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
Philippi to Saint Paul which is more evident in the same phrase used of those 2 Cor. 8.23 expounded by Bilson himself of messengers from the Churches pag. 75. or else that notes them to be secundarii Apostoli that is as Salmasius takes it Evangelists and so extraordinary Officers but more of this in the next Section Next you proceed to the example of best reformed Churches wherein we agree with you to reform is in primaevam formam reducere but that form is in Scripture that 's our first Christian story and there we finde no Bishop but what is a Presbyter others that are abusively called so were not properly such but Officers of an higher kinde whose Office being extraordinary dyed with them For your particular quotations first that of Zanchi Exempla veteris Ecclesiae nobis debent esse instar praecepti the Examples of the ancient Church ought to be to us as a precept is to be understood of the Church under the Apostles registred in the Scriptures and so the Ministers of London whom you cite also speak expresly that Scripture-examples are obligatorie and that will not serve your turn But for the quotations out of Zanchy that in his conscience they were no better then Schismatiques that counted it a part of reformation to have no Bishop in degree of authority above their true fellow Presbyters I have sought it earnestly in the place cited but cannot finde any such thing de vera reformandae Ecclesiae ratione but in other places I finde the contrary In a short confession of his faith when he was seventie years of age cap. 25. de Eccles. Gubernatione he speaks to this effect He acknowledgeth only Pastors and Teachers to be left by the institution of Christ as ordinary Ministers The superintendency of one taken up by men as a remedy of Schism he dislikes not but from the tyrannie into which that presidencie degenerated he concludes Quo proprius acceditur in ordinibus Ministrorum ad simplicitatem Apostolicam eo magis etiam nobis probetur at que ut ubique accedatur dandam esse operam judicemus In the Orders of Ministers the neerer we come to Apostolicall simplicity the more is it to be approved and diligence should be used that every where such propinquity to the word should be attained Here you have Zanchy directly against what you would have him say as also on the fourth Commandement de diversis Ministrorâ—â—â— generibus he cleerly agreeth with me that Pastors mentioned Eph. 4.11 are the highest Officers now left in the Church and those the same mentioned 1 Tim. 3. Titus 1. Bishops or Presbyters which he proves to be all one and that superioritie that in process of time one had above another was but by humane grant For what you cite out of Melancthons Epistles touching Bishops It is but one mans private opinion and that when they were in that case that we a long time were and still in the greatest part are without any government setled and undoubtedly the Church had better be under a government that hath some rigour or tyranny in it then under no government so to shake off Bishops as to be under no government is as Melancthon truly saith inexpedient if it were lawful and such a liberty as Luther said is Libertas minimè utilis ad posteritatem a liberty no wayes profitable to posterity But what is this to the Covenant which resates not to persons but to Churches ' Now it is apparent that the Churches of Germany have reformed Episcopacie so that they have no such Apostle-Bishop as you dream of but Presbyterie at the most with the superintendency of one in their Presbyteries neither hath that any weight that you speak of the Convention at Auspurg for they were then but in a way of reformation it was but the dawning of the day with them and they could not see all things at the first but we see when they come to settle the order of their Churches they setled Presbyterie not Episcopacie And yet I deny not that if the Bishops would then have been reasonable they would have admitted their jurisdiction for peace-sake as Melancthon saith redimere pacem And truly Sir though I maintain that the King for peace may abolish Episcopacie Yet I am of that minde and wish others were so too redimere pacem duriori conditione as Melancthon said to redeem peace with an harder condition with Episcopacie so regulated as at first to preside and rule in his Presbyterie But onething I may not pass for whereas Melancthon saith that they did grant to Bishops potestatem ordinis jurisdictionis the power of order and jurisdiction you enquire What is this power of Order certainly a power that Presbyters had not that is a power at least to ordain Ministers But here Master Doctor you bewray too much ignorance for a D. D. for in power of order not only Protestants but most Papists make Bishops and Presbyters one for that is to perform as officers prayers consecrate sacraments c. and power of jurisdiction only they make a Bishops peculiar For what you prosecute touching power of Ordination to be only in their Bishops not Presbyters I will speak more fully to that in the following Section In the mean time I must tell you that in quoting Salmatius Parag. 15 Of this Chapter you shew egregious negligence in reading or which is worse deceit for the words you cite out of him touching Timothy and Titus that they were Bishops indeed of the same right and of the same Order whereof at this day they are accounted who govern the Churches and are over Presbyters This he brings only by way of explication of Theodorets opinion but when he comes to deliver his own He saith pag. 63. That Timothy was rather super-Episcopus above a Bishop an Apostle And again pag. 69. He saith of them per abusum igitur impropriè Episcopi appellabantur they were improperly and abusively called Bishops Thus also you use the London 1. D. who you say confess that their government is not above 80. years standing whereas they assert the institution of it by Christ and the restitution only for 80 years when they did likewise reform the corrupt doctrines in Poperie And do not you speak against your conscience when you say Calvin would have crusht that government in the bud that sometimes you make a Geneva invention Who would think a D. D. should be such a citer of authors But to conclude this Section if Bishops have no place in Scripture the best reformation must be to abolish Episcopacie though well limited they may be tolerated and that they have no place in Scripture is the work of the next Section CHAP. IV. PARAG. 3. Wherein for a fuller answer to what the Doctor hath said to prove Episcopacy Christs institution this Quession is resolved whether a Bishop now usually so called be by the ordinance of Christ a distinct Officer from him that is usually called
Evangelists which is extraordinary Successors they may and must have in the work of ordination but in their office they have not but the same work is done by Pastors succeeding them in those acts of Discipline as well as in those of teaching and administring the Sacraments Neither need we be moved with the appellation which the Fathers bestow on them calling them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete and saying that St. Paul in them taught all Bishops For when Scripture calls them Evangelists and reckons Evangelists among extraordinarie offices that Christ hath given what authoritie is of force against this testimony Therefore we favourably interpret the saying of those Fathers that they call them Bishops with relation to the custome of their times who called them Bishops that did those acts that Timothy and Titus did not that they were properly so For they were of an higher order and did these acts as Evangelists which their successors are to do as ordinarie Pastors Neither will their being Evangelists hinder the use of their examples or the precepts given to them For the same acts done by whatsoever officer are to be done by the same rule and therefore as directions given to them for preaching so for acting in government are to be followed by other ordinary Officers upon whom by their decease the power and care of their acts are devolved though of an inferior order Timothy was to imitate Paul an Evangelist an Apostle and every Pastor is to imitate these Evangelists in such acts as are common to Evangelists with them Thesis 13. All Presbyters being of the same Order and that the highest of those that are now in the Church have by divine law equal power in places where the Holy Ghost hath set them Pastors and Bishops as to preach the word and administer Sacraments so to do all other acts of government when called requisite for the edification and perservation of the Church and the Bishop who is but primus Presbyter made by man for Orders sake can rightly challenge no Monopoly or sole interest but only a presidencie to guide rule and order that Presbyterie wherein acts of jurisdiction are exercised whether acts of ordination or deposition binding or loosing excommunicating or absolving This I prove by these reasons Argument 1. Those who are truly and equally the successors of the Apostles in ordinarie and necessary acts of the Ministry to those by their office belong all the acts of jurisdiction that are necessary and ordinary acts of jurisdiction But Presbyter-Bishops are such successors of the Apostles ergo The Major is clear of it self the Minor I prove thus Pastors are truly and equally successors of the Apostles in necessary and ordinarie duties of the Ministry as appears Ephes 4.11 Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors The three former were extraordinarie temporary and ceas'd so the Pastor must be the successor if they have any But Presbyter-Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Chost to feed it are equally and truly Pastors ergo The minor is clear from the definition of a Pastor which is an officer set over the flock of God to feed it definitio competit omni essentia non variatur gradibus See Acts 20.28 Argument 2. Those that by divine law are equall in the power of order those are equal in the power of government or jurisdiction All Presbyters first and second are equall in power of order ergo For the Minor that all Presbyters are equal in the power of order it may appear by the definition of the power of order Lib. 5. of the Church cap. 27 the power of order saith Field is that whereby persons are sanctified and inabled to the performance of such sacred acts as other men neither may nor can do as is the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments Now all Presbyters See Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 39. as Field confesseth are equal in the power of Order yea not only he with other Protestants but many School-men and other Papists also as he there shews For every Priest saith Durand in regard of his Priestly power may minister all Sacraments ea quae sunt ordinum saith Aureolus omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo ita quòd in potestate nullius imò nec Papae est illa auferre in 4. sent Dist 24. Art 2. Sect. tertia ratio c. And this also appears because they must all sit under the same title of Pastors Ephes 4.11 For the Major I prove it thus Power of jurisdiction is indeed but a branch of the power of Order A man by the power of order is made a Minister of Christ and so consecrated to serve Christ in all ministerial services required of such a Minister of Christ Now these services are to edifie the Church either by food or physick to further their salvation by word or rod of Discipline Now both these being ministerial acts and orders making a man a Minister hence it follows that they that are equall in orders in actu primo in regard of power when they have a call are equally inabled to the exercise of discipline or jurisdiction as well as preaching and consecrating Sacraments both being acts of that office to which he is advanc'd by orders And thus much Field doth ina manner confess Three things saith he are implyed in the calling of Ecclesiasticall Ministers First An election choice or designment of persons fit for so high and excellent imployment Secondly the consecration of them and giving them power and authority to intermeddle with things that pertain to the service of God to perform eminent acts of gracious efficacy and admirable force tending to the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men and yield unto them whom Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood all the comfortable means assurances helps that may set forward their eternal salvation Thirdly the assigning and dividing out to each man thus sanctified to so excellent a work that portion of Gods people that he is to take care of c. Now here plainly under assurances means and helps to set forward salvation acts of Discipline must needs be contained 1 Cor. 5.5 6. and this flows from power of order as its habit is actus primus induing a man with power * There is indeed this difference between acts of jurisdiction other acts of order the one every Presbyter may do alone the other only in a Presbytery So imposition of hands 1 Tim. 4.14 was in and by the Presbytery so censures 2 Cor. 2.7 by many But a Minister may preach baptize administer the Lords Supper alone and this was the use of the ancient Churches who had their Presbyters mentroned both in Scriptures and Fathers Now to streighten the Presbyter in this act of his orders he hath recourse to that feeble shift That the Bishop only is Pastor and the other Presbyters are but as it were curates under him which if true it is enough to
having never had institution nor induction it was never profer'd me but because he it seems hath been so ready to swear all must be in that bond but what if I had taken the oath I know no engagement to inhibit me to seek the abrogation of Episcopacy from the oath sith I was never forbidden by the Diocesan to seek it nay I can assure him that Dr. Bishop of Glocester Smith who imposed hands on me and in whose dioces while he liv'd I exercised my Ministry was of Ieromes mind that a Bishop was an humane creature as he exprest himself in conference to a friend of mine and so not unalterable For his 3 Parag. Touching Smectimnuus making a Bishop and an Elder all one a and thence his wonder how they indure my proposition being he knows that Author speaks of Bishop and Presbyter in a Scripture-sense which anon will cut his combe and I speak of a Diocesan Bishop as now he stands as he confesseth Parag. 4. That his quirk about Smectimnuus and the Masters of the Assembly is ridiculous trifling fitter for a boy disputing in Parvis to lengthen out an argument then for a D.D. writing a book in a case of moment But now to the motives which he saith I produce for the abrogation of Episcopacy he should have said for writing this case about it For the first no hope of the Kings and kingdoms safety without union between the King and our Parliament he doth not deny it but yet he divides them seditiously Our King and your Parliament I acknowledg him as my King pray and act for him in my sphear as my Soveraign the King hath written to them as his Parliament yet the Dr. divides them though he cannot deny no safety without union For his petitions made in Scriptures phrase they are from him as his heart is which I leave to God and in a good sense say Amen For the Second ground there is no probable means of union without the Kings condescention in point of Episcopacy This parag 6. and 7. he denies not but adds some things out of his own distempered minde viz. unless he lay down his lands c. Which he cannot prove though I am truly sorry that he hath any colour to set them off as credible to any For the third If the King should do it renitente conscientia it would be sinful c. To this Parag. 8. he saith that I perceive and in a manner confess that this he must do for you say it would be sinful to himself Thus you perswade our Soveraign into sin c. Was there ever a more false or irrational passage dropt from a D.D. pen do I say it absolutely when I only say if he should condescend renitente conscientia or do I perswade to sin when I shew such inconveniences of sin as cannot be ballanc'd But by way of amplification we have another piece of Divinity worthy such a D. D. Every reluctance of conscience makes not a grant sinfull but when my conscience checks me on just grounds Is this catholike doctrine I am sure it is not orthodox for it is point-blank to Saint Paul speaking of those that act against conscience for want of light in indifferent things and so not on just grounds Rom. 14.17 compared with verse 25. The kingdome of God is not in meat and drink But he that doubteth is damned if he eateth because he eateth it not of faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sin For the last that the Coronation oath is prest by learned pens c. he first takes notice of my confession Parag. 9. Wherein he might observe my candor to my Antagonists and therein read my intentions that not out of distaste to persons but out of love to peace and with a quiet and well affected heart to those I oppose I wrote the resolution of this case but the Doctors blood-shot eye can see none of this He hath not so much ingenuity as the Heathen virtus in hoste No he was resolved to carry on his Book with railings and scoffs and I am resolved neither to envy nor to imitate him being well assured that such dealing will prejudice both the work and Author with any pious and prudent Reader Next he trifles about an expression touching the Kings condescention I beseech you do you dream who told you that his Majesty had condescended to this impious and anti-christian demand saith he Whereas he knows the context of my words evidence them to be spoken hypothetically not catogorically But we must give him leave to catch at shows that wants real exceptions For his other expressions That desire of abrogation of Episcopacy is impious and anti-christian This will appear but froth unless he can make his Diocesan Lord Bishop an Ordinance of God which will now come to tryal CHAP. II. Wherein it is cleared that the Covenant is not to abolish Episcopacy root and branch nor is Episcopacy of Christs institution in answer to Dr. B. Second Chapter Case of Conscience Resolved NOw the bond of the Kings oath may be taken off two wayes either by clearing the unlawfulness of it that it was vinculum iniquitatis and so void the first day For quâ— jurat in iniquum obligatur in contrarium And if Prelacy in the Church be an usurpation contrary to Christs institution then to maintain it is sin and all bonds to sin are frustrate And truly as Prelacy stood with us in England ingrossing all ruledom in the Church into the hands of a few L. Bishops I think it may be cleared to be an usurpation by this one argument That power that dispoyls any of Christs Officers of any priviledg or duty indulged or injoyned them by the word of God that power is an usurpation against the word of God But this did Prelacy as it stood in England therefore English Prelacy was an usurpation against the word of God The Major is cleer of it self The Minor is thus proved Presbyters are by Christs warrant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their own congregations as well as preach See 1 Tim. 3.5 5,17 Heb. 13.17 1 Thess 5.12 Now as Prelacy stood in England the Presbyters were not onely excluded from all society of rule but which was more prejudicial to the dignity and liberty of the ministery were subjected to a lay-Chancellor and was not here usurpation against Gods direction Now what saith Dr. Boughen you say true saith he that the oath which is Vinculum iniquitatis is void the first day c. And hitherto your argument is good and in it he will joynissue c. Cap. 2. Parag. 1. See what a work this passage hath on the Doctor taken together and considered when the blood was down now all goes current yet this is the place for which he spit so much poyson of aspes in his Epistle to the Reader I hope the Reader will observe and by appealing from the Doctor in passion to the Doctor out of passion
honour in rule and after by manifest usurpation ingrost all appropriate the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to himself but that the word notes rule And this title is given to all Presbyters Act. 20.28 Feed the flock over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops Over-seers This is said of all the Presbyters without any hint of distinction and doth not this note government Let me ask you a question have you not read Bilsons perp government of the Church of Christ Can you finde no rule belonging there to Presbyters It s then because you cannot see wood for trees pag. 140. He notes government to be comprehended under the titles of Shepherd Watchmen Over-seers Rulers Guides and these titles belong to all Presbyters And pag. 141. The government spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 He makes common to Pastors Prophets and Teachers and producing that of Jerom Communi Presbytorum consilio regebantur Ecclesiae He adds of his own That Elders at first did govern by common advice is no doubt at all to us This is it which is doubted and denyed by us that those Elders were lay-men pag. 158.159 And after to prove that the Presbyters were not Lay but Ecclesiastical he produceth Jeroms words with approbation Bishops and Presbyters were at first all one and what doth a Bishop save Ordination which a Presbyter doth not Bishops must know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custom then truth of the Lords disposition and ought to govern the Church in common pag. 150. And all this he cites out of Jerome for his own defence That what Jerome spake he spake of teaching not ruling Presbyters But what need I add particulars the sume of his 11 Chapter is not to deny but taking it for granted that in Primitive times there was a Presbyterie that was joyned in government with the Bishops without which he neither could nor ought to do any thing in point of censure taking I say this for granted he endeavours to prove those Presbyters consisted onely of teaching not lay-Elders Chapter 14. Setting out the use of Presbyters in the fourth use he hath these words The government of the Church was as first so constituted that neither the Presbyteries should do any thing without the Bishop nor the Bishop without a Presbytery pag. 307. Thus far Bilson How clear is that of Tertullian for the rule of Presbyters Nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu summumque futuri judicij praejudicium est siquis ita deliquerit â—ut a commucicatione orationis conventus omnis Sancti commercij relegetur Praesident probati quique seniores honorem istum non praetio sed testimonio adepti Thus it is as clear as the Sun that ruling is injoyned as a duty and given as a priviledg to the Presbyter of which it was dispoiled in England by Episcopacie and therefore to maintain Episcopacie in that posture was to maintain it in usurpation against Christs disposition and so unlawful But you require Parag. 14. one place of Scripture that allows Presbyters to excommunicate or absolve of their own authority I answer in all the places where they are made Church-Governours they are inabled in a regular way to pass all Church-censures and of those places I have produced and asserted many as also where the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven are given to the Ministerie in general in the Apostles and the place above cited in Tertullian doth it not extend to excommunication and that censure to be pass'd by Elders But do you shew me on the contrary in Scripture a Bishop that is an ordinary Pastor distinct from a Presbyter indued with sole power of rule in the Church I will be of your mind Your instances of Timothy and Titus will not serve your turn for that they were Evangelists Bilson confesseth more then once the Scripture never calls them Bishops They are called so by the ancients because they did those acts that by humane custome were afterwards appropriated to Bishops in regard of presidencie but they did them not as Bishops which they are not called but as Evangelists which they were and were called in Scripture For your speech in this clause of particular mens silencing it 's impertiment and for the cause it 's delivered in your railing Dialect which I pass by and of the same railing strain is all your 15. Parag. only you tell us by Scriptures we are made subject to Bishops and I have told you and you confess in Scripture Bishops and Presbyters are all one only you have a vain conceit of an Apostle-Bishop of which more anon Parag. 16.17 You endeavour an answer to that that the Presbyters were subjected to lay-Chancellors but it is only by way of retorsion direct answers you are not furnished with but refer us to the Doctors Commons and yet I doubt not but you have taken the oath with an c. that swears to perpetuitie more then Chancellors but how do you retort first we have set many lay-Chancellors for one as the Parliament and Committees ridiculous when we speak of Ecclesiastical Officers to retort touching those that are civil But secondly you retort that though we complain of one lay-Chancellor we subject Gentry and Commonalty to many Lay-Elders and say not say you that there be preaching Elders with them lest it be return'd upon you that the lay-Chancellor is but the Bishops Officer in such cases of Judicature c. But I will say that they have preaching Presbyters amongst them and more then you can say for Chancellors yet they are to be chosen by the people in general over whom they are to be and though you say the Chancellor is but the Bishops Officer Yet it is apparent in the woful experience of many Ministers that he is such an Officer that without and against the Bishops minde hath convented and suspended Ministers which is more power then the Bishop ought to have Episcopus sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest auferre non potest confest by Bilson perpet govern pag. 107. where the Counsel of Hispalis 2 ca. 2. and Counsel of Afric ca. 26. are cited what you add about institutions by Chancellors is nothing to me who never yet had institution nor hath it any sense in it that it should be against Gods direction to receive institution from a lay-Chancellor as our land makes a Rectorie an inheritance wherein the Civil Magistrate doth protect us You conclude Parag. 18. That my first argument you hope is sufficiently confuted You have done your best it 's like yet it stands in full force and vertue That if the Kings oath bindes him to maintain Episcopacie as it stood in practise and as it is in your famous c. oath It is an engagement in that point to what is against Scriptures rale and primitive practice therefore an obligation to what is unlawful and in that point invalid In the close you cannot give off
a Presbyter The one a successor of the Apostles indued with power of ordination and other jurisdiction the other the Successor of the Presbyters ordained by Timothy and Titus endued with power of administring word and Sacraments Neg. FOr the sounder and clearer resolving of this question I shall proceed by way of Thesis fetching things from the first original barely proposing only what is confest by all but proving those things wherein there is any controversie or whereon the controversie hath dependance Thesis 1. first its agreed amongst all that all the teaching Officers that can challenge Livine institution are set down in an intire Catalogue Eph. 4.11 And gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and therefore all that cannot derive their pedigree from one of these must be in the case of those Neh. 7.64 Thesis 2. That of these Officers some were extraordinary some ordinary Thesis 3. That Apostles Prophets Evangelists were extraordinary officers for the first planting of Churches and Pastors and Teachers ordinarie Thesis 4. That the extraordinary officers were temporary and the ordinary to be perpetual in the Church Bilson perp govern p. 300. The office of Evangelists was extraordinary and temporary Field of the Church lib. 5. c. 22. And indeed whatsoever is extraordinary is temporary Thesis 5. That Apostles were the highest of extraordinary officers and Pastors the highest of those that were ordinary Apostles are named first and all that are named before Pastors are acknowledged extraordinary Ephes 4.11 Thesis 6. That in the extraordinary Officers there were some gifts and acts peculiar to them as such as to the Apostles immediate calling divine inspiration infallibility in doctrine universal charge and in the Evangelist to be an assistant to an Apostle not to be perpetually fixt to any place but for the finishing some special work as Timothy at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 Titus at Creet cap. 1.5 3.12 Secondly There were some qualities and actions which though required in and done by them as extraordinary officers in an extraordinary way yet are of necessitie and are in an ordinarie way perpetually to be continued in the Church of God as abilities to teach and rule the Church and the acts of teaching praying ordination of Ministers Church-censures c. See Bilson perp govern chap. 7. pag. 106 107. Thesis 7. That these Pastors Eph. 4.11 that are the highest ordinary Officers are Successors to the Apostles in all that power and authoritie and all those acts flowing from it which are necessary perpetual and ordinary in the Church of God This also is clear power and authoritie require a subject divine power and authoritie a subject of divine institution Now no other remains of those of Gods institution but Pastors and Teachers which if they be not the same Pastor is the chief The other as temporary are ceased therefore Pastors must be their successors in all this power and in them must the commands for execution be kept without spot or unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 And to them must that Apostolical promise be performed Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you to the end of the world Thesis 8. The Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 are no other but Synonymaes with those Elders ordained in every Church Acts 14.23 and in every City Tit. 1.5 This is clear for those Elders that were here ordained were officers of Christs giving The Apostles would ordain no other it had been sacrilegious presumption but they were neither Apostles Prophets nor Evangelists Ergo if Christs they must be under either Pastors or Teachers Thesis 9. These Elders were by the Holy Ghost also stiled Bishops and were indeed Bishops aliud aetatis aliud officii nomen and of them it is that direction is given under the name of Bishops 1 Tim. 3. Herein Jerome is most plain seconded by Ambrose or Hilary an approved Author under his name who though they differ from other fathers who understand by Bishop Hieron in Ep. ad Titum 1 Tim. 3.2 Bishop distinct from a Presbyter such as was in their times Yet Jeromes reason preponderates all because drawn out of the bowels of the Text 1 Titus 1.5 6 7. Attend saith he the words of the Apostle who having discours'd of the qualities of a Presbyter after infers for a Bishop must be blameless c. Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same Again if any yet doubt saith he whether a Bishop and a Presbyter be not all one let him read the Apostle Phil. 1.1 Paul and Timotheus the servants of Jesus Christ to all the Saints which are in Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Philippi saith he was a City of Macedonia and certainly in one City as now they are called more Bishops could not be But St. Paul thus wrote because at that time Presbyters and Bishops were all one If yet this seem ambiguous saith he that Presbyters and Bishops were all one it may be proved by another testimony It 's written in the Acts of the Apostles when St. Paul came to Miletum he sent to Ephesus and called to him thence the Elders of that Church to whom amongst other things he spake thus Take heed to your selves and to your flock over which the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to feed the Church of God c. Observe this diligently saith he how calling the Presbyters of one City Ephesus he afterwards calls them Bishops he adds Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5.1 2. and concludes these things that we might shew that amongst the Ancients Presbyters and Bishops were the same Thesis 10. After the decease of the extraordinary Officers Apostles Prophets Evangelists and their Office with cause of it with them the Church acknowledgd no other Church-Officers as instituted of Christ but only the two mentioned 1 Tim. 3. Titus 1. 1 Bishops or Presbyters 2 Deacons Clemens mentioned Phil. 4.3 who is witnessed by Tertullian to be ordained of St. Peter himself de prescrip in an Epistle to the Corinthians writes thus The Apostles preaching through the Countries and Regions their first fruits whom they had tryed by the spirit they appointed for Bishops and Deacons to believers Here you see by the Apostles were constituted but these two Offices Bishops and Deacons of whom he afterwards saith that those that have humbly and unblameably ministred to the sheep-fold of Christ those we may not think may be justly thrown out of their Ministry whence he infers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It 's a filthy thing beloved yea very filthy and unworthy that conversation which is in Christ Jesus to hear that the most strong and ancient Church of Corinth for one or two persons should make a faction against their Presbyters He concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You therefore who have laid the foundation of sedition be instructed to repent and be subject to your Presbyters so whom he called Bishops he now calls
Presbyters and gives not so much as any hint of any singular Bishops but the company of Presbyters or Bishops over the Church of God vid. Blond Apol. pro sanct Hieron p. 11 12. Polycarpe in an Epistle to the Philippians Be ye subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ and here you see but two offices and therefore yet the Presbyters ruled the Church in Common Blond ubi supra p. 14 1â— where many more witnesses may be seen And in this the Master of the Sentences consents too lib. 4. Dist 24. de Presbyteris unde Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuêre quia illud est nomen dignitatis non aetatis and a little after excellenter tamen canones duos tantùm sacros ordines appellari censent Diaconatus scilicet Presbyteratus quia hos solos primitiva ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli habemus Thesis 11. Amongst these Bishops or Presbyters there was one who by the consent of the rest either by their free election or for his priority in conversion and ordination had a preheminence of honour above the rest for order-sake who had no new ordination or none for a great while but what he had from his fellow-Presbyters who chose him and exalted him without any further ado So Hierom ep 85. ad Evagrium which he confirms from Alexandria For saith he Alexandriae c. At Alexandria even to Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops The Elders did always name one Bishop chosen out of themselves and by them placed in excelsiori gradu in an higher degree of honour not office Now whether in their choice they did only look at merit or whether they did a good while till as * Ambrose or Hilary on the Ephesians Quia primâ—m Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur c. For he calls Timothy who was created a Presbyter by him a Bishop because at first Presbyters were called Bishops that one with-drawing another did succeed but because the following Presbyters were found unworthy to hold that primacy the way was changed a Counsel providing that not order of time but merit should make the Bishop constituted by the judgement of many Presbyters lest an unworthy man should rashly usurp it and be a scandal to many Ambrose saith it proved inconvenient advance him that was the next senior it is argued both waies though in my opinion Blundel hath made it most probable that according to Ambrose his expression it went by senioritie for certain yeers in his preface to the fore-cited Book Some think it went by senioritie in some places and by election in others Thesis 11. This preheminency that one had above the rest was by Ecclesiastical custom not by Divine institution and advanc'd him onely to an higher degree or dignity not to another order distinct from his fellow-Presbyters so that still he must derive his succession from the Presbyters or Bishops that were to be ordained in every Church and is to finde his place in the divine Catalogue of officers Ephes 4.11 under astors and not Evangelists or Prophets That this preheminence was not from any divine institution but Ecclesiastical ordination Jerom is express The Bishops must know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custome then Divine disposition Hieron in Tit. So Augustine ep 19. Although according to the words of honour which the Churches use hath obtained Episcopacy is greater then Presbytery c. Yet See bere the precedencie of Bishops is an honour of words and a fruit of use And this may be further cleared from what was first done in conferring this preheminence It was but a bare act of the rest of the Presbyters as appears by the example brought by Hierom in the Church of Alexandria They chose out of themselves and set him in an higher degree This they did of themselves and by themselves without any Divine command Let it be produced if there be any yea without any example in any of the Churches in the Scripture and they did it by themselves without the concurrence of other and they could not set him in an higher order Presbyters cannot make an Apostle Thirdly this may appear from that little difference that was between such a Bishop and a Presbyter in the fathers times Chrysost Theophylact Hilary on 1 Tim. 3. Inquiring the reason why the Apostle passeth from directions about Bishops to directions about Deacons no mention being made of a Presbyter Give answer First Hilary or Ambrose Quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus Because of an Elder and a Bishop there is but one ordination both are Presbyters but a Bishop is first And Chysostom Because a Presbyter doth so little differ from a Bishop to wit in nothing but ordination saith he In nothing but election saith Theophylact Now where the difference is so little that one direction for qualification will serve for both there is plainly acknowledged a difference in dignity or degree of excellencie onely not in order or office That conceit then of Theodorets that they that are now called Bishops were heretofore called Apostles and those that are now called Presbyters were then i. e. in the Apostles times called Bishops is it self too groundless a fancie for you Doctor Boughen to ground your distinction of Apostle-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
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
violation of his oath CHAP. X. PARAG. 1. Wherein is shewed what the true intention of the Kings oath is for maintenance of Episcopacie in answer to Doctor Boughen's 8. Chapter I Come now to answer the 8. Chapter wherein you were pleased to take in hand this passage beginning with my answer to my latter opponent first and yet you did not make an end with him before you undertook to reply to my answer to my first opponent which how judicious it is let the Reader judge for what advantage you did it you best know The question is you say Whether the King may desert Episcopacie without perjury a question too high for any subject but you are enforced to make that a question that is harsh to loyal ears lest you may seem to avoid my subtile and saucie cavils as unanswerable Good words Doctor If the question be too high for a subject have not I the same plea for medling with it that you have being led into it by my opponents but the truth is the question is fit enough for discussion so it be done with reverence whatever I am I know you will confess that both my former opponents knew as well their dutie to our Soveraign as you your self and were as observant of it when men are to act by counsel or prayer for kings unless they know in Cases proposed what is conscionable for him to do or not to do how can they rightly perform their duties To balk such questions therefore on just occasion is not dutie but flatterie and to leave kings and their Counsellors without needfull light But you have a quarrell to me for saying my second Antagonist affirms that the King cannot desert Episcopacie without flat perjury and say his words are far more mannerly why did you not then set down his more mannerly words but abuse your reader with a falsitie but you will prove the thing that Episcopacie may not be deserted without violation of oath and the Church left to swine No Sir we would purge it of swine and doggs too which they exposed its choicest outward priviledges to but how do you prove it First Parag. 2. You go a begging telling one of my confession when I do but take the words of the oath from my Antagonists mouth and dispute ex concesso that the oath is as he relates it To protect the Bishops c and then you bring your observations 1. Good Kings protect Bishops 2. They ought to do it 3. In right they ought to do it But when I confess that these words are in the oath must I therefore approve all that is in the oath yea and take them in your sense too I hope not Thus far I approve the kings protecting Bishops within the limits of their calling set them of God but our Prelates have excluded their fellow-fellow-Presbyters But thirdly as of right he ought to do I take to be a limitation how far he engageth himself that is so far as a good king in right ought to do and if he go no further he is injurious to none though he displeases many as you say Parag. 3. Parag. 4. You add the King hath sworn to be protector of the Church under his government but that cannot be unless he protect the Bishops who are the Ministerial spouse of the Church This is a false inference for though the Ministerie be necessarie to the Church yet not your Prelacie which is but an humane additament your proof is presumptuous to make any man a Ministeriall spouse of the Church as well as it is for the Pope to be made a Ministerial head of it Yet you repeat it Parag. 5. With our frequent dish of no ordination without them which hath been often enough answered You conclude if Bishops be of the same order with the Apostles you have Calvins acknowledgment that the Church cannot stand without them yea and mine too and yet never the nearer for Ante Leves ergo c. as soon shall you finde Harts feeding in the middle region of the air as your Bishops among the Apostles You add Parag. 6. that the Church cannot be without the Bishop if we believe Cyprian that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop you add that the Church is in the Bishop causally c. If you understand by the Bishop the Ministerie and by causally as an instrument of its preservation I grant it without any inconvenience otherwaies we can grant the Church to be causally in none other but Jesus Christ the true head of it nor is there any other that is fountain of it it s as flat Poperie to judg otherwaies as to make the Pope the head of the Church nay worse For Hart makes the Pope to be the head not as the fountain of life as your similitude imports but only in regard of directing the outward functions and yet for this that mirror of learning Doctor Reynolds doth implead Mr. Hart of high treason against Christ And I remember also there a witty and rationall answer that our learned Doctor makes to a place cited out of Leo. He grants Leo was an ancient learned holy and witty man yet a man and a Bishop of Rome c. and applies to him a saying of Tully to Hortensius when he immoderately praised eloquence that he would lift her up to heaven that himself might go up with her so did Leo lift up St. Peter c. So Cyprian was an holy man but a Bishop so he might extoll Bishops that he might lift up himself with them See confer between Reynolds and Hart. cap. 1. divis 2. therefore your premisses have not yet force to draw my consent to their conclusion Parag. 7. You grant that the oath is not obligatory beyond the intention that is say you according to the common plain and literall meaning of it good as the plain literall meaning is to be found out of the grammar of it and other circumstances that may convince Reason of the intention of it You add Parag. 8. That the oath is to the Clergie The King must have respect to them and their intention I answer not mentall but what the words of the oath import considered with its circumstances nor so much to the intention of the now giver as the first framer Now I beseech you if the King should have ask'd the Bishops at the giving whether if a Case should fall out that he must not only venture which he hath done but lose his Crown rather then fail to save them whether they would have said yea that is the meaning Truly I believe not and if they had the King and Peers and people would have hiss'd them out rather then the one would have perswaded or the other would have yielded to have taken it with that sense and intention Parag. 9. You enquire whether what hath been done hath not been a tyrannous invasion I answer there hath been too much tumult and Ministers have suffered too irregularly
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
see how injuriously he hath traduced me for one that blasphemes and spits in the face of authority Well now upon this the Doctor will joyn issue and will readily acknowledg that if Prelacy in the Church be an usurpation against Christs institution then to maintain it is to sin and all bonds to sin are frustrate but yet Parag 2. He adds he hopes I use no tricks but by Prelacy mean Episcopacy properly so called Doctor I do use no tricks a good cause needs them not but I doubt you will be found to use tricks presently and that poor ones that is to change the state of the question For when I implead Prelacy as unlawful I implead it not absolutely but as it then stood in England But the Doctor proceeds and thinks that my medium is an arrow for his bow and makes a triple assay to hit me with it but is unlucky in all as will presently appear first thus If Supremacy in Parliament be an usurpation contrary to Christs institution then to maintain it is to sin But supremacy c. ergo it is sin The major you prove by 1 Pet. 2.13 14. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man whether it be unto the King as supream or unto governours as those that are sent by him I answer the Apostle gives no other supremacy to the King here then I give him Pag. 9 of my case that is to be the Supream Magistrate from whom all power of execution is legally derived and this is competible with that supremacy which I give the Parliament Oh but saith the Doctor every rational man cannot but understand that there cannot be two supreams in one Kingdome But Master Doctor Rational men will see a difference between a Supremacy and the Supremacy that is Supremacy absolute and in a kind There be more Supremacies secundum quid in some respect though not more in one kingdome absolutely and this I shall make you confess to be my meaning in asserting more then one supremacy in a kingdom and to be a truth or I shall make you deny not Reason onely but your own words when I come to answer your last Chapter His second Argument is against Ordination by Presbytery but in that he begs the question and therefore he refers us for the proof that Ordination by Presbyters is against Christs institution to another place where we shall meet with it Thirdly He argues If Episcopacy in the Church be no usurpation but Christs institution then to endeavour the extirpation of it is sin But Episcopacy is Christs institution ergo This he doth but propose here and endeavours to prove hereafter where his proofs shall be examined He proceeds parag 3. That you your Assembly and Parliament have made and taken an Oath to extirpate Episcopacy is too notorious to be denyed Sir your are the confidentest man not onely in uncertainties but falsities that I have heard It 's neither true that I made the Covenant nor notorious that I have taken it neither is it true that the Covenant is to extirpate Episcopacy but onely according to my argument Prelacy as it then stood that is by Arch-Bishops Arch-Deacons and the rest in your c. Oath as is plain by the expression of the second Article And therefore you must prove not onely as you say Episcopacy but Episcopacy as it then stood not to be contrary to the institution of Christ before you can prove the Covenant in that clause to be a bond of iniquity or exempt the Kings oath from unlawfulness in that clause if it binde to maintain Episcopacy as it then stood But say you The Order of Bishops is Christs institution And yet ye have sworn to up with it root and branch The former you endeavour to prove and the latter you take for granted which is very false for there is no such expression nor hint in the Covenant as root and branch But Christ you say was the root of Episcopacy who is called the Bishop of our souls from him it takes its rise You are good at affirming but where 's your proof Why its evident in the Apostles strictly so called who had their orders immediately from Christ parag 4. A goodly argument as though an Apostle and one of your Lord Bishops were birds of a feather Whereas toto caelo differunt An Apostle was an Officer extraordinary immediately called and inspired of God and his office to indure for a time and your Bishop is an ordinary officer called by man who you would have to endure for ever But to them say you he gave power to ordain Apostles False and Atheological An Apostle cannot be created but by God and had his knowledg by inspiration from God this is confest by Divines on all sides See Bilson perp Govern chap. ◠pag. 106. But you will prove they had power to ordain Apostles Mat. 10.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greeks understand thus a gift ye have received a gift give But what Greeks Will they understand things against the letter of their natural language The English of the words to every smatterer in greek is freely you have received freely give and the meaning is plainly that they should not make merchandize of their gift of miracles For the whole verse runs thus Heal the sick cleanse the lepers raise the dead cast out devils Freely you have received freely give But what is this to power to create Apostles which speaks onely of their dispensing their gift gratis And so the Authors in your margent such as I can meet with for the most part take it ut sit ministratio gratuita muneris gratuiti that there might be a free administering of a free gift Hil. in Matth. Can. 10. Ergo ne quid in ministerio nostro venale sit admonemur Therefore we are admonisht that nothing in our ministry be set to sale Ego minister Dominus absque pretio hoc vobis tribui vos sine pretio date ne Evangelij gratia corrumpatur Hieron in Mat. 10.8 Now what are these to your purpose Only Gennadius from this proves ordination should be without price but this must be but by way of allusion For do you Mr Doctor think that the Apostles had power to create Apostles given them here whilst Christ was alive I hope your second thoughts will be wiser That Christ renewed the Commission of the Apostles Joh. 20.21 As my father sent me so send I you is granted but that they as you affirm upon the strength of this commission ordained some other to be Apostles conferring on them the same honor and power which they had received from Christ Is an assertion I know not whether fuller of boldness or ignorance yea in part a very Bull. For first one part and one of the principlest parts of their honour was to be called immediatly by Christ which they could not confer on others unless you can make Christ and the Apostles individually one which is impossible Besides that there
were many other honours peculiar to the Apostles themselves not communicable to their successors You may read in Bilsons perp Govern chap. 9. pag. 106. But you say this is evident in S. James Bishop of Jerusalem Epaphroditus Bishop of Philippi and in Apollos Bishop of Corinth But for S. James that he was an Apostle Scriptures witness indeed Gal. 1.19 but that he was ordained of the Apostles in that Scriptures are silent nor hath Jerome any such words but that he was called an Apostle illud in causa est omnes qui dominum viderunt eum postea praedicassent suisse Apostolos nominatos He was therefore called an Apostle because all that had seen the Lord and afterwards preach't him were called Apostles Jerom. in Gal. 1.19 But to make a man truly and properly and Apostle was required somewhat more scilicet immediate inspiration and mission by Christ as may be gathered from S. Pauls proving his Apostleship from these Gal. 1.11 12 15 16 17. And James was an Apostle truly and properly yea a chief Apostle Gal. 2.2.9 And so he is mentioned in the Scripture as an Apostle in Jerusalem not a Bishop of Jerusalem See Act. 15.2 13 23. Here Iames is contained under the name Apostle with the rest without any hint of precedency there as Bishop And therefore whereas he is called Bishop of Ierusalem sometimes by the ancients that is to be taken but in an allusive not a proper sense because he exercised his Apostolical function there while others exercised theirs else where and some of the Apostolical power was emulated in the Fathers times by Bishops But a Bishop there properly he was not for that were to degrade him an Apostle being an office extraordinary and so higher then the ordinary office of Bishop And such degradation is not onely injurious But if the resolution of the Chalcedon Counsel be true cited by Bilson pag. 280. To bring back a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter is sacriledg Then certain to bring down an Apostle to the degree of any ordinary Officer as a Bishop is cannot want guilt And for Apollos if he were Bishop of Corinth I pray you why did not Saint Paul write to him when he blames them for not excommunicating the incestuous person and blame him for that neglect of discipline and enjoyn him to see it done and not the Church Or why doth he say that the censure was inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2.6 if Apollos were their Bishop who alone had power of excommunication If he be contained under the title of Apostle 1 Cor. 4.9 which Calvin approves not yet is he called Apostle in a large not strict sense as contradistinct to other Church-officers Ephes 4.12 For Epaphroditus indeed he is called in the Epistle to the Phlliippians Your Apostle but that is most generally taken as Walo Messalinus confesseth by Greek and moderne Interpreters to hint not the name of a Church-officer but a messenger from the Church to Saint Paul as our last translation takes it and the words following imply part of his message he that ministred to my wants And though Walo Messalinus dissents yet he confesseth his exposition not to agree so well with propriety of speech But these you say are confessed to be Apostoli ab ipsis Apostolis ordinati First this is false for neither Calvin nor Messalinus speak of their Ordination And the very phrase an Apostle ordained of Apostles shews that the title Apostle is taken improperly But Parag. 5. you say Apostles they were at that time called but afterwards the name Bishop was setled on them For this you cite Theodoret. The same persons were sometimes called both Presbyters and Bishops but those who are now named Bishops were then called Apostles but in process of time the title of an Apostle was reserved to those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles properly and truly so called And the name of Bishop came appropriated to those who were lately called Apostles For answer to this First I observe you have given us a clear confession out of Theodoret that Bishops and Presbyters were all one divers names of the same office Secondly those that Theodoret affirms that being in his time called Bishops were formerly called Apostles were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles truly but onely called so because they had preheminence over others in his times as the Apostles had over others in the first time of the Gospel Thirdly he gives us no proof that those that are now called Bishops were formerly called Apostles and his conjecture is not infallible Nay is it not apparently false that the name of Bishop came appropriated to those that were lately called Apostles but were not so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for was not the name of Bishop continued common to Iames Peter and others that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles truly so called Continued I say by the Fathers calling them Bishops allusively But though the name of Bishop was given to Apostles by the Fathers It cannot be shewen where those that are now called Bishops were called Apostles as Apostle signifieth a Gospel officer by the Scripture If they were let the Doctor produce the place where in Scripture any ordinary officer was stiled an Apostle which if he cannot do Theodorets assertion in one part contrary to the plain expressions of the Fathers and in the other without ground of Scripture cannot have much force on any unprejudiced Reader The Doctors inference is observable Hence is it saith he that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops and Apostles Bishops in the post-scripts of the Epistles which were written to them by S. Paul but Apostles by Ignatius Theodoret and many others Whence plainly it appears that the post scripts of the Epistles were not Saint Pauls but some other later then Ignatius and Theodoret And so have no force to prove Timothy and Titus Bishops Parag. 6. You add Bishops then they were called c. That is They were so called by men that spake of officers in the Scriptures according to the stile of their own times but in Scripture-sence they were a degree above Bishops Apostles or Evangelists and in that sence speaks Walo Messalinus whose name you abuse Parag. 7. You argue They that have the same name and office with the true Apostles are of the same order with the true Apostles But Bishop Timothy and Bishop Titus and Bishop Epaphroditus have the same name and office with the true Apostles This argument you seem to glory in but with how little reason the Reader shall see For whereas you say Bishop Timothy and Bishop Titus and Bishop Epaphroditus had the same name and office with the Apostles This is manifestly false First for the name neither have Timothy nor Titus the name of Bishop or Apostle given them by Scripture and for other authors as Ignatius and Theodoret that call them Apostles you must remember Theodorets distinction of some that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and others that were
argument runs not on the men but the office it self as it then stood excluding Presbyters from part in government which was not the act of any extravagant Bishop but the ordinarie custome of them all so not the men but the office it self was in an abusive posture in excluding Presbyterie from participation in government which is the thing to be proved Which thing you confess I endeavour to prove by Syllogism which you set down parag 3. That power which despoyls any of Christs officers of any priviledg or duty indulged or injoyned them by the word of God that power is an usurpation against the word But this Prelacy did as it stood in England ergo English Prelacy was an usurpation against the word of God Parag. 4. You think to retort this argument on the Parliament to prove them as well to be an usurpation because they have sequestred and dispoyled many of you Presbyters of preaching and ruling in their Congregations But herein I must tell you you bewray your own not the weakness of my argument for my argument runs not upon any particular officers whether justly or unjustly despoiled But of all the officers as they are officers of which Episcopacie was guiltie excluding all Presbyters from partnership in government And had you had your wits about you that can put the dul man upon others this you might easily have seen and that any in the Syllogism notes not particulars in any office but the kinds of officers prescribed by Christ But Parag. 5. You would teach me to speak had you said say you that power that wrongfully dispoyls any of Christs officers and then you tell me I have not learnt it seems to distinguish between justly and unjustly But it seems you though a D. D. have not learnt to understand plain sence For in that sence that my words should be taken can I pray you any kinde of officers be wholly dispoiled of a privileledg or abridged in a dutie lest on record by Christ justly Sure then there must be some power that can controul Christs institution without injustice or usurpation You add as wise an amplification that Gods word and mine are two Gods word saith Non est potestas nisi a Deo there is no power but of God Rom. 13.1 But you say say you of me that there is a power which is an usurpation against the word of God It seems then you think that there is no usurped power in the world or Church no not the Popes claim to both the swords Sure you are a learned interpreter of Scriptures whereas its plain the Apostle speaks onely of all kinds of lawful civil powers not denying but some may usurpe a power that belongs not to them as the Pope doth and it s in question between you and me whether Prelacie did or no. You add I cannot distinguish between the office and the abuse Will you then acknowledg it was an abuse in Episcopacie to ingross all government If you do you grant the question if not you trifle Do you not know Master Doctor that these be two things an usurp'd power and an usurpation in power If Episcopacie have no inflitution from Christ it s an usurp'd power an office without institution that question I wave If there be institution for Episcopacie yet if Presbyterie should govern with it and be excluded this is not an abuse of persons but an incroachment of one office upon another This I accuse prelacie of as it stood one would think this were plain enough to a vulgar capacitie yet you run on in your mistake And Parag. 6. Mention divers examples of particular officers and abusing their power in unjust censures or using it in a just way Which is meer trifling as I shall make it appear by your last instance about Bishops depriving Ministers For I question not now the Bishops or you for calling Truth Heresie nor for the abuse of power in suspending or depriving for unjust causes but for doing it solely without the counsel and consent of a Presbyterie wherein I shall hereafter clear to you they usurp more then the practise and counsels of former Bishops allowed them This is the plain state of the business and its ridiculous to undertake the answer of a Treatise and mistake the plain state of the question But Parag. 7. You come to the Minor and that 's trifling still on the same mistake but to seem to say something at last you say It is as false aspeech to say Prelacy dispoiles any as to say Judicatory wrongs any Where still you bewray your ignorance in comparing an act to an office but may not one Court dispoil another Did not you or some Prelates think these Courts did dispoyl them of their rights heretofore that granted Prohibitions in point of tythes c. and so the Civil power incroach on the Ecclesiastique Why else were some Judges so frown'd on by some Prelates for such prohibitions Parag. 8. You come to my proof which I set down Presbyters are by Christs warrant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their Congregations as well as preach you adde in your own character to as well as much why you know best others may guess For proof I bring four Scriptures the first from 1 Tim. 3.5 If any cannot rule his own house how shall he take care for the Church of God Here is care saith the Doctor to be taken for the Church but no rule given to the Presbyter in the Church unless you will allow as much power to rule in his Parish as he hath in his own house Is it so Doctor is there none given because none is exprest Is there not rule in the Church implyed Hear Theophilact a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. in 1 Tim. 3.4 Again in ver 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the house is but as a little Church If therefore he know not how to rule a little and easily circumscribed and known Church how shall he govern so many souls whose mindes he cannot know To the same purpose Chrysostome b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for the Church is a certain house but if the Rector of the Church have assistants in government so hath the husband the wife in his house Now what the Rectors fellows in government are whether lay-Elders or no let the Doctor inquire He concludes it is far more easie to govern an house then the Church therefore he that cannot govern an house c. So you see that place gives by implication government to a Presbyter If you object what Chrysostome after hinteth as though the things here spoken were meant of one of your Bishops first you your self judge the contrary next it will do you no good for he saith the Apostle passeth from Bishops to Deacons not mentioning the order of Presbyters because between a Bishop and a Presbyter there 's almost no difference for the care of the Church is committed to them to wit Presbyters and what
he said of Bishops belongs also to Presbyters Bishops being only in ordination above them Thus Chrysostome Presbyters then were not excluded from governing So Theophylact gives the same reason why Presbyters are not mentioned Quia quae de c. Because what he spake of Bishops belongs to Presbyters for to them the office of teaching and government of the Church is committed being only inferior in regard of election And for what you object about Deacons that we allow them no rule in the Church It 's false they have rule in their sphear that is in disposing the treasury though not persons of the Church they being not over persons which the Presbyter is but the Treasurie The next proof is for the Doctor happily misprinted 1 Tim. 5.21 instead of verse 17. which I believe the Doctor could not but suspect but he was loth to meddle with it yet if he mean to replie I must now minde him of it 1 Tim. 5.17 It is thus written Doctor Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine These you will grant were Presbyter-Bishops for to allow any other at Ephesus would marr the market and see here is ruling distinct from teaching ascribed to Presbyterie Parag. 10. You come to the third Scripture Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls c. Here rule is given to Presbyters Now here the Doctor is pitifully puzled and comes off poorly He asks who are these rulers here mentioned are they Presbyters only Again that he speaks of Presbyters I deny not but that he speaks of Presbyters onely that I deny Good Doctor am I to prove that Presbyters only are rulers or that Bishops are not the only rulers as they were with us If then Presbyters be here meant and they be rulers the Holy Ghost ascribes power of ruling to them which is the question so now I have confitentem reum And your simile Parag. 11. of commanders in an Army helps me not you for though Captains and Lievtenants be not sole rulers they are co-rulers in an Army you know both over their Companies and other Officers in a Counsel of war So if there be Bishops in the Church which you here beg yet they are not to be sole Governours as they stood with us What you have concerning Timothy Parag. 11.12 though I deny not the things it will not serve your turn sith Timothy was not a Bishop in your sense but an extraordinary Officer an Evangelist a distinct office Ephes 4.11 and ascribed to Timothy 2 Tim. 4.5 he had therefore an office and power above a Bishop of your fancle though afterwards from the custome in the Church and some acts that Bishops did like his but not solely he was allusively only if not abusively as Walo Messalinus hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called a Bishop But this digression about Timothy was but to bafflle the Reader and to take him off the plain evidence of the former Scriptures for the close that such power was not in Presbyter-Bishops par enim in parem non habet potestatem Your rule holds while they are single but a company of one kinde is above one single one of the same rank a Presbytery is above any one Presbyter as well as a Synod of Bishops above one Bishop and so a Presbytery may exercise power over one of their Presbyters as well as a Synod of Bishops over one of their fellow Bishops You come to the fourth place 1 Thess 5.12 Parag. 13. We beseech you brethren that ye know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you In answer to this if the Doctor go not against his own conscience he hath but little science First he saith that a great friend of Presbytery saith this place is paralel to that 1 Tim. 5.17 And so say I too And then if it be not cited as you know who cited Scripture with mutilation there will be ruledom for Elders The Elders that rule well But you leave out these words and onely take the latter That these Presbyters are worthy of double honour who labour in the word and doctrine Whence you gather ruling is nothing but labouring in the word and doctrine A collection just like that Matt. 4.6 of Christ casting himself off the pinnacle from Psalm 91.11 lamely quoted You add Theodoret Those that are over you in the Lord that is they that offer up prayers and supplications for you These words of Theodoret you bring cunningly as though they onely expounded the words that are over you Whereas it is all he saith to the expression of admonishing whereby its plain Theodoret by his exposition rather denotes the person intended there to be the Minister then describes his whole work I appeal to your own conscience whether you think the genuine meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to pray for people but in Calvin whom you cite afterwards how egregious is your fraud for though the words you cite are in him yet they are in opening that other part of the text for their works sake but when he comes to that wherein government is how plain is he to my purpose Qui praesunt in domino Hoc additum videtur ad notandum spirituale regimen Which are over you in the Lord. This seems to be added to note the spiritual government praeesse in Domino dicuntur qui Christi nomine mandato Ecclesiam gubernant They are said to be over them in the Lord who govern the Church in the name and in the command of Christ. You abuse Calvin as much in misciting his institutions lib. 4.2 3 5 15. where he speaks not of 1 Thess 4.12 but of Timothy and Titus to whom in the government of the Church he ascribed a Presidency not a Monarchy as his words shew Falluntur si putant c. They are deceived if they think that Timothy or Titus did usurp a kingdom in the Church to dispose of all things at their own arbitriment Praefuerunt enim tantùm ut bonis salutaribus consilijs populo praeirent non ut soli exclusis alijs omnibus agerent quod placeret They were over others onely that they might go before others with good and wholesom counsels Not that all other being excluded they alone might do what they pleased So that this is spoken of those that you call Apostles not Presbyter-Bishops Thus it is apparent how ungroundedly you confine the rule of Presbyters to prayer instruction admonition advise But you say this is all the rule that you can finde belonging to Presbyters All that you will finde you should have said for you might have found it in the name Bishop which is a name of authoritie and rule used by Heathens sometimes for the Rulers of Countries and Provinces who are called Episcopi And why else did that Presbyter that had the chief
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
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
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
ignorance but it grieves you more that I should say the oath in this respect is vinculum iniquitatis and say Parag. 4. I wilfully scandalize divers Princes of blessed memory and charge them almost as deeply as St. Peter did Simon Magus with the bond of iniquity Acts. 8.23 Al-most we say in the north saves many a lâ—e for is affirming that Princes for want of light which they wanted means for do ingage themselves with a pious zeal but not according to knowledg charging them with a crime answerable to Magus his base self-seeking hypocrisie or so inconsistent with a state of grace If it should what case do you put king and Parliament in which more then once charge them with perjurie But tell me sincerely do you not think in times of Poperie many unlawfull things were given to the Clergie and that many Canonicall priviledges were unlawfull Sure either their immunities or the reformation of them was unlawful had you rather condemn the reformation then the corruption for fear of obliquely blaming the ancient Princes Do you not hereby cast an imputation on those latter Princes whom you are more bound to respect Your parag 5. is a scornful Ironie hinting somethings false somethings irrational false it is That what immunities were unlawful in Bishops We would challenge or inherit their anti-Evangelical pomp and as irrational is it not to apprehend that divers scores of Presbyters marshalled into Presbyteries in the several parts of a Diocess may not more easily see and more speedily take course to redress errors and applie general remedies for the reclaiming of the scandalous then one Bishop over divers hundred Congregations some of them the better part of a hundred miles from him The Diocesses of Bishops heretofore were called Parishes and indeed at first few of them equal to some Parishes in England and yet then they had Presbyters Now their Diocesses are as large as Shiers nay it may be contain more Shiers and Presbyteries discarded Is not this prejudicial to the edification of the Church Besides have you not heard what Queen Elizabeth used to say That when she bad made a Bishop she had spoyled a good Preacher And how few of that rank imitate the Apostles diligence or charge for preaching 2 Tim. 4.1 2. Is not this a sign that the greatness is cumbersom Yet we denie not that there was preaching under the Bishops but I am sure there was the less for many of them they silenc'd Preachers prohibited preaching on Lords daies Afternoon c. And there was censure of manners but yet Visitations were but once a year and Presentations to be but twice and might not many a man fall into and perish in sin for all this Besides that their censures were more nimble against me for strictness then loosness or prophaness I believe therefore the intelligent Reader will not be scoff'd out of his belief of what I have hinted Your Parag. 6. Begins as you call it with distempered foame ends with appeal to last judgement which is one main thing which hath made quiet me under Prelatical oppression having referred my self to him that judgeth righteously More of your foame you cast in your fume Parag. 7. First you ask Why we are fallen from abolition to alteration I answer this alteration will prove an abolition to them quâ Bishops do not you fear Next this alteration you jeer not sparing to abuse Scripture to adorne your sarcasms and yet I confess htis alteration of the jurisdiction into more hands and of the means of Bishops to maintain more mouthes to preach the Gospel is the best plea I have against Bishops I confess it is and you shall never prove it anti-Evangelical or anti-Christian But I by it shall blow off all your aspersions that you lay upon me as an enemy of the Church and Ministery in my plea against Bishops whereas this one thing shews I seek the good of both and that rationally Parag. 8. You trifle again about the word altar the vanitie of which exception was before shewed After you cast about your foame which deserves no answer but indignation but whereas you would abuse Saint Augustine to prove me an Heretick citing out of him that he is an Heretick that for any temporary commodity and chiefly for his own glory and preferment doth either raise or follow false and new opinions Mine answer is that I have proved my opinions grounded on Scripture and so neither false nor new And for any end of mine in it besides the peace of the land and the edification of the Church I leave my self to him that tries the heart and reins Parag. 9. You come to examine what I said touching the legalitie of your priviledges that if they be held by law the Parliament that hath power to alter all laws may alter those laws and so the immunity ceaseth You here first grant you claim no priviledges but what is legal but you cavil at that which is said that the Parliament hath power to alter all laws nay you affirm it is Atheisticall to affirm that the Parliament can alter the laws of God but all this is but trifling for you know by laws I mean only humane laws of their own making and all laws are understood by me divisim not conjunctim that is they have power to advise upon any particular law whatsoever or whomsoever it concerns and if on advisement it seem conducible to weal-publike to alter it they have power to proceed to alteration and so the Londoners themselves whom here you would jeer or provoke against me would not I am sure they should not deny the Parliaments power to alter any of their immunities that are convinc'd prejudicial to the weal-publique Parag. 12. To that which I say upon the alteration of the law the immunitie ceaseth you in effect deny the conclusion for you answer not the argument convincing but hold the Thesis You add indeed that an ordinance was never conceived sufficient to alter a law but what 's this to the purpose who speaks of ordinances my argument runs of laws If any think themselves absolv'd from the oath of alliegance by an ordinance let them bear their burthen neither do I go about to absolve the King from his oath of protection as you here calumniate me but interpret the bond rationally which you cannot answer and so vent your self in impertinent accusations But you conclude Parag. 13. that suppose there be such a law could it be just c. You are pleased to acknowledg our priviledges to be our rights how then can they be taken from us without injury 1. You alter the state of the question for every injurie is not perjurie the quaerie was whether they could be taken away without perjurie 2. I acknowledg them your rights that is such as you have a legal claim to while the laws thus stand but these your rights were of three sorts 1. Some of your Canonicall priviledges at least formerly were corrupt Such were
abolish'd by Henry the 8. These were your rights that is you had claim to them by mans not Gods law 2. Some were essentiall to the callings grounded on the Word of God 3. Some were indulged by the Prince and State The first sort were void to a Christian by their anomie The second unviolable by the unquestionable authoritie of God the Author of them The third are under the Consult of Parliaments as other laws which are the peoples birth-right and they may alter both if they see occasion So the laws that concern the Clergie make them neither worse nor better then those laws that concern the Laytie render them Case of Conscience Resolved THe Author illustrateth the force of his argument by an example holding forth an inconvenience Where publique faith is given for money it is not releaseable by Parliament without consent of the partie for if it be it is in effect no ingagement c. Answ There 's a great deal of difference between an engagement made to persons on valuable considerations and that which is made gratis to an office or societie subservient to publique good Of the former kinde is the engagement to pay sums of money of whom they were borrowed for publike good which is indispensible without the consent of the lender Of the latter sort is this engagement to the English Clergie Now engagements to a Societie to maintain their rights indulged for the personall worth of present incumbents or to promote the usefulness of that office If in their matter they prove prejudiciall to the office or the succeeding officers by their ill demeanor forfeit them their engagement becomes alterable There is no injustice done to make a law to over-rule or alter this engagement There 's no question of power in the Parliament to over-rule it for in the former case of money if the King and Parliament should ordain release of the engagement the engagement was gone in law not in equitie the order would be valid in law though injurious So if there be no injurie the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation And where there is forfeiture by miscarriage or the priviledg to a Ministrie which ought to hold nothing but for publike good proves prejudiciall the abrogation will be just as well as legall there will be no injurie done But take it at the worst it is but for the King to get the Clergies consent and I hope in this case they will not be so tenacious of their wealth and honour as to let the Crown run an hazzard rather then they lay down their Mitres and indanger the whole land to be brought to nothing rather then themselves to moderation I cannot but have a better conceit of the Major part of them at this time which will amount to a consent and that in this Authors judgment takes off the scruple about the oath CHAP. VIII Shewing that abuses are a forfeiture of some priviledges in answer to Doctor Boughen's 14. Chapter I Come now to answer your 14. Chapter which you entitle whether the lands of the Church may be forfeited by the misdemeanor of the Clergie But here I must minde you and the Christian reader that whereas there are two parts of the Clergie in England 1. Parochiall Pastors which stand by the ordinance of God who appointed the ordaining of Elders in every Church 2. Diocesan Bishops which I have proved to be but humane creatures invented and set up as Jerome saith to prevent Schismes That which I have spoken of forfeitures belongs to the latter which are not Gods ordinance though it may be so they would keep within ancient bounds and express ancient worth they might not be only tolerable but usefull yet if these abuse their power and become an inconvenience instead of curing an inconvenience and any thing indulged to them for the honour of God be abused to his dishonour in the hurt of the Churches then they make forfeiture Now the Case thus stated Your instance Parag. 1. of Abiathars being succeeded by another not the office abolisht is not a pari for that was in an office expresly Gods ordinance so Episcopacie is not What you say Parag. 2. about justice out of Lactantius who in that place distinguisheth between Jus civile quod pro moribus ubique variatur vera justitia quà m uniformem ac simplicem proposuit omnibus Deus I acknowledg the truth of his speech nor would I nor do I maintain any thing against true justice But what you infer from thence that where true justice is wanting there 's no law nor no Common-wealth c. It is evidently contrarie to his minde for though this true and perfect justice was wanting in all heathen societies for they had some constitutions that swerv'd from it yet no man will say there were no Common-wealths but tyrannies among the heathen though they were not such compleat Common-wealths as they might have been had they known the rule of Gods perfect justice Parag. 3. To that that there 's great difference between an engagement made to persons on valuable considerations and which is made gratis to an office or societie subservient to publique good You answer that the setling of land upon a Corporation is more firm and that gift gives as good propriety as purchase wherein you wilfully mistake the scope of my speech or ignorantly for the difference I speak of is in regard of the injurie in alteration and that too where and when there is miscarriage Now I hope though I must return to a corrupt man what is his own yet it is no injurie to deny courtesies which are given gratis to men for their worth Artaxerxes bestowed a great largess on the Ministers of the Sanctuarie and he did excellently wel in it and in the confirmation of it yet you simply make that expression the Law of God and of the King to relate to that one Decree of Darius which you will plainly see if you read Ezra 7.24 25 26. together But the question is if the following Priests had set up themselves with that the Kings benevolence and neglected the work of God and had grown insolent against the Monarch Whether it had been injurious in the succeeding Monarchs to have recalled that gift given to good men to make them more serviceable to God and devout in their prayers for the King But Par. 4. You say these lands and immunities were made to the office and Episcopacy is a living office But I answer it s an office that may dye for the diocesan-Diocesan-Bishop can finde his Register in Gods Book he is later then the word written and therefore this plea will not help him Parag. 5. To that what is granted to personal worth of present incumbents and given to promote the usefulness of the office You say It is fixed till the office be found useless and abolisht but till then it is injustice to take it away without which the usefulness of that office cannot be so well promoted I
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
the Pastor some to the poor some to other pious uses but when your Prelates grew Lordly the like not that and therefore by little and little they changed the Deacons office and made themselves proprietaries of the great revenues and thereby great Princes and you can abuse Scripture to confirm it as the Papists do to exalt the Pope But Paul say you commanded Timothy that the Presbyters be well provided for 1 Tim. 5.17 And to what purpose was this charge unless he were to provide for the Presbyters of his Church For very good purpose as the Apostle shews you himself 1 Tim. 4.11 These things command and teach He was to teach it others to perform it for though he set Presbyters on work in some sense yet it was not for himself but Christ and his Church and they who reap'd their spirituals were to pay them temporals 1 Cor. 9. And you dream when you talk of Timothyes table or allowing maintenance Alas he had no Palace then he kept no Prince-like table to feed his Presbyters these fancies will be ridiculous to learned men especially to Bishops to lay the charge on them to maintain all the Presbyters in their Diocess Yet you say in those times Bishops and Presbyters were used to live in the same house What all the Presbyters in a Diocess and in the Apostles time Alas Sir they were like their Master they had no houses but what they hired nor no tables but where they sojourned as appears by Divine story With what face can you deliver such improbabilities But Parag. 10. You enquire Whence the want of maintenance for preaching Presbyters ariseth and you answer it is from the appropriation of tythes at the dissolution of Abbeys This is true in part but not in the whole for I believe the greater part of Appropriations are held of Bishops and Deans and Chapters and if the Bishops be to maintain the Presbyters and withhold the tythes who is the thief now At least thus far the attempt is just to restore their impropirations And I must tell you this too That there was scarce any Gentleman of any ingenuitie or affection to religion but he made a far more considerable addition out of his impropriation to the incumbent then either Bishops or Deans and Chapters Though the one purchased them when the other swore they came into them freely Nay some Gentlemen resigned their impropriations freely I can hear of no Bishop that hath done so though you say they are bound to maintain their Presbyters You close with a jeer but therein discover your ignorance Impropriations were injurious you confess and if they be not valid in law why do not you supply the cure of some great impropriation and recover the tythes in a legall way if you cannot my position is truth and so not dissonant from the God of truth Parag. 11. You bring my words that if Bishops Lands were bestowed on Presbyters This would be not ruine but to rectifie the devotion of former ages which you say is somewhat like Cardinall Woolsey's pretence who dissolved fourty small Monasteries of ignorant Monks to erect two goodly Colledges for the breeding up learned and industrious Divines was not this to turn impediments into helps was not this as fair a pretence as mine yes the very same and I think few godly and rationall men will disallow it But you would prove by the event that this was not accepted of God because his Colledges were not brought to perfection But vulgus res eventu metitur it s for vulgar capacities to judge of things by the event not Doctors of Divinitie And had Cardinall Woolsey think you no other sins to make God blast his design but this pious attempt Sure no man that knows his story will so judg but this gave occasion to profuse sacriledg but occasions are not alwaies culpable of ill events unless they becauses also as this was not but the covetousness and igonrance with other lusts of ill-guided men Parag. 12. you enquire what the meaning of these words is this will turn pomp into use I answer not what you say but so that wealth which of late served for the useless pomp of one only Princely Lord Bishop would provide many able preachers for the use and edification of the Church But you proceed and say that the power of Bishops which were the main impediments to schism and heresie we have covenanted to root out and have brought in all helps to irreligion and Atheism c. But this is but a false suggestion of yours for though the power of Episcopacie as Jerome saith was first erected to prevent schism yet amongst us of late as I have shewed it was the great occasion of schism the fautor of divers heresies That there have of late appeared more heresies and schism among us then formerly is not because Episcopacie was pul d down but because we were so long without Presbyterie setled which is yet but lamely done for where that is setled it would far better prevent the rise and growth of heresie then Episcopacie as King James demonstrated to Mountague Bishop of Bath and Wells demanding of him upon the occasion of Legatts Arrianism what the reason should be that Scotland was so free from schism and heresie when England was far more pestered with both The relation out of a learned Author you may take as followeth When Legatt the Arrian and Weakman Scoti paracl contra Tileri praen from the relation of a Courtier of good credit lib. 1. c. 8 that affirmed himself to be the Holy Ghost were put to death Mountague Bishop of Bath and Wells ask'd King James seriously whence it was that England did bring forth Sects heresies schisms insomuch that many families before we were aware separated from us and fled away whereas no such thing was observed to happen in the Church of Scotland To whom the King as most skilfull in this cause most wisely answered That such was the Discipline of the Scotch Church that it was impossible for such things to fall out amongst them for first saith the King you must know that every Church hath its Pastor alwaies resident and vigilant in his parish and this Pastor hath joyned with him Seniors and Deacons which every week meet together at a set time and place for the censure of manners that almost the whole flock is known by face to the Pastor and the conditions disposition and religion of everyone is made apparent no heresie therefore can spring up in a Parish without notice taken by the Pastor and to prevent the rooting of any error in a Pastor They have every week their Presbyteries composed of all the Pastors in a Shrievalty or Deanrie in the chief City of that precinct and this not only to decide the more weighty questions touching manners but also to try doctrine it self Here do prophesie at least two whereof the first doth only open the text and expound it The second doth give the
the Parliament into the joynt assistance of making laws makes not them supream yet it hinders that supremacie of laws-making from being solely in him sith he can do nothing without them For Parag. 24. I would not brand you nor delude the people as you object But onely seek to give a rational sence of the kings oath which they that oppose brand themselves I did believe what I expres'd in my good conceit of the present Bishops tenderness to preserve the King from hazzard but if they be all of your minde I see I am deceived for let the Crown or life of king sink or swim he shall have no consent from you to enlarge his conscience to consent to abolish Episcopacie for the safegard of either For Parag. 25. 26. I desire no more then that the king should give every one his own preferring the publike before any private I confess the kings readiness to confirm Bills such and so large as never were the like but yet I know and you know what danger the king and land hath been and is in for want of consent to let down Episcopacie And in this exigent wherein we are by the corruption of man I humbly give my advice to promote Peace and prevent much of that blood and misery which for want of peace still continues and threatens worse to the Church I confess then either the want or presence of Bishops But your Sun must set under a Cloud and therefore Parag 17. you tell me He that slayeth a Prelate to whom he owes faith and obedience its Treason you amplifie If it be Treason to kill a Prelate then how much greater to kill Prelacy Negatur Argumentum egregie D. D. It follows not for he that kills a Bishop kills a man and he hath Gods Image stampt on him But Episcopacy as I have shewed is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inhumane creature so he may be removed regularly without any injury to God Besides you consider not that Bishop is a concrete word including a man and Episcopacy Concretum relativum as the Logicians call it But Episcopacie is an abstract your similitude onely holds thus as it were worse to kill the species then one man so to abolish Episcopacy then to degrade one Bishop If either were evil But in a regular way I have shewed you both are good therefore as I fear not your law so I doubt not of Gods approbation being conscious to my sincere intentions for the good of King and kingdom in it For your Conclusion Parag. Vlt. I must minde you that it cannot be better then the Prâ—mises Conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem Therefore I may conclude That would the abolition of Episcopacy make our peace put an end to blood rapine misery The king may with safety and approbation do it But if God be not pleased to perswade his heart so far If that moderation that he would bring them to would satisfie others I think as the case stands they may do innocently and commendably to close with him Yea I think those who upon a serious consideration of the over-flowing of all sin with an high hand shall yield first that some government may be setled in the Church Laws recover their power in the Common-wealth sin be prevented Justice and amity revived they will be most acceptable to God and ought to be so with men Deo gloria Finis Postscript THe sentence you after all cite out of Doctor Burges I may not pass over Observe the plagues of such men as are never touch'd with the miseries of others They commonly fall under the same judgments which others unpitied have tasted before I thank God this toucheth not me for I have neither caused nor been senceless of the miseries of others But have not many poor Ministers been silenc'd turn'd out of all for things that others counted trifles and might have forborn them in but they scrupled at as sins and could not submit And have they not past unpitied by many Prelates and Prelatical men I speak not of my own Diocesan whom I found most pittiful and would not be slack to requite it with active sympathie upon good opportunity But Doctor you know what pitty you vouchsafe them in this Treatise Nothing but Schismaticks and Hereticks justly ejected c. Therefore now with Josephs Brethren consider how you have been in a fault concerning your Brethren Gen. 42.21.22 and give glory to God that he may lift you up which I heartily wish and beg of God and so Doctor fare you well Errata PAge 17. line 17. read officers page 18. line 24. dele and p. 21 l 10. χ. p. 24. put in the margin against line 7 8 9. Apol. cap. 39. p. 37. l. 31. dele or p. 49. l. 25. r. by p. 61. in title of the 6. chapter for explanations r. exclamations p. 70. l. 2. for me r. men p. 75. l. 14. for can r cannot p. 95. l. 17. for one r. me p. 100. l. 2. for cause r. casse p. 104. l. 24. for uncivil r. civil p. 106. l. 16. r. This must ariseth p. 112. l. 28. r. diminishing p. 114. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 116. l. 9. r. is So Episcopacy p. 119. l. 18. read summus