the Church being within the time of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the pre-eminence of Power Order or Jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves or between the Bishops themselves but that they were all equal in power authority and jurisdiction and that there is now and since the time of the Apostles such difference among the Bishops it was devised by the antient Fathers of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and unity of the Catholick Church and that either by the consent and authority or else by the permission and suffering of the Prince and civil power for the time ruling the said Fathers considering the infinite multitude of Christians so greatly encreased taking examples from the Old Testament thought it expedient to make degrees among Bishops and to limit their several Diocesses bounds of Jurisdiction and Power And then Sir this Form of Government will seem to be more Jewish Papal Paganish or at best political and civil than Apostolical the last of which the Statutes of our Kingdom do declare it to be affirming that the Arch-bishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiastical persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical 26. Hen 8. cap. 26.31 Henr. 8. cap. 9 10.37 Hen 8 cap. 17. 1. Ed. 6 cap. 2 1 5 8. Eliz c. 1. but by under and from the Kings Royal Majesty and Patrick Adamson Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews in Scotland Anno 1591. in his Recantation at the Synod at Fife professed sincerely ex animo That Bishops and Ministers are by the Word of God equal and the Hierarchy or Superiority of the Bishops nullo nititur verbi fundamento And I think it had been but Reason some satisfactory answer had been given to Gersom Bucer his Dissertationes de Gubernatione Ecclesiae Didoclavius his Altare Damascenum Cartwright's Exceptions Paul Bains his Diocesan Tryal Smectymnus and especially Mr. William Pryns publick and positive Challenge in the unbishoping of Timothy and Titus which I think will be ad Grecas Calendas before they think so of an University had been published as a stumbling Block to the peoples swearing of the Solemn League and Covenant when thereunto called by Parliament But it may be Sir I run too fast methinks their think so of Divine Right and Apostolical establishment is asserted very faintly and therefore it is restrained and limited with an Episcopal Aristocracy hath a fairer pretension and may lay a juster title and claim to a Divine Institution than Papal Monarchy Presbyterian Democracy or Independent Yet I must say fair pretension and comparative claims are very weak props against Parliamentary Resolves and the power of an Oath it must be plain and undeniable Divine Right must stand against them But what is that they call Episcopal Aristocracy Are not these learned men mistaken in their terms hath not Englands Episcopacy been ever deemed a Monarchy and of the same kind but lower degree with Papacy How can it be conformable to the Government of the Nation which these very men tell us is Merum Imperium an Empire Monarchy p. 11 and establish that Maxim no Bishop no King if it be an Aristocracy Whoever deemed Presbytery a Democracy Or on what colourable ground can it be so deemed doth not this Form fix the Government in the seniores and illustrior pars populi The Officers of the Church ordering all and ruling the whole Church excluding the Congregation from all Acts of Government save a shewing their just exception to any Order Office or Censure If Presbytery be a Democracy what can Independency be judged I find these learned men by the nicety of this distinction at a loss for its name as well they might and so I shall leave it and suppose a willingness in the University of Oxford to assent to Doctor Whitakers Thesis That Regimen Ecclesiae non est Monarchicum nec Aristocraticum nec Democraticum sed Democratica Monarchica Aristocratica That the Government of the Church is a Formal Aristocracy qualified with something of Monarchy which he means not to be the superiority of Prelates and Democracy by which is not meant the ruling power of the people let but this learned Doctor explain himself and Mr. Thomas Cartwright expound nay translate his words and we shall find a Government which will lay a very fair claim unto a Divine Right Si velimus Christum ipsum respiscere fuit semper Ecclesiae Regimen Monarchicum Whitak oper Tom. 2. de Rom. Pont. Quest 12. de Origin Eccles Cartwrights first Reply to Whitakers gift page 35 si Ecclesiae Presbyteros qui in Doctrina Disciplina suas partes agebant Aristocratioun si totum corpus Ecclesiae quatenus in Electione Episcoporum Presbyterorum suffragia ferebat ita tamen ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper Presbyteris servatur Democraticum which Cartwright thus renders The Church is governed with that kind of Government the Philosophers have affirmed to be the best for in respect of Christ the head not his Vicar or Superiority of single Prelates it is a Monarchy in respect of the Ancients and Pastours that govern in common all the Presbytery with like Authority among themselves not a Superiority over them it is an Aristocracy and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest unto exception in Church-matters it is a Democracy If then these men will take down the towring power of Prelates and turn their Magisterial Throne into a Ministerial Chair and bring into the Cathedral Council of Deans and Chapters all the Presbyters and let these lofty persons stand amongst their Fellows till by common consent for common order one of them be set in the Chair to gather Suffrages regulate the Assembly declare their sentence and see to the execution of their Decrees and summon them together they shall constitute a Government which I think will not only fairly pretend unto but plainly appear to have an Apostolical Institution and Establishment and there are very many both ancient and moderne Authors of my opinion and then we need no more dispute the matter of extirpation of Prelacy for in this sense the Covenant will rather establish it Their think so of Divine Right turns into an assurance of universal uninterrupted succession of this Form of Government in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian for fifteen hundred years together without any considerable opposition save that of Aerius which sprang from discontent and gain'd him the reputation of an Heretick This is Sir the old only and usual guard of Prelacy I will not deny Antiquity its due Reverence though I put not on it The Antiquity of Englands Prelacy observed nor consent unto it an authority equal with or as the Papists Idolize it above the Scriptures I confess in matters of Fact it may give a clearer conviction than direction and assert things past done rather than that they should be done and continue It is well if
putting on it a sense agreeable to their purpose which is repugnant to the plain and express Letter of the Covenant in the point of Episcopacy correcting their infirmity graviori peccato with a more grievous impiety mending rash swearing by plain perjury and after a sober admonition and refutation pertinaciously retain their resolution by publishing the very same pleas for breach of Covenant and braving it to the world with a bold asserting Dr. Gaudens Epistle to the doubts and scruples about taking the Covenant No sacred Oath or Promise can bind the soul of man from its just freedom which is rational civil moral legal and religious nor can it be bound to execute or fulfil any such when it is willingly or by inadvertency or malice formally engaged by them but not really to them I wish Sir that this Doctor would attend Doctor Halls Divinity with as much diligence as he seems to me to affect his Dialect What a preposterous and immethodical course do the Divines of our time take to discharge the obligation of the Covenant by scandalizing the same with the irregularities which attended the first taking of it That many miscarriages occasioned by the commotion and turbulency of those martial days in which it was digested and propounded to the people did accompany the Covenant when tendred and first taken I can easily consent but not so great as they seem in the multiplyidg-glass of passion and prejudice by which they are now suggested much less were they so great as to discharge the bond of it I confess the Covenant ought not to have been the effect of Scottish importunities or English compliances nor to have been brought forth by the midwifry of tumults and engaged enraged Armies parties and factions nor its convictions and perswasions to have been by sequestrations and imprisonments as Dr. Gauden in his Analysis suggesteth but I on grounds urged in my Analepsis cannot yield it was yet grant it will these things avail to the discharge of its binding force and make it void Nothing less Nay League in the Illegal Sir should I consent and subscribe unto the verity of the Arguments urged by Dr. Featley his Ghost and admit what I shall hereafter deny 1. The supposed Solecism and mistaken order of the words in the Covenant 2. The supposed end and aim of the Contrivers of the Covenant 3. The wants of authority in the Imposers 4. The ambiguity and seeming contradictions of many expressions 5. That many took it not in Truth Righteousness and Judgment 6. That it wants warrant in Scripture and is onely bottomed on the basis of Natural Policy 7. That it is derogatory to Englands honour 8. Taken without important cause and urgent necessity and so was faulty in these and the like circumstances which call for Repentance in Imposers and Takers yet it must be a Solecism in Divinity to awake this book and send abroad these exceptions against the Act of making and swearing the Covenant in hope that a review of them may make us repent and be wise and to confirm men the Apostates in their aversion pretended conversion from he Covenant and draw others from it by the strength of conviction I will grant his Maxime Deliberandum est diu quod statuendum est semel And though I believe the determination of the Covenant was on due advice yet we will consent unto him to repent and confess these mistakes But I must tell his Majesties Chaplain that Dr. Saunderson will not upon all this give us leave to cast off the Covenant but constrains our consciences to revive it Juramentum de re non illicita sit aliunde illicitum Sanderson de juramento prael 2 a. p. 55. ex aliquo externo defectu propter aliquam indebitam circumstantiam respectu actus jurandi possit obligare jurantem ad implendum quod promisit An Oath lawful in the matter unlawful in external undue circumstances in the act of swearing binds to accomplishment This Sir hath the more influence upon me because it is Oxford Divinity conceived to be read on the occasion of this Covenant We confess with Augustine David juravit temere sed non implevit majori pietate David sware rashly but with piety repented and retracted because the matter self-revenge in Nabal's ruine was wicked Which is not our case when the matter of the Covenant appears to be manifest sin we must retract it till then we will repent rashnesse unadvisednesse in the act but retain its obligation lest we patch up sinne by sinne Now I deal with His Majesties Chaplain may I Sir make bold to whisper another notion of Divinity in his ear he may have occasion and opportunity to use it Sir it is this That a Peoples imposing on their Prince and binding him to terms and bringing him under an Oath not onely for themselves but all their fellow-subjects in all or any the Kings Dominion for which act the Scots are much censured and could I have advised should have been more innocent savours something of disorder tumult irregularity and vulgar violence And yet Grotius determines the matter being lawful it obligeth the Prince so sworn because God is invocated and the King was voluntarily subjected Though he doubt the power of Co-action of a Princes performance by men yet he affirms the obligation befor God Crotius de jure belli pacis l. 2. c. 14. p. 233. His conclusion is this on the discussion of the Question Dicimus ergo ex promisso contractu regis quem cum subditis iniit nasci veram ac propriam obligationem quae jus det subditis The promise or Covenant into which the King shall enter with his subjects doth engender a true and proper obligation and conser on the Subjects a right whereon to demand performance I will not justifie all past actions but can scarce refrain from adding to the Letany From contrary Coronation-Oaths good Lord deliver us Lastly How far wide do they shoot who direct the private doubts and particular scruples of private persons or societies against the taking the Solemn League and Covenant to discharge its obligation Men print and re-print the Oxford Reasons and make a great noise with them in the world and yet they are meet private reasons professedly relating to their own refusal of the Covenant and they never tell us whether they or any of the persons concerned received satisfaction to their reasons Not to judge the consciences of others but to clear our selves before God and the world from all suspicion of obstinacy Oxford Reasons Pref. p. 1. and after submitted to the taking of the Covenant nor is it considered the Reasons do profess an Apology and pray a personal excuse of themselves from the Act but do not so much as pretend to acquit the bond of the Covenant to such as had taken it Now granting that these Reasons might have that force that the Authors of them could not without sin conform to
that thereof they were still perswaded Sir what effect had been wrought on their consciences I cannot tell I will hope they were not seared or shut up by a resolution of non-perswasion to the contrary yet had I been amongst them with submission I must have expostulated with them and enquire Whether they had not subscribed to the use of the Common Prayer and form in the said Book prescribed in publick prayer Enjoyned to be subscribed by every Minister before he be ordained in Canons of 1603. Ca. 36. and NONE OTHER Did none of these Masters publickly pray in St Maryes in Oxford and other Churches before and after their Sermons Were not such prayers publick prayer Did they at such times use the Common Prayer If not did not their consciences mind them of their subscribed promise solemnly made in entring on so holy a calling Are not NONE OTHER words as fully exclusive of their own forms extemporary or premeditate as can be expressed Admit we this Common Prayer to be lawful yea necessary is not this exclusive subscription a plain limitation of the Spirit rejection of the gift of prayer and robbing the Church of Ministerial parts unto prayer as well as preaching to the edification thereof Did Christ when he prescribed the most perfect prayer tye his Disciples to use that and None other Can any rationally-religious man subscribe this promise and approve it to be agreeable to the VVord of God and stand perswaded it is not contrary thereunto Secondly Is it agreeable to the Word of God to affix a sentence of mans conception and framing to divine service and denominate it a Sentence of Scripture In the Rubrick of the Common Prayer the Priest is appointed to read one of these sentences of Scripture which follow The very first of which is At what time soever a sinner repenteth him of his sin from the bottom of his heart I will put all his wickednesse out of my remembrance saith the Lord the which is referred in the Margine as are the following sentences to their places unto Ezek. 18.21 As is Dr. Boyes in his Exposition of the Liturgy p. 1. 22 to say nothing of the effect though accidental of this supposed Scripture how many have been deceived really believing it to be a Sentence of Scripture when it is not found in all the Bible Methinks these men should have observed how our late Masters had corrected this gross and obvious fault in the Scotch Liturgy before they had thus confidently told the world They were perswaded there is nothing in the worship of England which is not agreeable to the VVord of God Thirdly In the VVorship of England much of Canonical Scripture is omitted and never to be read a fault complained of by the first Compilers of the Common-Prayer-Book and much of the Ap crypha Vide. The Preface of it vain false and ridiculous is appointed to be publickly read the great Bible-Translation of the Psalms is thrust out The titles of the Psalmes Psa 72. Psa 14. Psa 105.28 and a most corrupt Translation of them omitting some whole sentences adding whole verses and falsly translating many places and Texts is affixed unto the Common-Prayer-Book and made part of it Some part of Scripture is dignified above other parts thereof the Gospel must be honoured with the standing up of the people the Epistle no way different in the matter Christ crucified but only in the name and manner of Revelation from the Gospel is slighted Will the Gentlemen of Oxford say this is agreeable to the VVord of God They must prove it for we shall not believe them and the rather for that this gross abuse is palliated by this false profession in the Preface to this Book That nothing is ordained to be read but the pure VVord of God the holy Scriptures or that which is evidently grounded thereupon Vide. The Anatomy of the Service-book p. 18. and the rather for that we find the Common-Prayer-Book condemned in respect of these particulars by Dr. Spark no mean Son of the Church Fourthly Will these Masters and Scholars stand perswaded that the extraordinary Solemn Worship appointed by the Common-Prayer-Book unto holy dayes and their Eves is agreeable to the Word of God wherein every particular holy-day hath its distinct and particular Collects Epistles and Gospels as its Solemn Service appointed not to insist on the supposed influence of that reputed sanctity on the Six or Seaven days following directing the same service to be impertinently continued as in the Feast of the Nativity Easter Whitsuntide Ascension and others nor the unwaerrantable preheminence given to some parts of Scripture above others or the irrational denomination of some Prophetical and Historical portions of Scripture Epistles all which are well urged by many Non-conformists I would enquire what part of Sacred Writ stamps Sanctity on Wednesday and Friday more than the other four dayes of the week and sets them into a parity with Sunday to retain their Dialect that the same more Solemn service shall be read on those dayes as on that day By what Scripture-waâ—â— mediate or immediate are other dayes besides the Lords day made holy or sanctified in honour of the Saints so as in their nature to interdict mens labour in their lawful calling engage men to the exercises of Religion as oft as they return and become Subjects of that Solemn Service which may not on other dayes be offered unto God Is not a Religious owning and observation of some time as not appointed by the God of our time whose sole Prerogative it is to make it Solemn and Holy time to be Religiously employed a plain and formal Superstition repugnant to Gospel-Rules Gal. 4.10 Coloss 2.16 I am not ignorant that some holy-dayes have been of ancient and universal observation in the Church and have laid claim to Apostolical tradition and occasioned much controversie in the Church but I stand unsatisfied in their institution I deny not the just authority of the Church or Christian Magistrate over our time but I think there is a vast difference between time as the subject and as the adjunct of Religion God only can make it the first humane authority may appoint holy Fasting and holy Feasting those transient acts of Worship dependant on and subservient unto Gods dispensations of providence to his people and so may determine the second time like the dayes of Purim as a necessary adjunct to those acts of Worship but to make holy-dayes Subjects of Solemn Sacred service I have not seen any Commission that doth authorize the Church thereunto Eminent Saints call for the esteem of the Church but the keeping of them in a Calendar and appointing them their several holy-dayes sets them a pitch too high and shews the Church partial respecters of persons having some in admiration and slighting others no less deserving or subjects here unto an intolerable burden by necessitating every day to be Holy The Nativity Circumcission Passion
and after the example of their Master Jesus Christ and that by vertue of their ordinary power and authority derived from him as deputed by him Governours of his Church Or at least that Episcopal Aristocracy may lay a more just title and claim to a Divine Institution than Papal Monarchy Presbyterial Democracy and Independants by particular Congregations or gathered Churches 2. We are assured by the undoubted testimony of Ancient Records and later History that this Form of Government hath been continued with such an universal uninterrupted unquestioned succession in all the Churches and in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian for fifteen hundred years together that there never was in all that time any considerable opposition against it that of Aerius was the greatest which grew from discontent and gain'd him the reputation of an Heretick From which antiquity to depart they fear by this extirpation to give advantage to the Papists by contempt of antiquity and should diminish the Authority due to the consentient judgement and practice of the universal Church c. Sir this is a very fair and specious exception for Divine Institution and ancient universal practice are very strong bars against any Oath and strong conjecture of the one and certain assurance of the other do forcibly supersede any mans acting to the contrary yet Sir I wonder that these learned men do but think of a Divine Institution and yet are assured of ancient universal practice uninterrupted for fifteen hundred year methinks the last should rather have remained doubtful for conscience can only be satisfied in the certainty of the former A think so in a Divine Warrant is both sinful and dangerous and I think the universal uniterrupted practice of the Church for fifteen hundred years might well run back unto the times of our Lord and Saviour and at least the Acts of his Apostles and the Sacred as well as Ecclesiastical Story might make mention of this Government and so create an undeniable certainty for the one is a very uncertain ground of assurance without the other But stay Sir I forgot the year in which these learned men wrote it was 1647. and so indeed one hundred and forty years might return before Episcopal Government appeared in the World and yet they may by antient Records and later Histories find the practice of it fifteen hundred years but this will more weaken than strengthen the Divine Right for without doubt the most primitive and pure estate of the Church was in the first one hundred and forty years 2. Their Argument loseth its force by the ambiguity of their terms for I am Sir at the same loss with them for the Ratio formalis objecti Saint Peters Bonds abide p. 2 3. the thing to be extirpated as in my last with Dr. Gauden They tell us of an Episcopal Government and an Episcopal Aristocracy but do not describe it it is no marvel that the Popes Legates should interdict the dispute in the Council of Trent History of the Council of Trent Edit 3. p. 591 592. concerning the Divine Right of Episcopal Superiority or direct it into such general and uncertain debates that there might be of it no determination but Sir I think it very strange that a Protestant University professedly seeking satisfaction to their conscience should so sophistically by general terms of an uncertain acceptation maintain to themselves doubts to which they desire resolution They well know Episcopal Government may denominate the Government Communi Concilio Presbyterorum by all Ministers in the Church who are the very true undoubted Scripture-Bishops unto which or whom there may be ordinis causa for method sake a Superintendent Moderator or Chair-man and this Episcopal Government is undoubtedly of Divine Institution and antient practice prescribed by the Holy Ghost and propounded in the sacred story of the Acts of the Apostles Chap. 20.28 where as in other Scriptures Bishops and Presbyters are terms synonimous denominating persons invested with the same Office and Authority and enjoying the same qualifications and by common consent ruling the Church of Christ and then Sir we must tell them this is not to be endeavoured to be extirpated nor doth the Covenant so propound it which if it do I consent to reject it But if by Episcopal Government they mean that special Form and Frame of Government wherein one person is advanced into a distinct order of Ministry above other Ministers and is invested with Prince-like power over them enjoying an Authority peculiar to him eonomine as Bishop of sole Ordination and Jurisdiction unto whom all other his Fellow-Ministers are Subjects and must swear to him obedience who must have a Council denominated Deans Deacons Prebends Chapters and the like over and among whom he sits as Lord and yet over him acknowledgeth a more superiour order under the title of Arch-bishop to whom he oweth and sweareth obedience and in this superiour order and lordly manner he ruleth all Pastours and People somtimes by himself somtimes by his Chancellor or Comissary his Surrogates Deans and Arch-deacons with all Officers of State and Power within such prefixed bounds and limits which is called his peculiar Diocess and either they must mean this or mistake the meaning of the Covenant which yet doth very plainly describe the Prelacy to be extirpated to be a Government by Arch-bishops Bishops their Chancellours Commissaries Deans c. And then Sir I must deny not that they think for I must believe the profession of their thought though I think it strange but that there is any good ground for such thoughts and the opinion of an University will not without good demonstration in this point beget such thoughts in me That the Apostles by vertue of their ordinary power and authority derived from Christ and deputed Governours of his Church did ever establish this Episcopal Government or that it was according to the mind and after the example of Jesus Christ who himself did never exercise a Pompous and Princely power over his Disciples but conversed with them as his Peers and Equals and gave them in charge that they should not affect Superiority one over another or Princely power over Gods Heritage I must put these Masters and Scholars of Oxford to prove by plain and pregnant Scripture That the Office of the Ministry may in Ordination be divided and only some part of it be thereby committed so as that the Deacons may preach and baptize but not consecrate the Lords Supper That there are more orders of the Ministry than one the Bishop or Presbyter or more Officers in the Church than Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their Apostolical Authority who have only described their qualification and directed the Ordination of these two and no more That the Presbyter in whom is required the same qualification to whom is to be yielded the same obedience subjection and respest who receiveth the same Ordination and is charged with the same duty
and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God with the Bishop and none other is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop so to be ruled by him and not to exercise his Office but by the Bishops License and at his pleasure and that the Presbyter is bound to swear obedience to the Bishop as his Ordinary That certain particular Priests or Deacons shuld by Papal constitution and Princely indulgence without the counsel and common suffrages of the Colledge of Presbyters bespeaking their conset or consent of the common people The force of Prelacy covenanted against be constituted a Colledge or Cathedral Council to the Bishop to advise with him and rule under him by the name of Deans Deans and Chapters Arch-deacon and Prebends to Elect the Bishop in vacancy and hold Courts constitute Canons and exercise all Jurisdiction over all Churches and Ministers not being so much as chosen by them or having their consent much less commission so to do That any one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the Congregations and Pastors of them in one County or many Counties making one Diocess and be by vertue of office bound to the inspection and pastoral Correction and Government of them and that the several Bishops of a Kingdom be themselves subject to one Metropolitan Church and Arch-bishop to whom they shall swear obedience and shall be subject to be by him overseen ordered and corrected sure if the Word of God conclude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universal Church and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Arch-bishops as the Arch-bishops are above the Bishops and the Bishops above the Presbyters for these are not differences of kind but of degree nor is there pleaded for Divine Right or Apostolical Institution of the one in the Church of England what is not pleaded for the other by the Fathers of the Council of Trent and by Bellarmine that Cardinal Popes Champion Bellarm. de Clericis lib. 1.5 cap. 14. and who can deny a quatenus ad omne c Lastly That Bishops and Ministers of the Gospel may exercise their Office and Function by Vicegerents and Deputies Commissaries or Chancellours or that by any Apostolical direction they may and have authority to Commissionate any such or that the determination and disposal of Civil Affairs Matters of Marriage and Administrations belong to them that they must by themselves or joyning unto themselves Professors and Students of the Civil Law keep Courts on which Proctors Apparitros and the like are dependent and so judicially rule and govern in these cases This is the Form of Government these learned Casuists must think is if not of Divine Right by immediate precept from God yet established by the Apostles according to the mind and after the example of their Master Jesus Christ and that by vertue of their power and authority as deputed Governours of the Church or otherwise their thoughts are very vain and impertinent for not an Episcopal Government wherein all the Bishops Ministers of the Church within any City Country or Kingdom invested with equal authority and dignity being all of the same Order do by common Council govern the Church but this specifical Prelacy presuming it self to be an Hierarchy or holy Government and chief Priest-hood not to be gain-sayed without high profaness or with-stood and destroyed without sacriledge formally existing in Arch-bishops super our Princes to Bishops Bishops Soveraign Lords to all Ministers or Presbyters and enjoying the standing Cathedral Council and subordinate Judges Deans Arch-deacons Deans and Chapter and transmitting their power and Episcopal authority to Chancellours and Commissaries and so ruling with all state and pompous attendants not only mens profession of Religion but their propriety of civil enjoyments is Covenanted to be extirpated I hope Sir that these serious men would not cozen their own Consciences and cheat the World by their observation the Covenant would bind us against Episcopacy and Bishops in general and not take notice how it is limited to one particular kind and then Sir I must be free to tell them That the Divine Right or Apostolical Institution of this Episcopal Government is but a think so of no more value than a dream for I not only think but am sure the libraries of learning in all that famous Univesity will never lay us down this Form of Government in the Church of Ephesus though I should grant Timothy to be a Bishop therein Antioch Philippi Creet or the seven Churches of Asia supposing their Angels to have been Bishops in all which I deny not a Government by Bishops and those made by the Holy Ghost to whom I will presume to think had I then lived and been invested with that Ministerial authority I now by Gods grace enjoy poor simple I might have stood up as a Peer or at least Bishop Suffragan and if they give not some Scripture instance I think Ecclesiastical story will never prove the Apostles established this Form of Government in the Church or at least not by their Apostolical power and authority as deputed by Christ governours of the Church and I am sure not after the example nor according to the mind of Jesus Christ their Master it being directly inconsistent with the quality of this Kingdom and dictated parity of his Ministers Sir with Reverence may I speak it I think it had been very sutable to the learning and gravity of this learned Assembly to have laid down in this case of conscience some clear Reasons for their conjecture of this Divine Right and Apostolical Institution and Establishment And the rather for that Pope Nicholas hath affirmed Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apicem sive Metropolean primatus aut Episcopatuum Cathedras vel Eccl siarum sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem instituit Romana Ecclesia That Rome appointed all Ecclesiastical Dignities of Bishops Arch-bishops Deans Arch-deacons c. And Pope * Apud Gratian. Dist 22. cap. 1. Lucius and Clement with whom agreeth Peter Lombard and our own Historians That King Lucius instituted three Arch-bishopricks and * Distinct 80. lib. 4. dif 24. Brit Hist lib. 4. pag. 126. Polichro lib. 4. c. 16. fol. 163. Pagets Christianography Foxe saith 28. chief Priests called Flammens Acts and Monuments p. 96. Fol. 59 60. twenty five Bishopricks in the room and stead of the three Archflamens and twenty five flamens And that Devotus the Bishop of Winchester falling into the seat of the flamen thereof had all the possessions within twelve Miles cmopass containing thirty two Villages conferred on him and his Clergy And the Archbishops Bishops and Clergy of England in their Institution of a Christian man dedicated to Henry the eighth have told all the World It is out of all doubt that there is no mention made neither in the Scripture neither in the Writings of any authentical Doctor or Auctor of
Ingenuity for to him All things might be lawful but were not expedient was a Rule but their Reasons might restrain these learned men and they are five in number 1. They had by subscribing the 39. Articles testified their approbation of that government 2. Received orders from their hands 3. Petitioned the continuance thereof 4. Htld their Livelyhood under such titles and in the exercise of that Government or some part thereof 5. Had sworn as Members of such societies to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same Vnto all which I shall say very briefly 1 It is worth their enquity whether they subscribed the 39. Articles judiciously and judicially and so gave their approbation to this Government we grant that in the 39. Articles commonly published there is one viz. the 36. which relateth to the Book of Consecration of Bishops and Arch-bishops c. But that it affirmeth that Book to contain in it nothing contrary to the Word of God I find not in either the Latine or English Copy of these Articles which I have seen these learned men sure read these Articles with the Parliaments Remonstrance before mentioned and so misread them both but suppose the Article had so affirmed it had laid no bar to the alteration or extirpation of this Government for it might be as indeed all our Stattues do suggest a meer Political Civil constitution and so though an Adiaphoron not contrary any more than consonant to the Word of God and alterable at the pleasure of Englands Parliaments and then Sir with whatever judgment these Gentlemen subscribed this Article I am sure there is not much in pleading it as a Bar to the duty enjoyned by Parliament Yet I must confess I am not satisfied that the Books of ordering Priests and Deacons and Consecration of Bishops and Archbishops did contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God for I not believe nor is it evident to me by Holy Scripture or ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there hath been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons for I find no Priests in the new Testament and conceive Presbyters and Bishops to be no more than different denominations of the same order and make not different orders any more than Pastours Teachers Stewards Angels Stars and the like and if there were these orders yet it is I think contrary to the Word of God to add a fourth Arch-bishops and if they be not an order how come they to have the same consecration with Bishops a contended for order of the Ministry and how come Bishops to swear unto them obedience neither the one nor the other is common to a gradual preheminence the Speaker of the Parliament or Lord Chief Justice hath no such like Solemnity I question whether the word will allow an Ordination to some part of the Ministry and give Authority to apply one Sacrament or Seal of the Covenant and not the other nor am I clear the Deacons Office doth at all consist in Ministry of Word and Baptism and assistance at the Communion the Scripture specially points them to the poor and to serve Tables I question whether mute service in a publick solemn Assembly be not contrary to the Word of God where all as well prayer as preaching ought to tend to Edification I question whether a Magisterial and Authoritative giving the Holy Ghost peculiar to Christ who did it in reality be not contrary to the Word of God or according to the words of the Article Superstitious and ungodly And whether Ministers swearing Caronical obedience to the Bishop or Bishops to the Arch-bishops be not plainly Papal and ungodly If these learned men considered and were convinced of the consonancy of these and the like things with the Word I hope they subscribed this Article judiciously yet I must enquire how judicially I imagine the Satute of Queen Elizabeth will nos be produced as their warrant for subscription to this Article for the Articles thereby enjoyned 13. Eliz. 13. do only concern the confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments and this particle only is exclusive to Discipline and Government which by the whole current of our Laws are concluded to be Political in their nature only Ecclesiastical ratione objecti at the pleasure of the Magistrate and therefore could not be made an Article of the true Christian Faith I hope such as leave this Article out of their Creed shall not be shut out of the Christian Church Now Sir were there any force in this exception to the Covenant I would advise that subscription to be taken into second thoughts yet it is as ponderous as the next They received Orders from their hands and should ill requite them for laying their hands on them to lay to their hands to root them up and cannot tell for what That they should root them up who had laid their hands on them was not required they might continue Men Ministers it is like better Christians and more painful Preachers when they were not Bishops I hope Prelates and Prelacy were not inseparable that the one must be ruined in the removal of the other and our question is of the thing not person in which degradation was the worst they could do them who had they been affected with the dream of Richard Havering Arch-bishop of Dublin The Annals of Ireland in Cambd. Britan pag. 169. That a certain Monster heavier than the whole World stood eminently aloft upon his breast from the weight whereof he chose rather to be delivered than alone to have all the goods of the World when he waked he thought this was nothing but the Bishoprick of Dublin and so forthwith renounced it Or had they enjoyed the Spirit of Antoninus Elected Arch-bishop of Florence who refused on fear of hazarding his salvation to accept it and when thundred into it by the counsel of his friends frowns of the Magistrates and the Popes Bull kept only eight persons no stately furniture in his house no Coach and Horses and kept his usual method of devotion in his Family saying They should do him a special favour to thrust him fram his Bishoprick wherein he continued with very great Regret They would acknowledge a kindness done unto them and yet were it an unkindness these Gentlemen were acquitted from the ingratitude they have petitioned their continuance and were not able to withstand the pleasure of their Superiors on whose pleasure their whole enjoyments did depend nor had they been without Parallel if not a plea of Justice For the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England Rochester excepted in the time of Henry the eighth had voluntarily without the command of the King or Parliament sworn to root up the Pope the Apex of this Episcopacy from whom they had received their Palls Properties Power Foxe his Acts and Monuments p. 564. 565 566 567. I had almost said Papacy Their third Reason I pass as an
the Infants of believing Parents in their Baptisme who are not capable of such consent and stipulation but were dedicated by the Authority and Interest of the Parent and are accepted by the extent of the Covenant or is confirmation an essential part of the Sacrament and necessary supplement of Baptisme I find a like case in Scripture called a Covenant Gen. 17.13 My Covenant shall be in your flesh the stipulation of Godfathers and Godmothers will not relieve the case unless they be deputed by the Infants though they were which doth not appear commissioned by the Lord so that some Covenants are imposed and pass withour mutual consent 2. May not an agreement between two different Nations passed by the mutual consent of the Princes or Body Politick be for further security sake imposed by the Authority of each Nation on the individual Subjects thereof and that under a penalty which may be a good perswasion against their peevishness and pertinacy who by their private interest may obstruct the more general and publick good and yet be properly denominated a Covenant as suppose between England and Spain which the Merchants of both are bound to keep and I see no cause why they may not be compelled to swear I hope the case will not differ between Scotland and England who are distinct Nations though under the same King it is Sir no hard matter to make this the case of the Covenant But these learned men do except against the Authority enjoyning the Covenant 3. The Authority imposing the Covenant Vindicated which is the third particular in the manner of making the Covenant supposed to be miscarried and herein Dr. Featlie's Ghost doth follow them but so very weakly and with such palpable contradiction that I shall not spend time and paper in observing the same but specially take notice of what is urged by the Oxford Reasons from which he borroweth his strength Here Sir I shall desire it may be noted that I do not affirme the authority to be full and compleat but to have been lawful and sufficient to impose an Oath and thereby bind the people wherein notwithstanding they should have been defective and fallacious yet this will not discharge the obligation laid as I have in my Analepsis pag. 13. and before in Pag. 23.21 this Tract observed against it therefore as such I shall endeavour to weigh the Exceptions The first whereof is Oxford Reasons Sect. 2. pag. 3. That this imposing of this Oath was contrary to the liberty of the Subject expressed in the Petition of Right to which liberty the imposition of a new Oath other than is established by Act of Parliament is thereby declared contrary Unto this Sir I say I cannot but observe what strength of prejudice acted these learned men in making to themselves these Doubts and Reasons against the Covenant which leads them almost throughout their Book to infer generals from specials as I have before noted in our Arguments so in this the words themselves do quote out of the Petition of Right are these Whereas many of them have had an Oath administred unto them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realme they do humbly pray that no man hereafter be compelled to take such an Oath according to which words it appears to be some speciall Oath that was complained of and unto which the relative doth refer the which if they would please to observe the connexion of the words will be found to have been a particular and specifical Oath the words in the Plaint run thus Petition of Right By means whereof Your People have been in divers places assembled and required to lend certain moneys unto Your Majesty and of them upon their refusal so to do have had an Oath administred unto them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm so that it appears to have been an Oath of discovery of their Estate upon refusal to lend moneys or some Oath ex officio unto self-accusation beyond the Statute of the 25th Henry the third which is in this point complained of as violated and the prayer of that Petition doth no less specifie this Oath by the Relative SVCH which referreth unto the quality of the Oath complained against so doth also the concatenation of the prayer which proportionally to the Plaint is That no man be compelled to make gift or loan c. or be called to make answer or take such Oath so that this was an Oath to make answer unto the damage of a mans own Estate Life or Liberty which is repugnant to Nature and herein aggravated as not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm a more full description whereof these Gentlemen might have received in the Statute 17. Caroli concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical Now Sir from this special to argue against all Oaths that pass not by Act of Parliament is a plain non seuquitur and unjust inference the Companies in London or it may be some Colledges in Oxford are constituted by the Kings Charter or Patent and the Master and Wardens of the one or President and Fellows of the other give an Oath to all that become Members thereof and expect to participate in their priviledges will these learned men say that these Oaths not imposed or prescribed by Act of Parliament were contrary to the Petition of Right which never complained of or prayed against such Oaths I do not think these men would have had us to think that the Oath Caetera enjoyned in the Canons of 1640. was against the Petition of Right which certainly would bespeak the Bishops something prejudicial to the Civil State and yet it was never passed by Act of Parliament Moreover these learned men subscribed and swear to the Protestation of May 1641. they did not sure then think that submitting to swear that Oath they did violate or betray the liberties of the people expressed in the Petition of Right they should do well to tell us by what Act I do not say Authority of Parliament it was established I humbly conceive that there is a vast difference between an Oath of exaction self-discovery or accusation which is wicked in its nature and more wicked when without warrant from the Law and an Oath for establishment of publick and general good imposed by the Authority though not established by Act of Parliament it is not the simple taking an Oath without consent of Parliament but the taking such an Oath as may impeach the persons or endanger the Estates of the Subject which was the Peoples grievances not is it the formality of an Act but the full consent of the people in Parliament makes an Oath lawful and preserveth their liberties in the imposing of it But these Masters and Scholars of Oxford fear Ibid. by owning this Covenant they should own a power in the imposers thereof then for ought that appeareth to them hath been challenged in former times or can consist with