Presbyters and gives not so much as any hint of any singular Bishops but the company of Presbyters or Bishops over the Church of God vid. Blond Apol. pro sanct Hieron p. 11 12. Polycarpe in an Epistle to the Philippians Be ye subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ and here you see but two offices and therefore yet the Presbyters ruled the Church in Common Blond ubi supra p. 14 1â— where many more witnesses may be seen And in this the Master of the Sentences consents too lib. 4. Dist 24. de Presbyteris unde Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuêre quia illud est nomen dignitatis non aetatis and a little after excellenter tamen canones duos tantùm sacros ordines appellari censent Diaconatus scilicet Presbyteratus quia hos solos primitiva ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli habemus Thesis 11. Amongst these Bishops or Presbyters there was one who by the consent of the rest either by their free election or for his priority in conversion and ordination had a preheminence of honour above the rest for order-sake who had no new ordination or none for a great while but what he had from his fellow-fellow-Presbyters who chose him and exalted him without any further ado So Hierom ep 85. ad Evagrium which he confirms from Alexandria For saith he Alexandriae c. At Alexandria even to Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops The Elders did always name one Bishop chosen out of themselves and by them placed in excelsiori gradu in an higher degree of honour not office Now whether in their choice they did only look at merit or whether they did a good while till as * Ambrose or Hilary on the Ephesians Quia primâ—m Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur c. For he calls Timothy who was created a Presbyter by him a Bishop because at first Presbyters were called Bishops that one with-drawing another did succeed but because the following Presbyters were found unworthy to hold that primacy the way was changed a Counsel providing that not order of time but merit should make the Bishop constituted by the judgement of many Presbyters lest an unworthy man should rashly usurp it and be a scandal to many Ambrose saith it proved inconvenient advance him that was the next senior it is argued both waies though in my opinion Blundel hath made it most probable that according to Ambrose his expression it went by senioritie for certain yeers in his preface to the fore-cited Book Some think it went by senioritie in some places and by election in others Thesis 11. This preheminency that one had above the rest was by Ecclesiastical custom not by Divine institution and advanc'd him onely to an higher degree or dignity not to another order distinct from his fellow-fellow-Presbyters so that still he must derive his succession from the Presbyters or Bishops that were to be ordained in every Church and is to finde his place in the divine Catalogue of officers Ephes 4.11 under astors and not Evangelists or Prophets That this preheminence was not from any divine institution but Ecclesiastical ordination Jerom is express The Bishops must know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custome then Divine disposition Hieron in Tit. So Augustine ep 19. Although according to the words of honour which the Churches use hath obtained Episcopacy is greater then Presbytery c. Yet See bere the precedencie of Bishops is an honour of words and a fruit of use And this may be further cleared from what was first done in conferring this preheminence It was but a bare act of the rest of the Presbyters as appears by the example brought by Hierom in the Church of Alexandria They chose out of themselves and set him in an higher degree This they did of themselves and by themselves without any Divine command Let it be produced if there be any yea without any example in any of the Churches in the Scripture and they did it by themselves without the concurrence of other and they could not set him in an higher order Presbyters cannot make an Apostle Thirdly this may appear from that little difference that was between such a Bishop and a Presbyter in the fathers times Chrysost Theophylact Hilary on 1 Tim. 3. Inquiring the reason why the Apostle passeth from directions about Bishops to directions about Deacons no mention being made of a Presbyter Give answer First Hilary or Ambrose Quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus Because of an Elder and a Bishop there is but one ordination both are Presbyters but a Bishop is first And Chysostom Because a Presbyter doth so little differ from a Bishop to wit in nothing but ordination saith he In nothing but election saith Theophylact Now where the difference is so little that one direction for qualification will serve for both there is plainly acknowledged a difference in dignity or degree of excellencie onely not in order or office That conceit then of Theodorets that they that are now called Bishops were heretofore called Apostles and those that are now called Presbyters were then i. e. in the Apostles times called Bishops is it self too groundless a fancie for you Doctor Boughen to ground your distinction of Apostle-Bishops and Presbyter-Bishops as though our now Bishops were Apostle-Bishops and so of an higher Order and indued by that order from Jesus Christ to many peculiar acts which a Presbyter could not do And that they are not only an higher degree of Presbyter-Bishops indued with power by humane wisdome to proceed and order those actions which by divine right belong to all their fellow-Presbyters who are to joyn with them in these acts of jurisdictions This distinction I say of yours it hath no bottom to bear it up Vide Morton Appl. Cathol l. 1. c. 33. Crim. tertia For first you see its directly contrary to Hierome and Ambrose or Hilary and many others who make Bishops in their times to be the same with Presbyters or Presbyter-Bishops as you call them Nay it differs from other Fathers who though they acknowledg not an Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter yet they take that which you say is spoken of a Presbyter-Bishop 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. of such Bishops as were in their time which you would have to be Apostle-Bishops 3. It hath no ground in Scripture The Scriptures sets no other orders but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers which are those Presbyter-Bishops spoken of Acts 14.23 Acts 20.28 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. Now the three first are extraordinarie and ceas'd the latter only remain And therefore the Bishop for what of him is divine must be a Pastor and that 's the same with a Presbyter-Bishop else shew us some institution for him To talk of Timothy and Titus is vain being it is witnessed by Scripture confes'd by all that they were
orbi commune saith Beza in respon ad Sarav de grad Minist pag. ult But who knows not the great defect amongst us of congruous maintenance for Parochiall Pastors by whom the work of the Ministrie is chiefly to be performed And if those large revenues of the Prelates were directed to supply with sufficient maintenance all the defective Parishes in England there would be no danger of sacriledg And this would not be to ruine but to rectifie the devotion of former ages and turn pomp into use and impediments into helps A work for which following generations should not need to pitie the king as put upon it by misfortune but rise up and call him blessed whose many other disasters ended in so good and usefull a work Had the motives of Henry the 8. been as honest to cast off Papall jurisdiction as the act was holy and the improvement of Abbey lands as conformable to divine law as the dissolution of Abbeys to the rules of Divine wisdom He might not only have been honourable in our Annals but if I may so speak a Saint in our Calender It was the circumstances of actions in themselves glorious which made them a dishonour to him though advantagious to the Church which circumstances being avoided in the thing in question God and good men will highly approve it which is the only reall and regardable honour Thus far my first opponent CHAP. IX Wherein is shewed that the converting of Bishops Lands to maintain preaching-Ministers would not be sacriledg but a good work in answer to Doctor Boughen's 15. Chapter I Come now to answer to your 15. Chapter wherein you dispute the Case whether it be lawfull to confer Bishops Lands on Presbyters and first you say the Church is like our Saviour Christ between two theeves Independents and Presbyterians but neither of them for our Saviour But the best of it is your tongue is no slander for if preaching Christ be being for Christ I dare boldly affirm that the most of either of those that dislike Episcopacie are far more for Christ then you and your Prelates a few only excepted and of them the more they be for Christ the less violent usually for Bishops especially for your Apostle-Bishops which they account a fancie After you say I like theft so I and my fellow Presbyterians may be gainers but your position is false I abhor theft as much as you do nor do I look at the gain of my self or Presbyterians but of the Church of God for I am no pluralist whatever D. B. is nor do I nor many other Presbyters expect any more means if this should be but that the Church may have more Presbyters apt to rule well and labour in the word and doctrine and be examples to the flock we having found in experience that scandalous livings occasion scandalous Ministers And this we think is in the power of king and Parliament to do without theft The revenues annext to Cathedrals being intended for the best good of the Church But Parag. 2. You acknowledg I am against sacrilegious alienation but I and Master Beza cannot prevent it Who can help it We have cleared our own souls yet if the Prelates would have consented to resignation when this case was first presented I verily believe that dishonourable alienation had been prevented Parag. 3. You confess I would fain set a fair gloss upon a detestable fact But every thing is not detestable which you call so that which would tend to have Christ more preacht would be profitable to the Church and acceptable to God For Ordination we have spoken before and shewed that Presbyters have as much power from God to ordain as your Prelates and are as good Bishops onely the other by custom gradatim have rob'd them We shall have a choyce peece when you come to examine Divine right I shall wish the Divines to be more careful to provide patience to bear your railings then perspicacity to discern your subtilties For you are not like to trouble their heads with much of the latter Parag. 4. You say If there be a diversion of the waintenance who shall make the conveyance and When it s made it s not valid without the proprietary and that is God c. and what is separated to holy use cannot return to common Good but what is given to God may be improved to the utmost for God and that 's the aim and would be the issue of the diversion â—poken of that Christ might more preach'd even to those that have long sate in darkness and in the shadow of death Nor is every diversion as you say Parag. 5. a turning â—out of the right channel But out of the former channel and the latter may be better and so righter in regard of the chief intentions of the Donor And this done by the unquestionable authority of the Land will I doubt not be approv'd by as wise and as honest men as you Do not you your self pag. 119. say concerning Abbies and Pryories That good and pious men have wisht that the abuses had been pruned off and that the land had been disposed of according to the Donors intentions What 's that but diversion from the corrupt way of Abbeys and Pryoryes to support other pious and charitable uses Parag. 6 7 8. You tell us a story of the antiquity of endowing Churches and the riches of them And that the use and Dominion of Church-goods belong'd to Bishops and this not onely by custom but by Canon But withal you say at his charge as it were the Presbyters and other Clerks of the Church Were fed Sure you have told a good tale for your self for by it it appears that the wealth wherewith the Church was endowed was not given to any persons but the Church in which the Bishop had no propriety but power of use for what he himself needed and of disposing the rest to Presbyters and other Clerks which now the Bishop neglecting and many Parishes in his Diocesses wanting preaching Presbyters for want of maintenance and many that preach'd wanting subsistance and the Bishop who you say should maintain them maintaining Princely * I my self once saw the Bishop of Yorke riding towards London with fourty five men in his Livery And I wondering at the number was told by one of them that there was above twenty left behinde that wore their Lords Livery State a number of Serving-men c. To divert a great deal of the maintenance to preaching Presbyters would be a returning of it into the old channel by your own confession But Parag. 9 The Bishops followed the steps of the Apostolick Church for Act. 4. we read that the well minded when they sold their lands laid the prices at the Apostles feet not the Presbyters How could they when there was as yet none ordained But after by the Apostles direction there were Deacons set over this business of Church-treasures Good and those Deacons continued and distributed Church-goods some to
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
make a Bishop despair as well as a Presbyter to be despised for how can he discharge the cure of souls in an hundred miles circuit But the contrary is evident in the Presbyters of Ephesus Acts â—0 28 the Holy Ghost had placed them Bishops to feed the stock of God Neither is his objection from the Angel of the Churches Rev. 2.3 weighty for if there be not a Syâ—echdoche in the word Angel which Rev. 2.10 Some of you c. seems plainly to manifest yet its clear he had only a priority of order not of charge And the prioritie of order was ground enough for directing to him what belonged to and was communicated to all as now it is to any temporary president of a Classis or as the things that concern the whole Houses are directed to the Speaker of either The same is plain of the Elders of Alexandria whose superintendent had no other charge from God but only a precedencie of honour and order from themselves Besides all Presbyter-Bishops set over charges by the Holy Ghost are of those Pastors Eph. 4.11 And I hope no modest learned man will think that any President or Bishop then was the sole Pastor or that these Presbyter-Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Ghost could not act in their Ministrâ— without leave of him and therefore those rules of restraint mentioned in Fathers and Counsels were but invasions on the liberties of Presbyters who had their cures not from the Bishop but from the Holy Ghost Argument 3. To whom the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are equally given they have equall power of jurisdiction but to all Presbyter-Bishops the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given and equally given ergo The Major is clear for the keys of the Kingdom of heaven contain all jurisdiction that 's without all question and the Apostles are hereby usually proved to be equall in jurisdiction because the keys were equally given to them For the Minor the keys are appendants to the office of the Minister The Apostles with mission had the keys John 20. and so the confession of the Church of England agrees harmoniously with the rest in this that the power of the keys is equally in all Ministers Harmon of conf chap 18. p. 362. So at the ordination of a Presbyter the key of Discipline was given to the Presbyter as well as that of Doctrine in the Church of England And if there be an equalitie in that order whereof the keys are an appendix they must have the appendix following in equality likewise that are equal in that order Argument 4. That to which a man hath right and in acting is restrained only by custom novell constitutions or Ecclesiasticall Canons that by Gods law he hath equal right to with others But Presbyter-Bishops are restrained from or limited in acts of government to which they have right only by custome novell constitutions of Emperours or Ecclesiasticall Canons ergo Jure Divino power of government is in them equally with others For the Minor that they have power of government I have formerly proved because it is an act of their office for the exercise of it sometimes in ordination Paul witnesseth 1 Tim. 4.14 and for government Jerome gives clear testimonie Ecclesiae olim communi Pres by â—erorum regebantur consilio and they did consecrate their Bishop in Alexandria from St. Mark to Heraclas as he witnesseth So did they ordain with the Bishop and without the Bishop the Chorepiscopi the City Presbyters till inhibited by the Counsell of Ancyra held in the beginning of the fourth Centurie Panormitanus is express olim inquit Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant sacerdotes pariter conferebant omnia Sacramenta in lib. 1. decret de consuet cap. quarto Here is the right and practise asserted Now for prohibitions if any out of the word shew them for the Fathers they declare what the custome was in their times Counsels and Emperors made laws only limiting power to prevent inconveniences and as Jerome saith contra Luciferianos many reservations were made potius ad honorem sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem * Decreto Hisp. Synodi 2. Presbyteris quibus cum Episcopis plurima ministeriorum communis est Dispâ—nsatio edicitur ut quaedam novell is Ecclesiastiâ—is constitutionibus sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterorum ac diaconorum virginum consecratio c. And therefore I conclude the power of government of binding and loosing and of ordination is by divine right an appendant to the office of a Presbyter-Bishop and as there is no proof for so no â—eed of your Apostle-Bishop And so the chief corner-stone of your whole Book which you relate to from chapter to chapter is found but untempered mortar that is crumbled away when it comes to hard canvassing and your building must down with it We are indeed much prest in this question with the authoritie of Fathers But I say first the most ancient as is to be seen in Blundell * Apol. pro sententia Hieron speak but of two orders of Gospel-Officers in their time which they sometimes call Bishops and Deacons sometimes Presbyters and Deacons Only Ignatius is urged as a great friend of Bishops but indeed he is too great a friend for he doth so far exceed in his expressions and so differ in that from other writers of his time that for that and many other things all or the greatest part of his Epiâ—â—les lie under great suspition of subornation or corruption vid. Blond Apol. pro sanct Hieron Cooks censura patrum Secondly the most rationall of the Fathers as Hierome and Augustine have witnessed not speaking obiter or popularly but purposely giving their judgment in the thing that the difference between Bishop and Presbyter is the issue of custome and use not divine institution Thirdly the Fathers generally give the Bishop but a Presidency not a Monarchy in jurisdiction They ascribe to him a Presbyterie in which and with which he was to ordain and censure and without which he was not to act in these things And this plainly enough shews that the Bishops Presidencie was but for order sake not that power rested only in him for that power that is restrained by Divine ordinance to one order may not be interposed in by another * See Forbesii Iren. p. 180. where he dispures against the Papists thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministerium solis Episcopis à Christo tributum est id non potest Papa c. committere Presbyteris At ministerium conferendi ordines potest Papa c. committere Presbyteris Ergo c. the Levites might not joyn with the Priests in offering sacrifice because it was a particular above their sphear appropriated to the Priests which neither in the absence of the Priest nor by his leave or commission a Levite might do But we know at first ordination was in the City and Country Presbyters and forbidden
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
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-Arch-Bishops Arch-Deacons and the rest in your c. Oath as is plain by the expression of the second Article And therefore you must prove not onely as you say Episcopacy but Episcopacy as it then stood not to be contrary to the institution of Christ before you can prove the Covenant in that clause to be a bond of iniquity or exempt the Kings oath from unlawfulness in that clause if it binde to maintain Episcopacy as it then stood But say you The Order of Bishops is Christs institution And yet ye have sworn to up with it root and branch The former you endeavour to prove and the latter you take for granted which is very false for there is no such expression nor hint in the Covenant as root and branch But Christ you say was the root of Episcopacy who is called the Bishop of our souls from him it takes its rise You are good at affirming but where 's your proof Why its evident in the Apostles strictly so called who had their orders immediately from Christ parag 4. A goodly argument as though an Apostle and one of your Lord Bishops were birds of a feather Whereas toto caelo differunt An Apostle was an Officer extraordinary immediately called and inspired of God and his office to indure for a time and your Bishop is an ordinary officer called by man who you would have to endure for ever But to them say you he gave power to ordain Apostles False and Atheological An Apostle cannot be created but by God and had his knowledg by inspiration from God this is confest by Divines on all sides See Bilson perp Govern chap. ◠pag. 106. But you will prove they had power to ordain Apostles Mat. 10.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greeks understand thus a gift ye have received a gift give But what Greeks Will they understand things against the letter of their natural language The English of the words to every smatterer in greek is freely you have received freely give and the meaning is plainly that they should not make merchandize of their gift of miracles For the whole verse runs thus Heal the sick cleanse the lepers raise the dead cast out devils Freely you have received freely give But what is this to power to create Apostles which speaks onely of their dispensing their gift gratis And so the Authors in your margent such as I can meet with for the most part take it ut sit ministratio gratuita muneris gratuiti that there might be a free administering of a free gift Hil. in Matth. Can. 10. Ergo ne quid in ministerio nostro venale sit admonemur Therefore we are admonisht that nothing in our ministry be set to sale Ego minister Dominus absque pretio hoc vobis tribui vos sine pretio date ne Evangelij gratia corrumpatur Hieron in Mat. 10.8 Now what are these to your purpose Only Gennadius from this proves ordination should be without price but this must be but by way of allusion For do you Mr Doctor think that the Apostles had power to create Apostles given them here whilst Christ was alive I hope your second thoughts will be wiser That Christ renewed the Commission of the Apostles Joh. 20.21 As my father sent me so send I you is granted but that they as you affirm upon the strength of this commission ordained some other to be Apostles conferring on them the same honor and power which they had received from Christ Is an assertion I know not whether fuller of boldness or ignorance yea in part a very Bull. For first one part and one of the principlest parts of their honour was to be called immediatly by Christ which they could not confer on others unless you can make Christ and the Apostles individually one which is impossible Besides that there
were many other honours peculiar to the Apostles themselves not communicable to their successors You may read in Bilsons perp Govern chap. 9. pag. 106. But you say this is evident in S. James Bishop of Jerusalem Epaphroditus Bishop of Philippi and in Apollos Bishop of Corinth But for S. James that he was an Apostle Scriptures witness indeed Gal. 1.19 but that he was ordained of the Apostles in that Scriptures are silent nor hath Jerome any such words but that he was called an Apostle illud in causa est omnes qui dominum viderunt eum postea praedicassent suisse Apostolos nominatos He was therefore called an Apostle because all that had seen the Lord and afterwards preach't him were called Apostles Jerom. in Gal. 1.19 But to make a man truly and properly and Apostle was required somewhat more scilicet immediate inspiration and mission by Christ as may be gathered from S. Pauls proving his Apostleship from these Gal. 1.11 12 15 16 17. And James was an Apostle truly and properly yea a chief Apostle Gal. 2.2.9 And so he is mentioned in the Scripture as an Apostle in Jerusalem not a Bishop of Jerusalem See Act. 15.2 13 23. Here Iames is contained under the name Apostle with the rest without any hint of precedency there as Bishop And therefore whereas he is called Bishop of Ierusalem sometimes by the ancients that is to be taken but in an allusive not a proper sense because he exercised his Apostolical function there while others exercised theirs else where and some of the Apostolical power was emulated in the Fathers times by Bishops But a Bishop there properly he was not for that were to degrade him an Apostle being an office extraordinary and so higher then the ordinary office of Bishop And such degradation is not onely injurious But if the resolution of the Chalcedon Counsel be true cited by Bilson pag. 280. To bring back a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter is sacriledg Then certain to bring down an Apostle to the degree of any ordinary Officer as a Bishop is cannot want guilt And for Apollos if he were Bishop of Corinth I pray you why did not Saint Paul write to him when he blames them for not excommunicating the incestuous person and blame him for that neglect of discipline and enjoyn him to see it done and not the Church Or why doth he say that the censure was inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2.6 if Apollos were their Bishop who alone had power of excommunication If he be contained under the title of Apostle 1 Cor. 4.9 which Calvin approves not yet is he called Apostle in a large not strict sense as contradistinct to other Church-officers Ephes 4.12 For Epaphroditus indeed he is called in the Epistle to the Phlliippians Your Apostle but that is most generally taken as Walo Messalinus confesseth by Greek and moderne Interpreters to hint not the name of a Church-officer but a messenger from the Church to Saint Paul as our last translation takes it and the words following imply part of his message he that ministred to my wants And though Walo Messalinus dissents yet he confesseth his exposition not to agree so well with propriety of speech But these you say are confessed to be Apostoli ab ipsis Apostolis ordinati First this is false for neither Calvin nor Messalinus speak of their Ordination And the very phrase an Apostle ordained of Apostles shews that the title Apostle is taken improperly But Parag. 5. you say Apostles they were at that time called but afterwards the name Bishop was setled on them For this you cite Theodoret. The same persons were sometimes called both Presbyters and Bishops but those who are now named Bishops were then called Apostles but in process of time the title of an Apostle was reserved to those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles properly and truly so called And the name of Bishop came appropriated to those who were lately called Apostles For answer to this First I observe you have given us a clear confession out of Theodoret that Bishops and Presbyters were all one divers names of the same office Secondly those that Theodoret affirms that being in his time called Bishops were formerly called Apostles were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles truly but onely called so because they had preheminence over others in his times as the Apostles had over others in the first time of the Gospel Thirdly he gives us no proof that those that are now called Bishops were formerly called Apostles and his conjecture is not infallible Nay is it not apparently false that the name of Bishop came appropriated to those that were lately called Apostles but were not so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for was not the name of Bishop continued common to Iames Peter and others that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles truly so called Continued I say by the Fathers calling them Bishops allusively But though the name of Bishop was given to Apostles by the Fathers It cannot be shewen where those that are now called Bishops were called Apostles as Apostle signifieth a Gospel officer by the Scripture If they were let the Doctor produce the place where in Scripture any ordinary officer was stiled an Apostle which if he cannot do Theodorets assertion in one part contrary to the plain expressions of the Fathers and in the other without ground of Scripture cannot have much force on any unprejudiced Reader The Doctors inference is observable Hence is it saith he that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops and Apostles Bishops in the post-scripts of the Epistles which were written to them by S. Paul but Apostles by Ignatius Theodoret and many others Whence plainly it appears that the post scripts of the Epistles were not Saint Pauls but some other later then Ignatius and Theodoret And so have no force to prove Timothy and Titus Bishops Parag. 6. You add Bishops then they were called c. That is They were so called by men that spake of officers in the Scriptures according to the stile of their own times but in Scripture-sence they were a degree above Bishops Apostles or Evangelists and in that sence speaks Walo Messalinus whose name you abuse Parag. 7. You argue They that have the same name and office with the true Apostles are of the same order with the true Apostles But Bishop Timothy and Bishop Titus and Bishop Epaphroditus have the same name and office with the true Apostles This argument you seem to glory in but with how little reason the Reader shall see For whereas you say Bishop Timothy and Bishop Titus and Bishop Epaphroditus had the same name and office with the Apostles This is manifestly false First for the name neither have Timothy nor Titus the name of Bishop or Apostle given them by Scripture and for other authors as Ignatius and Theodoret that call them Apostles you must remember Theodorets distinction of some that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and others that were