities whence the proverbe Aurum Tolosanum in Aulus Gel. Noct. Attic. lib. 3. c. 9. Yet they did well that conscientiously abolish'd both Idols and Temples What you add that in strictness of Reformation Episcopacy was continued in England as most useful for the Church How this observation is connected I know not It is a suddain
take the Apostles to be the foundation is it in respect of their persons authoritie or doctrine Their doctrine I believe Sir and will you compare your Bishops for doctrine to the Apostles and Prophets Who as such were infallible Nay do you not confess the doctrinal part of the Ministerie to belong to the Presbyter as well as your Prelate and to be more performed by them and have you not made a fine proof of the fall of the Church with Bishops out of this place But you add Parag. 19. What no danger of sacriledg in robbing Father and Mother But you answer for me that it is no sacriledg because the means shall stil be setled on the Church and that 's a reason which you cannot answer For sacriledg is an alienating of that which was justly devoted for sacred to civil or prophane use therefore change so there be a continuance of holy use is no sacriledg Nor shall we rob our Father for as you confess holy treasure was first given to the Church in general The Bishops had not propriety but use of some and with the rest they were to maintain the Presbyters which are wanting in many places for want of maintenance Now for those in whom authority lyes to take care for the edification of the Church To dispose the Churches Patrimonie so as may be best for edification of the Church appointing it to maintain preachers not pomp will be counted neither sacriledg nor theft by rationall and good men But you say we rob the Church of her husband too for though a Church have 1000 Presbyters yet she hath but one husband so that great Counsell of Calcedon but that Counsell spake according to the corrupt customes of those times not according to the tenure of Scriptures who make all the Presbyters over-seers over their particular flocks to dwell with them as men of knowledg and to take care for them and that 's to be in your sence husband is it not After you have made the Church a widow without a Bishop you add while a widow she can bring forth nothing but a bastard brood consider that yes I shall consider it but to your shame what if a Church continue as often it hath through covetousness and faction long without a Bishop are all the Converts begotten by the word of truth preach'd by Prebyters bastards nay what if Churches cast off Episcopacie are all her Presbyters bastards Do you thus gratifie the Papists and abuse all the Ministers of our sister reformed Churches many of which far outstrip you in all ministeriall qualification your assertion therefore is very considerable to discover what a Popish spirit you are of For Parag. 20. Whether your conclusion will follow on the premises or mine I now leave to the judicious Reader I would not have the King for fear of the people to do any unlawfull act I disclaimed it in the very entrance of my Case resolved but I only perswade to what for ought I yet see I have proved lawfull and that to rescue a perishing kingdom and prevent the hazard of his Crown which that it may be free and flourishing on his head is my daily and heartie prayer as those that know me can very well witness notwithstanding your ignorant calumniations to the contrarie Case of Conscience Resolved MY second Antagonist exceeds the first both in subtiltie and peremptoriness for he plainly affirms that the King cannot desert Episcopacie without flat perjurie and hence falls foul both on those that would force him to it and also on those moderate Courtiers that for peace sake counsell'd it He disputes thus There 's difference between laws and oaths Where the supream Jus dominii is there is a power above all laws but not above their own oaths in whom that power is for law bindes only while it is a law that is till it be repealed But an oath bindeth as long as it pleaseth him to whom it is taken The reason is because the supream power may cedere jure suo and obliege himself where before he was free which if they do by promise justice bindes them to performance but if by an oath the matter being lawful then are they bound in religion and conscience for an oath adds a religious bond unto God If this were not so no oath were binding to them I answer First it s a ground laid down by this Author in the same place that no oath is obligatorie beyond the intention of it and then I first propound it to consideration whether the intention of this oath be not only against a tyrannous invasion on the rights of the Clergie not against an orderly alteration of them if any prove inconvenient and to protect them against violence not against legal waies of change For first this is as much as is rationall for a King to undertake and therfore in right reason the oath should have no other sense if the words of the oath will bear it as the words of this oath will Secondly this oath to the Clergie must not be intended in a sense inconsistent with the Kings oath to the people first taken for their protection in their laws and liberties for then the latter oath will be a present breach of the former and so unlawfull Now one of the Priviledges of the People is that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with the consent of the King to alter whatever in any particular estate is inconvenient to the whole And therefore he cannot afterward engage himself to any particular estate to exempt it from this power for by that oath at least cessit jure suo in this Authors judgment The Clergie and their priviledges are subject to the Parliament or they are not I hope they will not now claim an exemption from fecular power But if they be under Parliamentarie power how can it be rationally conceived to be the meaning of the Kings oath to preserve the Priviledges of the Clergie against that power to which they are legally subject or how were the oath in that sense consistent with the priviledges of the nation formerly sworn to by the king If the oath had such a sence in times of Poperie when the Clergie were a distinct Corporation yet when that exemption was abolish'd as a branch of Anti-Christian usurpation The change of their condition must needs change the intention of the oath unless they will say that the Crown stands still engaged to them to maintain such priviledges as by Act of Parliament were long since abolish'd which is to make his oath to them contrariant to that taken before for the maintenance of the laws It s apparent then to make the intention of the oath to be against a legal alteration by Parliament makes it unlawfull and so not obligatorie And if it be not intended against legall alteration the king may pass a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacie when his Houses of Parliament think it convenient and petition for it without
on both sides but when the Houses present a Petition to the king with a Bill for abolition of Episcopacie that only is the regular way that I defend the king not to be ingaged against Parag. 10. You say it was his duty to protect you while it was in his power I answer it was and is his dutie so far as it was intended in the oath but was not to hazard the destruction of himself and kingdom for your Prelates yet I advise not the breaking of his oath as you would hint but I limit the intention of the engagement of the oath as in reason it ought to be If you be not against an orderly alteration as you say Parag. 4. You grant the question for then if the Parliament lay down their swords and come with a Petition to desire his assent notwithstanding his oath he may assent which was the thing to be proved For my part I abhor force upon a king but if he might sign a Bill without force I see no reason why danger of force can make it unlawfull To Parag. 12. I say if the king hath done his best to protect them against violence they can require no more he hath done as much as his oath doth require now he may take care to preserve himself issue and people And for his Ministers let them answer for themselves CHAP. X. PARAG. 2. Shewing the right sence of the Kings Coronation-Oath from this that what he undertakes for the Bishops must not be conceived to cross what he hath promised to the people in answer to Doctor Boughen's 8. Chapter I Proceed now to answer your eight Chapter whose very Title is ominious Whether the Kings Oath taken to the Clergie be injurious to his other subjects and inconsistent with his oath to his people Hereby you would insinuate that I affirm it is whereas I affirm it cannot be conceived so to be and therefore we must not put a sence upon it to make it so to be and from this ground I impugne your false sence of the oath namely that it takes away all power from the King at the suit of his Parliament to alter any of their jurisdictions whereof they shew the grievance It s therefore a calumnious insinuation of yours that I do set the liberties of the people against the Clergies It s your false inhansing your priviledges above those of the people alterable by King and Parliament that is guiltie of the incompatibilitie of their priviledges if such an evil be and therefore I say Amen to your prayer closing Parag. 1. Parag. 2. I agree that Gods law is unalerable by man And I desire no more from you then that what is seled by man is alterable by man For I plead for alteration of no priviledg but what is from humane indulgence and that such an one too that the Church may better want it then have it in her Clergie That of Par. 3.4 Touching justness of laws may pass with some Animadversion of that of Ocham that laws nemini notabile afferant nocumentum If by nocumentum we understand dammage For the law to pull down the houses in Rome that stood in the Augurs way their principles granted was just yet it brought notable dammage to the owners but the publike good was to carrie it away So laws among us against Monopolies undid some yet the publike emolument made the law just Parag. 5.6 Are ignorant trifling or worse For first you quarrel at the phrase the protection of the peoples laws who say you made them Law-makers Not I Sir but when King and Parliament have made them they have propriety in them The priviledg of them is usually called part of their birth-right A man may call an house his own because he possesseth it and hath the benefit of it though he made it not So I call the laws the peoples But yet the following cavil is worse For whereas I say one of the priviledges of the people is that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with consent of the King to alter what ever in any estate is prejudicial to the whole I had thought say you this had not been a priviledg of the people but the Parliament Representers not the people Representees c. And again parag 6. How the Lords will take this I know not Can they endure their power to be derivative c. Which all are but trifling and odious mistakes For he might well know that by People I mean all in distinction from the King of what state soever Peers or others Nay doth not he himself take it so witness his own expression pag. 49. lin 1.2 ' Vnder this word People are comprehended the Nobility Clergy and Commons of this Kingdom How trifling then are his exceptions as though I set the people against the Parliament When under People I comprehend as himself doth all the Members of the Parliament And yet more absurd is your trifling parag 7. in arguing against those words That the Peers and Commons have power to alter whatsoever is inconvenient because it is in the Kings consent to confirm or cause a law Sith I add in the same place as you confess in parag 8. with the consent of the King and so ascribe not power of alteration without him but with him sure as they say the â—agle is hungrie when she catches at such Flies As impertinent are your questions and answers parag 8.9 But parag 10. You proceed to number up the inconveniences that will arise to the people by stripping the Clergy of their immunities But you must tye your self to the immunities in question else you say just nothing to the purpose ' First the curse for sacriledg but I have freed the alteration intended from guilt of sacriledg and therefore that is the curse causeless that shall not come If no more be done then by my case I prove lawful If any do proceed further and commit sacriledg Whether many or few young or old wittingly or ignorantlie I excuse them not but joyn in your censure parag 10.11.12 But parag 13. When the Church is stript of her means ' what kinde of Clergy shall we have Jeroboams Priests the lowest of the people say you And have we not had many such under the Bishops in their and other Lay-impropriations Nay was it not a design to fill all the Parishes in the Episcopal Cities with the Singing-men of the Cathedral Which was in a great part effected and were not they of the lowest and many times of the worst condition of the people This is like to continue and increase if the Church be farther spoiled But if the Bishops and Deans and Chapters lands be imploied to maintain Parochial Pastors this will help to fill the Church with able and learned Preachers and encourage men to dedicate their Children to the Ministery and them to imbrace it because if they be learned and unblameable there will be more opportunitie of competent though not of so great
promotion which was competible but to a few So the second inconvenience pressed parag 13.14.15 is avoided also parag 16. All the inconvenience you say that Master Geree presseth is that we are not subject to the Parliament But how far forth we are and are not we shall hear anon Parag. 17.18 You tell me I speak much of a first and ' second oath I answer if that be an error I was led into it by my first Opponent that distinguish'd between oath and oath and the oath to maintain the priviledges of the Clergie he saith expresly is taken after the oath to the whole Realm neither do I see any thing in your Analysis of the oath here or the delineation of the oath in the beginning of your Book that invalidates the expression of my Opponent in realitie though in some formalitie it doth For there I see that the King had particularly and distinctly engaged himself to the whole Realm before he came to the Bishops which are the onely part of the Clergie about whom our controversie is and what he last promises to them confirmed by his oath must not contradict what he hath promised to the other which promise must be understood to have a prioritie in order in the bond of the oath as well as in the bond of the promise Parag. 19. You speak of sending us to Magna Charta to know who the People and Commons of this Kingdom are c. whith only fills up so much paper being nothing to the question in hand But Parag. 20. You reckon up the Priviledges of the Church as you have gleaned them out of Magna Charta and Sir Edward Cook in number 8. The second is that no Ecclesiasticall person be amerced according to the value of his Ecclesiasticall benefice but according to his lay-tenement and according to the quality of his offence The latter clause is reason the former a priviledg without reason and prejudiciall to the Civill state and gives many Ecclesiastical persons leave to sin impunè The fourth That all Ecclesiasticall persons shall enjoy all their lawfull jurisdictions and other rights wholly without any diminution or substraction whatsoever I pray you if the Kings Coronation-oath engage so to the confirmation of this priviledg that the king cannot consent to allow it by Act of Parliament how can that act be justified that enables the Crown of England to appoint what persons else they will to execute all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in this kingdom If that statute were lawfully made notwithstanding this oath why then may not another statute be made against their standing sith by the former they may be made unusefull and yet the former you brag you have engaged your selves to maintain in your oath of supremacie Parag. 9. The fifth priviledg you name is that a Bishop is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of justice in causes Ecclesiasticall Whence I gather that by our law a Bishop is a kings creature no Apostle for he was the immediate Officer of Christ though subject in doing or suffering to the Civill Magistrate though heathen You conclude that it is provided by act of Parliament that if any judgment be given contrary to any points in the great Charter it shall be holden for nought c. True unless it be upon some particular statute of a latter Parliament with the king enacting things to the contrarie Parag. 21. You say that I go forward as if it were certain that this to the Clergie was a severall oath from that to the people I answer I disputed upon my opponents proposals and learned opponents do not use to make their cause worse then it is nor indeed doth he for though the king swear but once yet he ptomiseth the things he sweareth severally and the promise of this to the Bishops in question is last and therefore in competition must give way to other engagements neither do the statutes for confirmation of Magna Charta binde the hands of succeeding Parliaments Whose hands as the leaaned Chancellor Bacon observes cannot be bound by their Predecessors if they see reason of alteration a supream and absolute power saith he cannot conclude it self Hist of H. 7. p. 145. CHAP. X. PARAG. 3. Shewing that the Clergie are equally under the Parliament as well as Laytie in answer to Doctor Boughen's 9. Chapter I Now come to answer your ninth Chapter which is an angrie one which makes me think that you were sorely puzled My Dilemma is They are subject to the Parliament or they are not He answers subject they are to the Parliament consisting of head and members not to the members alone without the head for we are subject to the members only for the heads sake Truly this grant is all that I desire or need for the Parliament I propose the Dilemma about is that which consists of head and members united to which if they be subject then may these joyntly determine of any of their priviledges in their own nature alterable as they do of those of the people Indeed the King and Parliament ought not to take away any priviledges that are for edification but such as prove impediments rather but of that they are to be Judges in the application of their power and that 's all needfull to be said to parag 1 2 3 4 5. And yet I leave it with confidence to the judicious Reader as also what I have said in the former Paragraph touching a former and latter oath But whereas you ask Parag. 6. with what face I can say that the Kings oath to the Clergie is inconsistent with his oath to the people parag 6. I wonder with what face you can aver it when as I directly say it must not and therefore take off an interpretation of it that would make it inconsistent whereas you say the nation is weary of the Presbyterian government in three years it s but a piece of none-sence sith this three years except a little liveless shew in the City of London and some few places more the truth is and our miserie is that we have been under no Ecclesiasticall government at all Parag. 7. You mention my words if the oath had such a sence when the Clergie were a distinct Corporation on which you spend your judgment if you know what sence is Truly Sir you are the worst at picking out sence that ever I knew of a D. D. My meaning is plain if the oath had a sence to exempt them from power of Parliament it must be when they were a distinct Corporation under another Supremacie which now you disclaim Parag. 8. You mistake in saying I am zealous in distinguishing you and your Priviledges I answer to the distinction brought by my opponent that it is not such but that the Priviledges of Clergie and People I mean such as are alterable are equally under Parliamentarie power for alteration on just grounds And the kings oath to you is as obligatorie as to the people in the right
sence and intention of it which the review of the Covenant saith is all the obligation of an oath Parag. 9. You speak about the change of the condition of the Clergie as though the intent were to make it slavery Sure Sir it s far from my intent The English Laytie are not slaves He that saith the Priviledges of the English Clergie that they hold by law are inviolable to them while the law remains but that the laws concerning them are alterable makes them not slaves but equall in freedom to any English Lay-subject But Parag. 10. You would pretend to a little subtiltie for you say the change of the Clergies condition from Popery to Protestancy was for the better or for the worse I answer undoubtedly for better morally for now we are in Christs way Let every soul be subject c. Rom. 13.1 Then we were in Anti-Christs way but yet in a civill respect we have not such exemptions or liberties as we had we are more under uncivil power but this is for the better for that libertie that is without Gods leave is not indeed a priviledg but a snare to the partie holding it I confess with you that the intent of the Kings oath was to protect his subjects in their severall places dignities and degrees and not to suffer them to oppress one another but not to deny any Bill that upon advisement shall be presented and manifested to conduce to the weal publique You proceed Parag. 11. The intention of the oath is to maintain the ancient legall and the just rights of the Clergie I have answered it is to maintain them against illegall oppression but not against legall alteration that you should prove but do not The continual practice of the nation is with me wherein by divers statutes many Canonical Priviledges have been altered as 25. H. 8. all Canonicall Priviledges contrariant to the Kings Prerogative and civil laws and 1 of Elizabeth in giving power to the Crown to exercise all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction by whom she will appoint and this is all that I affirm that Priviledges are alterable by an orderly way in Parliament and therefore you may take the Ghostly Fathers place to the man of sin which you would bequeath to me you are fitter to serve the Pope then I you hold no Bishop no Church but such passions I look at but as winchings when an argument pincheth For Parag. 12. I consent to Sir Edward Cook in his opinion of the Kings engagement to maintain the rights and inheritance of the Church nor is he against my limitation for it s known what his opinion was of the power of Parliaments That they might alter what ever they saw inconvenient to publikeweal In your parag 12. You wilfully slander me that I would perswade the Laytie that the Clergies weal is their woe I only affirm that if all such Priviledges of the Clergie that are in their nature alterable be made unalterable by the kings oath that let the kingdom sink or swim the King cannot consent by Act of Parliament to alter them then are they inconsistent with the people and this I say again And I am carried thereto by evidence of truth and not any caninus appetitus after wealth and honour Those that know me will but laugh at your rashness in these mistaken calumnies The former part of your 14. Parag. is passionate non-sense the latter part is a contradiction for you say if this oath be not against legall alteration in the true and literal sense c. The King may not without violation of his oath pass a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacie What I pray you is legall alteration of any thing here in England but alteration by consent of the King and Parliament How can this oath then if it be not against a legall alteration be against an alteration by Bill in Parliament which is the only legall alteration of Priviledges founded on law in England you are the strangest opponent that ever I met with you make nothing of giving the cause and railing at me for carrying it To as little purpose is all you conclude with parag 15. Whereas I say he may pass a Bill you wonder I say not he must pass a Bill you add I say that which is equivalent He cannot now deny consent without sin but yet Sir this must arise not from any authoritie of the Houses but from the condition of the King to preserve or restore peace to his kingdoms For the kings negative voice I alwaies asserted it as well as you both in word and writing but I affirm he hath power of an affirmative voice to confirm any thing that is for good of his people which he hath not nor ought not to swear away It may be you will say true if abolition of Episcopacie were for the good of the nation I answer that 's to pass to another question and to grant this in hand but besides the King and Parliament are to judg of the goodness of it for the nation and if they erre they are answerable to God alone Case of Conscience resolved SEcondly I answer from the expressions of the oath it self as they are set down by the same Author pag. 74. To protect the Bishops and their Priviledges to his power as every good king in his kingdom ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under their government Here you see the engagement of the king is but to his power as every good King ought in right to protect c. Now such power is no further then he can do it without sinning against God and being injurious to the rest of his people When then he hath interposed his authoritie for them and put forth all the power he hath to preserve them if after all this he must let them fall or support them with the bloud of his good subjects and those unwilling too to engage their lives for the others priviledges I think none need question but that he hath gone to the extent of his power and as far as good Kings are bound in right for it is not equall to engage the lives of some to uphold the honours of others That were to be cruel to many thousands to be indulgent to a few Suppose a king put a Commander into a City and give him an oath to maintain the Priviledges of it and keep it for him to his power and this Commander keeps this town till he hath no more strength to hold it unless he force the Townes-men to arms against that priviledg which he hath sworn to maintain If this Governor now surrender this town upon composition doth he violate his oath I think none will affirm it Such is the case with the king in this particular when he hath gone as far in their protection as is consistent with the weal of other his liege people which he is sworn to tender he hath protected them to his power and his obligation is no further by the
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
the suffering of the Clergie all Families suffer you substitute Clergie for Bishops Other of the Clergie may be in better condition by the removall of Lording Bishops but in your proof that one of the Tribe of Judah of the most remarkable Family turn'd Priest That is so gross an oversight that it is most unbeseeming a D. D. for its expresly said that young man was a Levite by birth And the argument of Micah plainly proves him so or else he had been in no better case with him then with one of his own sons whom he had consecrated if that would have made a Priest See Judg. 17. v. 5.13 The Levite indeed turned Priest which was his wickedness for a Levite was not to do the Priests office There is indeed an ambiguous expression touching this Levite v. 7. A young man of Bethlehem Judah of the family of Judah But if you had consulted Interpreters you would have found them generally agreeing that he was a Levite though differing in their opinions how he was of the family of Judah Some saying by his Mother some referring it to the City to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in Zabulon c. You add parag 8. What if Magna Charta do obliege all to stand up for the due observation of these priviledges then we must acknowledg that we are bound to obey his Majesty commanding c. Still you alter the question for the question is Whether it can be supposed equal that the King should stand bound to engage the lives of many for the priviledges of a few Lord Bishops I hope you think it not the meaning of Magna Charta that every one should engage their lives for every paltrie priviledg of another But it s well you can now confess that Magna Charta is a great and justly magnified Charter If you and your Prelates had been of this minde formerly and not been so deep in breaking and countenancing the breach of it in others by illegal imprisonments impositions fines both of Laytie and Clergie England might have scap'd this cannensem calamitatem this mine-threatning calamitie under which it is readie to expire to which the breaches of Magna Charta gave the first occasion and the fairest colour Parag. 2. You make an objection touching Abbots and Priors provided for by the same Charter yet since taken away by act of Parliament which you confess But first you you would have us observe how they prospered that did it Secondly that Master Beza and my self call it sacriledg We do so and that we judge the cause why they prosper'd not that did it because they did it with that sinful circumstance of devouring holy things which shewed also their want of sinceritie in it Thirdly you say that they are for it stiled enemies of our Sovereign But they did not hear it they were born long after the Statute of 25. Edward 3. Fourthly you cite the Counsel of Chalcedon that no consecrated Monastery may be turned to a secular dwelling I answer Counsels may erre and so may that of Chalcedon if the profit of the house had been imployed for pious uses I see no ground of complaint or censure Fiftly you say you hope I will make a difference between our Saviours institution and mans invention Truely I do and have proved Diocesan-Bishops to be no institution of Christ but man in the foregoing Discourse And lastly I joyn With the wishes of those pious men and move as you know not a devouring but a diversion of Chathedrals maintenance Besides what is requisite to maintain needful preaching there to procure and encourage able Parochial Pastors who are the undoubted Ordinance of Jesus Christ all the Land over Parag. 10. You do but beat the same bush again in citing again Magna Charta I confess the kings engagement to maintain the Priviledges of the Clergie so far as he is bound by right nor is any act of the king or the Houses without the king valid against it but king and Parliament joyning they may over-rule some parts of it and upon just ground warrantably as appears in all experience as in paring Episcopall Canonical priviledges niminishing their jurisdiction by the high Commission annext to and set over Bishops c. Parag. 11. You enquire Whether it be equall to engage the lives of some to destroy the honours of others This is impertinent to my Case and though I count not your Bishops plantations of Gods right hand yet sith they had footing by law it hath been my grief that force hath been used to pluck them up for me they should have stayed for his day who hath said every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up but when I have made complaint of this it hath been replyed to me by many that this was not the cause of the engagement in war though I believe the most considerable part of the people had an eye on this but this is on the by Parag. 12 13. You take into consideration my Case of a Captain engaged by oath to maintain the Priviledges of Townes-men and keep a town to his power whether he may not notwithstanding his oath make his composition if he cannot defend it without the Townes-men and they will not fight without violation of his oath I think none will affirm it You do not only deny it but take the Name of God in vain to make a jeer at it doth that become a Divine But let 's hear your reason because there 's no town in England can have such a priviledg as not to bear arms against the Kings enemies Suppose it be so I am no Lawyer yet you know it s not unusuall in cases to suppose things that are not so they be not impossible as this is not for the king may grant such an immunitie if he please that none shall be compell'd to bear arms and therefore it was but a shift that error in the Case may be easily mended and it will pinch the Doctor as hard as ever it did for suppose that so many of the souldiers in the town are slain or taken prisoners that the Governour can defend it no longer then I hope Mr. Doctor will yield that he may make his composition so was it with the king at the publishing my small Treatise and now notwithstanding my former fails as he saith Parag. 14. for want of skill in law the difficulty is returned on the Doctor get out how he can I make an Objection that though the king cannot in such a state uphold them yet it is in his power not to consent to their fall this I say is the only exception The Doctor saith its a just one though not the only one yet he shews no other but then he is angry for the phrase peremptoriness in denying assent to the fall of Bishops used to the King as uncivil I am no Courtier I confess and may fail in phrase yet peremptoriness in a candid sense is no more then
Parliament is the supream Court by which all other Courts which derive their power for execution of laws from the King by his Commissioners are to be regulated and the King and the Parliament are the supream power to make and disanul laws Sith then this supremum jus Dominij that is over all laws is not in the King He cannot lawfully make any engagement to any against the laws and legal rites of others for that were not cedere jure suo sed alieno This oath then to the Clergie cannot engage him against the legal priviledges of the people or the Parliament which he is bound to maintain one of which is to be readie by confirming needful Bills to relieve them from whatsoever grievance they suffer from any And thus I think the Case is sufficiently cleared that notwithstanding the Kings oath to the Clergie at his Coronation he may consent to the extirpation of Prelacie out of the Church of England CHAP. XII Wherein it is cleared that though the King be the Supream Magistrate yet that supremacy which is over all laws is in this Kingdom not in the King alone but in the King and Parliament in Answer to Doctor Boughen's 17. Chapter I Come now to your last Chapter entituled Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdom But why not as wel three You know I make three supremacies but two fitted your Bow better which you had prepared to shoot your Arrows in even bitter words But I shal let you see that as there is more vapour so more vanitie and lightness in this then in any other Chapter and some of it against your own words and I believe more of it against your own light First you begin to tell me That I blame them that set up two supremacies and yet cannot see the beam in my own eye and then calumniate at pleasure Yet all is but winde I blame them that set up two absolute supremacies that had power to make laws independantly one of another onely the Clergie had the better end of the staff for the Laytie must be subject to their laws but they would be exempt from the Layties This I condemned out of Marsilus Patavinus as an enemy to quiet because such were alwaies apt and usually in act clashing one against another But the supremacies that I speak of cannot cross one another so no danger of disturbance Again Doctor in sober sadness do you not know a difference between a supremacy and the Supremacie A D. D. cannot be so ignorant You cannot chuse but have learned the difference between absolute summum and summum secundùm quid Chiefs in some respect may be many chief absolutely but one and when I say a Supremacie did not that hint to you onely a Supremacie secundum quid in some respect onely and yet more expresly when I call it the supream Court that is supream not absolute but in respect of judicature there lies an appeal from all Courts to it by petition but from it to none Is not this a Supremacie Nay do not you your self ascribe as much to it when you say This I say that the Parliament is Curia Capitalis the supream Court of this Kingdom Your own words pag. 136. if Supream there 's supremacie quicquid dicitur de in est in it cannot be denominated supream but there is supremacie in it in some respect denominatio fit ab inhaesione did you not then cavil against conscience at a supremacie in the Parliament and raise dust to darken the light Parag. 2. After a light quirk misbecoming a D. D. you ask Whether this be not against the oath of supremacy Wherein we swear that the Kings highness is the onely supream Governour of this Land c How are my positions against this oath Do not I ascribe to the king to be the onely Supream Magistrate You that could play with summum and supremus Can you tell us a difference between Magistrate and Governour If not he that asserts the King the supream Magistrate reacheth the sence of that oath which maketh him supream Governour Therefore I need fear no humane penalties against perjurie for this No Doctor I hope once the Lord will not hold him guilty will more make me dread perjurie then all other penalties Parag. 3. you say I clip his Majesties wings and say that the supremum jus Dominij which is above laws figere refigere is not in the King to say it is in him is in our State a manifest error What 's become of the oath of Supremacy then say you Safe enough say I The King remains still supream Governour he is said to be onely so in government which notes execution of laws and so doth the phrases Ecclesiastical and Civil but you say in your estate it is no error Sure Sir in King Charles his Kingdom of England it is an error in which assertion I should not have been so peremptory at first nor now had I not received this light from his own pen in his answer to the Parliaments 19. Propositions sent to him in York-shire where first he tels them that the experience Col. of Remonst and pag. 320. 321. and wisedom of their Ancestors hath so moulded our government out of a mixture of all the three viz. absolute Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy as to give to this Kingdom as far as humane providence can provide the conveniences of all three without the inconveniences of any one c. And then a little after In this Kingdom the laws are joyntly made by a King by an House of Peers and by an House of Commons chosen by the people all having free votes and particular priviledges The government according to these laws is trusted to the King c. Have not I now followed my copy right the supream power to make laws is Aristocrati cal in three States free to vote and the King the supream Magistrate to execute laws One would think if this would not make you blush for what is past yet it may stop your mouth for future and I need not say no more on this point yet I will give a little touch to shew the vanitie of your flourishes Your Parag. 4. Is a meer flash attended with the sparkles of light calumnies For I have not made one of two I yet leave one absolute Supaemacie as you confess in the next parag the Supremacie to make and unmake laws This is neither in King nor Houses apart but conjoyned Here then we are fallen back to one Supremacie Why did you then trifle so much about two But this say you is to skip from Monarchie to Aristocracie just as his Majestie hath told you in this government there 's a mixture its Aristocratical in Legis lation Monarchical for execution and therein is the excellency of it the one being fittest for Law-making by solidity the other for execution by celeritie and yet this D.D. jeers as though this was never seen before because he wanted eyes But
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
two Supremacies for so it was before Henry 8. and so it s exprest in my Case and where I pray you is such a distinction exprest to be continued since Henry the 8th You cannot shew it nor doth any thing that you bring Parag 8. or 9. conclude it distinct they were but not so distinct but still they and their priviledges were under the power of the same Supremacie as your self confess Parag. 10 11. where your insinuation against me of seting up two Supremacies is but a flash for I shall shew in the last Chapter that the Supremacie I give to the Parliament is not absolute but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and two such are not inconsistent neither doth such respective Supremacie make the Parliament lawless or subject to no power and for your closing question Where then are the two Supremacies that you erect I answer I affirm it was so but now it is abolisht and so I charge not you with it but infer that being equally under one Supremacie that one Supremacie hath equal power over the priviledges of both which was the thing to be proved Neither do I deny what you affirm parag 12 13. That there are two distinct jurisdictions in our Land under the same head Neither do I denie de facto but a Bishop by the standing laws is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of Justice in causes Ecclesiastical But the querie is whether this be so unalterable that the King and Parliament may not put it to a companie of Presbyters Which you have not yet disproved Whether covetousnes and ambition be more amongst Prelates then Presbyters whom you accuse God must judge But whether they be not like to rest more among those that would ingross all then among those that would have jurisdiction and maintenance divided men may easily judge For what you say parag 14. of Timothy and Titus I formerly proved them to be Evangelists and what they had extraordinarie to be ceas'd what they have ordinary to rest in Pastors who are Presbyter-Bishops the highest ordinarie Officers For that saying of Cyprian Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur I would have you reconcile it with that 1 Cor. 3.11 Other foundation can no man lay then that which is layd Jesus Christ We acknowledg de facto in Cyprians time that the acts of the Church were ruled by the Bishops but that as Jeroms tells you was by humane custome not Divine disposition nor was it without Presbyters as you would have it who therefore are as far from the government of his times as we what you quote after may be but the heat of a Bishop to whom we oppose Saint Ierem on Titus 1. and Phil. 1. What you cite out of Ignatius is spoken as upon search I finde onely of that Bishop as he then stood Orthodox in opposition to some cursed weeds or Hereticks of the devils planting but when the Bishop was an Heretick as you know in many places it often fell out would they have been blessed or cursed that held with the Bishop think you For what you add touching the privileges of Clergy For the most part you falsly calumniate me that I seek to ruine them you know I call the alieanation of their means Sacriledg neither do I envie any of their just priviledges but this is that which I have in hand whereas there be two sorts of priviledges some Divine some humane I question onely whether those humane priviledges separable from the offices appointed by Christ in his word such as the Monarchie of one above all other may not upon advisement for the good of the Republique admit of alteration as well as Laypriviledges Therefore you slander me grosly in objecting that I would take away all honour from the Ministery that the Scriptures by prophesie or precept have given to them But you on the contrarie egregiously abuse the Scripture in applying what the Scripture saith by way of honour or priviledg of the Ministerie that is of Apostles Prophets Evanglists and Presbyter-Bishops which onely are the Scriptures Bishops to a few Diocesans Creatures whom the holy page never knew And so you-sleight the generalitie of Pastors to exalt a few Lord-Bishops Constantines affection was pious to the Ministers of Christ But the Bishops he honoured so were men of another condition then those you plead for they lorded it not in the Church without the joynt help of their Presbyters in government And further if there were not some error of the times in some of the honours which he gave how came they so quickly to fall together by the ears for Primacie And to give occasion to that observation That when their Chalices were wooden the Bishops were golden but the Bishops became woodden when their Chalices became golden Sure the general abuse gives occasion to suspect some error in expression of those affections But I hope I have said enough to let the intelligent Reader see how far that assertion that I maintain to prooure peace and safetie to Church and Kingdom ready to perish by an unnatural war is from detracting from any just or useful respect commanded from the people to the Ministers if faithful though the meanest Pastours which I know and people will finde God will reward as done to himself But one thing is not unworthy notice in parag 8. Where you say Paul willeth the Philippians to receive Epaphroditus their Apostle or Bishop and also chargeth them to hold such in reputation Consider I pray you had not the Philippians then other such as Epaphroditus else why doth he give them charge of others of like quality And may you not thence see that Epaphroditus was no singular Bishop but such an one as might have other Presbyters his fellows in like honours Case of Conscience Resolved VVHo knows not that one of the priviledges of the Clergie was for the Bishops to sit and vote in the House of Peers yet that is abolisht as incongruous to their calling And then why may not the removall of their Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be consented to as well if it prove inconvenient and prejudicial to the Church The abolition of the one is no more against the oath then of the other CHAP. VI. Answering Doctor Boughens explanations for the removall of Bishops out of the House of Lords in his 12. chapter I Proceed now to examine your 12. Chapter spent most upon the Theam whether it be incongruous to the calling of Bishops to sit and vote in Parliament And here you are very passionate but I must first tell you your passionate follie falls more foul on King and Parliament then me for I do but render the reason given by them in effect in the very statute * Anno 17. Car. R. An act for disabling all persons in holy Orders to exercise any temporall jurisdiction or authority The words are these whereas Bishops and other persons in holy orders ought not to be intangled with secular jurisdiction the office of the
Ministery being of such great importance that it will take up the whole man and that it is found by long experience that their intermedling with secular jurisdictions hath occasioned great mischief and scandall both to Church and State His Majestie out of his religious care of the Church and souls of his people is graciously pleased that it be enacted And by authority of this Parliament be it enacted that no Arch-Bishop c. shall have any seat or place suffrage or voice or use or execute any power or authority in the Parliament of this Realm Now hath my phrase done any more then express the reason given for abolition in this Statute by King and Parliament while therefore you rave so at me doth not all more properly light on them I may therefore say as sometimes Moses who am I Your murmurings are not against me but against king and Parliament But you question whether they were not thrust out to make way for these civill broyles The Incendiaries knew well enough that those messengers and makers of peace would never have passed a vote for war I answer they should be makers of peace but have they been so indeed of late I pray who occasioned the war by Liturgie illegally put upon the Scots but Prelates who put on the king to raise an Army against them more then Prelates You know * Bishop Bath and Wells to excite his Clergy to contribute who called it Bellum Episcopale Who put on the king to break his first pacification with the Scots but Prelates Then oaths were no ingagements with them when against Prelates But now the kings oath must be cryed up to keep them up but you should remember Quicquid fit propter deum fit aequaliter which hints the hypocrisie of your pretences of renderness of an oath in this case if you had not the same tenderness in the other case Then Parag. 2. You tell an Apocrypha tale of the outcries of some Clothiers that occasioned the making of that statute as though men would believe your traditional tale before the express words of king and Parliament contained in the act Parag. 3.4 You inquire why it is incongruous to the calling of Bishop to sit and vote in the House of Peers and raise imaginary reasons and confute them looking over that in the statute That Bishops and other persons in holy orders ought not to be intangled in secular jurisdiction and this is grounded on Scripture 2 Tim. 2. comparing v. 4. 7. and more expresly speak the Apostles and you make Bishops Apostles It is not reason we should leave the Word of God Act. 6.2 and serve tables 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza and the vulgar non est aequum See how the grounds mentioned by king and Parliament in the statute are grounded on Scripture But Parag. 5. You would prove that there could be no incongruity between their calling and voting in the House of Peers by Scripture For then Melchizedeck that was both King and Priest had never been a type of our Saviour It doth not follow for he was therefore a type to shew that Christ should be both king and Priest but his kingdom was not of this world he would not intangle himself with the affairs of this life and divide inheritances Again you bring the example of Moses and Eli who were extraordinary persons as though God doth not things extraordinarily that are incongruous ordinarily as to make Deborah and Huldah Prophetesses But Joash thrived so long as he followed Jehojada the high Priest as though a good Bishop cannot give good counsell to a king unless he sit and vote among Peers You tell us also how some of our Kings prospered by their Counsels Is it not as easie to tell you of a Bishop that preached my head aketh to usher in the dethroning of a king to tell you how R. 2. was undone by the unpolitique counsell of the pious Bishop of Carlile which shews that usually the best Bishops are the worst States men Parag. 6. You add a wonder it is that my faction spies this incongruity which was never discerned by the wisest of our fore-fathers See you not how you call king and Parliament a faction whose sense I exprest If I had been so rude what out-cries should we have had of blaspheming and spitting in the face of authority Of the same nature are other your foolish arguings parag 7.8 about the writ of summons to Parliament as though the Supremacie being in king and Parliament they cannot change the state of the Parliament and so of the writ And therefore all your strange language doth not only question the integrity of king and Parliament in their expression and their wisdom in making but their power in performing which insolency whether it deserve words to answer let the reader judg and this same answer will also take off your 13. parag What you say parag 9. touching the sufficiency of Bishops for this work is not of validity to infer the conclusion which you would have are they more able to vote in Parliament then the Apostles to serve tables have they not a sphear as Ministers that will swallow up all their abilities why should they then any more then the Apostles leave their spiritual work for secular imployments What you add touching David parag 10. that he err'd for want of the presence and advice of the Priests and suffered but after he calls for the Priests and acknowledgeth his error c. This is true and yet withall his fault was not in not having the Priests at first but not using them as he should they drove the cart whereon it was instead of carrying it on their shoulders neither is it mentioned that they discovered the error to him but he to them having it as it seems by divine revelations on his humiliation and prayer 1 Chron. 15.2 But may there not be the Counsell and advice of Divines to a Parliament in matters of God unless they sit and vote with Peers in matters secular May they not in a Convocation or Assembly advise in matter of religion where they shall keep the sphear of Divinitie and meddle with nothing Heretogeneal to their calling So your reasonings parag 11 12. are too weak to infer votes with Peers For your statute Parag. 14. I know not what to say to it because I know not where to finde it But do you bring this to involve this king and Parliament under a curse and blame me for a moderate and necessary expression of vinculum iniquitatis Turp◠est Doctori c. What you say Parag. 15. Of the benefit of good Bishops as Ministers of the Gospel I assent to it but neither of the places speak as having them Ministers of State A King and Parliament may have the blessing of faithful Bishops by their preaching and prayers without their votes and presence among Peers yea more then with it for that usually makes them too great to preach in season and