speak of to make good his cause against them We may also infer if the difference be so little as he acknowledgeth as indeed it is not much then may we sure infer that if the Ordination of the one be compleat the Ordination of the other cannot be effentially defective Augustine is impertinently cited by you Sine nostro officio est plebi certa pernities Without our without the Episcopal office there is certain ruin to the people For though Augustine were a Bishop and wrote to a Bishop as you say yet by that without our office he plainly means the office of the Ministery in general not of Episcopacie For he makes it lawful to flee in that Epistle as Paul did when there be others to look to the Church Fugiant saith he ubi ab alijs qui non ita requiruntur non deseratur Ecclesia sed praebeant cibaria consenvis suis qui aliter vivere non possunt Let them flee where the Church is not forsaken of others that have not such an eye upon them but they will minister spiripual food to their fellow servants which otherwise cannot live Now what were those others not Bishops for there were not many of them in one City or Countrey but Presbyters But now you will prove it by the Protestation and Covenant First by the Protestation You have vowed in the presence of Almighty God to maintain the true reformed Protestant Religion expressed in Doctrine of the Church of England Add I pray you against all Poperie and Popish innovations And you must remember again presently upon the framing of the protestation there was an Explanation put forth before it was taken in the Countrey or Citie that under the Doctrine of the Church of England the Discipline then in the Church of Egland was not included So your Argument from the Protestation is of no value But yet let us see what you can say for this out of the Doctrine of the Church of England First the ordinary way to heaven is by the Word and Sacraments No man may preach and administer the Sacrament but he that is lawfully called and sent none are lawfully called and sent but they onely who are called and sent by those who have authority Bishops and onely Bishops have authority to send in this kinde Article 39. Here you play leger-demain for the Article holds forth the way of ordination by the Book of Consecration to be a lawful way but not the only lawful way For the Composers of those Articles knew very well that there was another way of ordination in other Churches whom they alwaies held as sisters which they did not with the Papists condemn though the Article approve the English way and that being held forth as a lawful not the onely lawful way it hinders not but others may be authorized to ordain as in other Reformed Churches and therefore if the Protestation for the maintenance of the Doctrine of the Church of England were without exception against the Discipline it will not prove your no Bishop no Priest The Book you say was composed in the dayes of King Edward the sixth by those holy men who after were blessed Martyrs But these men I must tell you were not of your minde that the distinction of Bishops from Presbyters was any other then what Jerome had taught them by humane custome * Dr Downam in answer to his reply is driven to this If the Bishops better informed concernning their functions had now reformed their judgements that is to hold their offices not by humane but Divine disposition In his answer to the Replyers Preface who had prest him with the judgement of Whitguift and Jewel nor held the power of the keyes belonged onely to them for in this Book of ordination they charge the Presbyter not only with care in Word and Sacraments but the Discipline of Christ too And whereas you add That the Articles were confirmed 13. Elizabeth and subscription enjoyned You should remember it was with limitation so far as they contained the Doctrine of the Church not the discipline You conclude thus far with the Protestation But yet a little further I pray you For the Protestation adds that the Doctrine of the Church of England is to be maintained against all Popery Now you may finde in Bellarmins lib. de Clericis your argument of no Bishop no Priest so no Sacrament so no Church wherein all Protestant-writers oppose him English and others and therefore surely the Doctrine of the Church of England rightly understood condemns your position which is a position in Popery to overthrow Protestant Churches CHAP. IV. PARAG. 2. Where in is shewed that the National Covenant doth not engage to uphold Episcopacy In Answer to Doctor Boughens fift Chapter IN your fift Chapter you attempt to prove that the solemn league covenant engageth to maintain Episcopacy I might tell you this is nothing to me nor to the matter for whatever you fancie of the Covenant they that framed it will follow it in their own sence and if any Covenanters be of that minde as you are that not your but moderated Episcopacie that is a Super-intendencie over a Presbyterie be neerest the word of God yet they were not so considerable as to be able to make peace without abrogation of Episcopacie nor without peace to preserve King and Kingdom If they could then my Treatise were answered by change of circumstances that argues the lawfulness of the Kings condescention chiefly in that circumstance But to the matter it self you have not nor do you here bring any thing to satisfie First Parag. 1 2 3. You come with your Crambe his coctâ That no salvation but by hearing and Sacraments nor these without mission The Apostles were sent of Christ and they sent others Titus and Timothie to ordain Ministers To all which I have answered before and in part cleared it That the Apostles and Timothy and Titus their assistansts as Evangelists were extraordinarie officers and ceased and that the onely ordinary officers now are Pastors and Teachers Ephes 4.11 Touching whom the Apostle gives direction 1 Tim. 5. Titus 1. under the name of Bishops and Elders and these are Successors of the Apostles to all that power that is ordinarie and neceslarie in the Church and among these ther 's by Gods law no prioritie but of gifts and order delegated by election But for any Bishops that are of the same order with the Apostles it s a strange and groundless notion Almost all Divines tell you that Apostleship was an extraordinarie office that ceased and though an Apostle may be said allusively to be a Bishop yet a Bishop may not be said to be an Apostle yet these things you over with again in this Chapter and tell us of two sorts of Apostles the Apostles of Christ and the Apostles of the Churches Philip. 2.25 2 Cor. 8.23 Whereas I have shewed you that for Epaphroditus he is said there either to be a messenger onely from
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
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
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-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
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
Philippi to Saint Paul which is more evident in the same phrase used of those 2 Cor. 8.23 expounded by Bilson himself of messengers from the Churches pag. 75. or else that notes them to be secundarii Apostoli that is as Salmasius takes it Evangelists and so extraordinary Officers but more of this in the next Section Next you proceed to the example of best reformed Churches wherein we agree with you to reform is in primaevam formam reducere but that form is in Scripture that 's our first Christian story and there we finde no Bishop but what is a Presbyter others that are abusively called so were not properly such but Officers of an higher kinde whose Office being extraordinary dyed with them For your particular quotations first that of Zanchi Exempla veteris Ecclesiae nobis debent esse instar praecepti the Examples of the ancient Church ought to be to us as a precept is to be understood of the Church under the Apostles registred in the Scriptures and so the Ministers of London whom you cite also speak expresly that Scripture-examples are obligatorie and that will not serve your turn But for the quotations out of Zanchy that in his conscience they were no better then Schismatiques that counted it a part of reformation to have no Bishop in degree of authority above their true fellow Presbyters I have sought it earnestly in the place cited but cannot finde any such thing de vera reformandae Ecclesiae ratione but in other places I finde the contrary In a short confession of his faith when he was seventie years of age cap. 25. de Eccles. Gubernatione he speaks to this effect He acknowledgeth only Pastors and Teachers to be left by the institution of Christ as ordinary Ministers The superintendency of one taken up by men as a remedy of Schism he dislikes not but from the tyrannie into which that presidencie degenerated he concludes Quo proprius acceditur in ordinibus Ministrorum ad simplicitatem Apostolicam eo magis etiam nobis probetur at que ut ubique accedatur dandam esse operam judicemus In the Orders of Ministers the neerer we come to Apostolicall simplicity the more is it to be approved and diligence should be used that every where such propinquity to the word should be attained Here you have Zanchy directly against what you would have him say as also on the fourth Commandement de diversis Ministrorâ—â—â— generibus he cleerly agreeth with me that Pastors mentioned Eph. 4.11 are the highest Officers now left in the Church and those the same mentioned 1 Tim. 3. Titus 1. Bishops or Presbyters which he proves to be all one and that superioritie that in process of time one had above another was but by humane grant For what you cite out of Melancthons Epistles touching Bishops It is but one mans private opinion and that when they were in that case that we a long time were and still in the greatest part are without any government setled and undoubtedly the Church had better be under a government that hath some rigour or tyranny in it then under no government so to shake off Bishops as to be under no government is as Melancthon truly saith inexpedient if it were lawful and such a liberty as Luther said is Libertas minimè utilis ad posteritatem a liberty no wayes profitable to posterity But what is this to the Covenant which resates not to persons but to Churches ' Now it is apparent that the Churches of Germany have reformed Episcopacie so that they have no such Apostle-Bishop as you dream of but Presbyterie at the most with the superintendency of one in their Presbyteries neither hath that any weight that you speak of the Convention at Auspurg for they were then but in a way of reformation it was but the dawning of the day with them and they could not see all things at the first but we see when they come to settle the order of their Churches they setled Presbyterie not Episcopacie And yet I deny not that if the Bishops would then have been reasonable they would have admitted their jurisdiction for peace-sake as Melancthon saith redimere pacem And truly Sir though I maintain that the King for peace may abolish Episcopacie Yet I am of that minde and wish others were so too redimere pacem duriori conditione as Melancthon said to redeem peace with an harder condition with Episcopacie so regulated as at first to preside and rule in his Presbyterie But onething I may not pass for whereas Melancthon saith that they did grant to Bishops potestatem ordinis jurisdictionis the power of order and jurisdiction you enquire What is this power of Order certainly a power that Presbyters had not that is a power at least to ordain Ministers But here Master Doctor you bewray too much ignorance for a D. D. for in power of order not only Protestants but most Papists make Bishops and Presbyters one for that is to perform as officers prayers consecrate sacraments c. and power of jurisdiction only they make a Bishops peculiar For what you prosecute touching power of Ordination to be only in their Bishops not Presbyters I will speak more fully to that in the following Section In the mean time I must tell you that in quoting Salmatius Parag. 15 Of this Chapter you shew egregious negligence in reading or which is worse deceit for the words you cite out of him touching Timothy and Titus that they were Bishops indeed of the same right and of the same Order whereof at this day they are accounted who govern the Churches and are over Presbyters This he brings only by way of explication of Theodorets opinion but when he comes to deliver his own He saith pag. 63. That Timothy was rather super-Episcopus above a Bishop an Apostle And again pag. 69. He saith of them per abusum igitur impropriè Episcopi appellabantur they were improperly and abusively called Bishops Thus also you use the London 1. D. who you say confess that their government is not above 80. years standing whereas they assert the institution of it by Christ and the restitution only for 80 years when they did likewise reform the corrupt doctrines in Poperie And do not you speak against your conscience when you say Calvin would have crusht that government in the bud that sometimes you make a Geneva invention Who would think a D. D. should be such a citer of authors But to conclude this Section if Bishops have no place in Scripture the best reformation must be to abolish Episcopacie though well limited they may be tolerated and that they have no place in Scripture is the work of the next Section CHAP. IV. PARAG. 3. Wherein for a fuller answer to what the Doctor hath said to prove Episcopacy Christs institution this Quession is resolved whether a Bishop now usually so called be by the ordinance of Christ a distinct Officer from him that is usually called
Presbyters and gives not so much as any hint of any singular Bishops but the company of Presbyters or Bishops over the Church of God vid. Blond Apol. pro sanct Hieron p. 11 12. Polycarpe in an Epistle to the Philippians Be ye subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ and here you see but two offices and therefore yet the Presbyters ruled the Church in Common Blond ubi supra p. 14 1â— where many more witnesses may be seen And in this the Master of the Sentences consents too lib. 4. Dist 24. de Presbyteris unde Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuêre quia illud est nomen dignitatis non aetatis and a little after excellenter tamen canones duos tantùm sacros ordines appellari censent Diaconatus scilicet Presbyteratus quia hos solos primitiva ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli habemus Thesis 11. Amongst these Bishops or Presbyters there was one who by the consent of the rest either by their free election or for his priority in conversion and ordination had a preheminence of honour above the rest for order-sake who had no new ordination or none for a great while but what he had from his fellow-Presbyters who chose him and exalted him without any further ado So Hierom ep 85. ad Evagrium which he confirms from Alexandria For saith he Alexandriae c. At Alexandria even to Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops The Elders did always name one Bishop chosen out of themselves and by them placed in excelsiori gradu in an higher degree of honour not office Now whether in their choice they did only look at merit or whether they did a good while till as * Ambrose or Hilary on the Ephesians Quia primâ—m Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur c. For he calls Timothy who was created a Presbyter by him a Bishop because at first Presbyters were called Bishops that one with-drawing another did succeed but because the following Presbyters were found unworthy to hold that primacy the way was changed a Counsel providing that not order of time but merit should make the Bishop constituted by the judgement of many Presbyters lest an unworthy man should rashly usurp it and be a scandal to many Ambrose saith it proved inconvenient advance him that was the next senior it is argued both waies though in my opinion Blundel hath made it most probable that according to Ambrose his expression it went by senioritie for certain yeers in his preface to the fore-cited Book Some think it went by senioritie in some places and by election in others Thesis 11. This preheminency that one had above the rest was by Ecclesiastical custom not by Divine institution and advanc'd him onely to an higher degree or dignity not to another order distinct from his fellow-Presbyters so that still he must derive his succession from the Presbyters or Bishops that were to be ordained in every Church and is to finde his place in the divine Catalogue of officers Ephes 4.11 under astors and not Evangelists or Prophets That this preheminence was not from any divine institution but Ecclesiastical ordination Jerom is express The Bishops must know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custome then Divine disposition Hieron in Tit. So Augustine ep 19. Although according to the words of honour which the Churches use hath obtained Episcopacy is greater then Presbytery c. Yet See bere the precedencie of Bishops is an honour of words and a fruit of use And this may be further cleared from what was first done in conferring this preheminence It was but a bare act of the rest of the Presbyters as appears by the example brought by Hierom in the Church of Alexandria They chose out of themselves and set him in an higher degree This they did of themselves and by themselves without any Divine command Let it be produced if there be any yea without any example in any of the Churches in the Scripture and they did it by themselves without the concurrence of other and they could not set him in an higher order Presbyters cannot make an Apostle Thirdly this may appear from that little difference that was between such a Bishop and a Presbyter in the fathers times Chrysost Theophylact Hilary on 1 Tim. 3. Inquiring the reason why the Apostle passeth from directions about Bishops to directions about Deacons no mention being made of a Presbyter Give answer First Hilary or Ambrose Quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus Because of an Elder and a Bishop there is but one ordination both are Presbyters but a Bishop is first And Chysostom Because a Presbyter doth so little differ from a Bishop to wit in nothing but ordination saith he In nothing but election saith Theophylact Now where the difference is so little that one direction for qualification will serve for both there is plainly acknowledged a difference in dignity or degree of excellencie onely not in order or office That conceit then of Theodorets that they that are now called Bishops were heretofore called Apostles and those that are now called Presbyters were then i. e. in the Apostles times called Bishops is it self too groundless a fancie for you Doctor Boughen to ground your distinction of apostle-Apostle-Bishops and presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops as though our now Bishops were apostle-Apostle-Bishops and so of an higher Order and indued by that order from Jesus Christ to many peculiar acts which a Presbyter could not do And that they are not only an higher degree of Presbyter-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-Presbyter-Bishop 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. of such Bishops as were in their time which you would have to be apostle-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
them only with a Proviso unless they had the consent or commission of the Bishops which prohibition doth plainly shew that before they were used to ordain without him and after might with his leave Fourthly the Fathers differ more from the high Prelatists then from the Presbyterian For the Presbyterian alwaies have a President to guide their actions which they acknowledg may be perpetuall durante vitâ modò se bene gesserit or temporary to avoid inconvenience which Bilson in his preface and again and again in his book of perp gover takes hold of as advantageous because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintains but now the high Prelatists exclude a Presbyterie as having nothing to do with jurisdiction which they put as far above the sphear of a Presbyter as sacrificing above a Levites to wit an act restrained to an higher order whereas the Fathers acknowledg a Presbyterie and in divers cases Counsels tye the Bishop to do nothing without them and so its clear the high Prelatists are at a further distance from the Fathers then the Presbyterians Fifthly for that wherein we differ from the Fathers we have the Plea of one of the most judicious of the Fathers Augustine who being prest with the authoritie of Cyprian answers lib. contra Cresscon 2. cap. 32. His writings I hold not as Canonicall but examine them by the Canonicall writings And in them what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise what agreeth not I refuse with his leave This is our apologie in dissenting in this thing from some of the Fathers wherein you see we follow a Father and in that wherein Bilson makes use of him to put off the authorities of some learned men of his age and adds God suffers the best of men to have some blemishes lest their writings should be received as authentique p. 15.2 Lastly if we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacie wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them then we yet I would have them to consider in how many things we jump with the Fathers wherein many of them have been dissenting both in opinion and practice as touching promiscuous dancing especially on the Lords day 2. Touching residency of Pastors in their Churches which excludes also pluralities 3. Frequencie and diligence in preaching 4. Touching the abuse of health drinking or drinking ad aequales calices 5. Touching Bishops not intangling themselves with secular affairs or businesses of State in Princes Courts 6. Touching gaming at Cards or Dice and such like so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers against us in this one point wherein themselves also are at a distance from them while we keep closer to the Fathers then they do in many others And thus Doctor I shall leave it to the judgment of the indifferent reader whether apostle-Apostle-Bishops be not a meer fancy of your own framing and indeed now there be no other but presbyter-Presbyter-Bishops one of which for Ecclesiastical custome for pious ends had some power added to his Presidency for order which afterwards degenerated into tyranny CHAP. IV. PARAG. 4. Wherein is shewed the impertinency of the Doctors sixth chapter against perjury which the Author of the Case detests as much as be TO come now to your 6. Chapter where you propose the question whether the King without the impeachment of his Oath at his Coronation may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacie And then tell us Parag. 1. This question hath two branches 1. Whether a Christian King be bound to keep his oath 2. Whether he may not c. But did not your eyes dazzle when you made this division Did I ever question whether the Kings oath was obligatory so far as it was lawful and in that sence that it was intended and so dispute whether the sence of it were not the same of that with the people that ingageth only till alteration by consent in Parliament Did not I express in the preface that unless it did appear that abrogation of Episcopacy might stand with the sence of the oath the King ought not to consent how falsly do you then affirm that I perswade the King to break his oath and how useless is this whole chapter either taking for granted what is not proved that Episcopacy is a truth and ordinance of Christ or proving what is not in question that oaths are to be kept perjury to be avoided wherein you are so vehement that you faâ—l into rank anabaptistry pag. 34. asserting that oaths therefore must be avoided lest we fall into condemnation as though all oaths were unlawfull for fear of perjury You do also admixe so many foul and bold slanders uttered with such bitterness and such evident falseness that any but a partial reader will detest them and therefore I think them unworthy any answer If I had said as that Court-Preacher Herles answer to Doctor Fern. p. 3. that the King is not bound to keep any oath he took to the people to be ruled therein by law His oath was but a piece of Coronation-show he might take it to day and break it to morrow c. On such a man you might have spent some of your zeal against perjury but to me it is impertinent as the judicious reader shall plainly see by that which follows now to be set down out of the Case resolved which supposes the oath ought to be kept and only enquires after the true sense and intention of it and this may satisfie this impertinent chapter The Case Resolved THe usual way of clearing this assertion is thus The King is sworn to maintain the laws of the Land in force at his Coronation yet no man questions and the constant practice shews that it is not unlawful after to abrogate any upon the motion or with the consent of his Parliament The meaning of the oath being known to be to maintain the laws while they are laws but when they are abrogated by a just power in a regular way they are then wiped out of his charge and oath So the King by his oath is bound to maintain the rights of his Clergie while they continue such But if any of their rights be abrogated by just power he stands no longer engag'd to that particular And this I conceive to be a sound resolution For the Kings oath is against acting or suffering a tyrannous invasion on laws and rights not against a Parliamentarie alteration of either But here steps in my first opponent and though he disputes modestly onely proposing what he holds forth A nameless Author in a Book impleading all War against the King to serious consideration yet he objects subtilly and his Discourse runs thus The oath for maintenance of laws is made Populo Anglicano to the people of England and so may be taken off by a future act because it is by their own consent represented in Parliament But the oath to maintain the priviledges
two Supremacies for so it was before Henry 8. and so it s exprest in my Case and where I pray you is such a distinction exprest to be continued since Henry the 8th You cannot shew it nor doth any thing that you bring Parag 8. or 9. conclude it distinct they were but not so distinct but still they and their priviledges were under the power of the same Supremacie as your self confess Parag. 10 11. where your insinuation against me of seting up two Supremacies is but a flash for I shall shew in the last Chapter that the Supremacie I give to the Parliament is not absolute but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and two such are not inconsistent neither doth such respective Supremacie make the Parliament lawless or subject to no power and for your closing question Where then are the two Supremacies that you erect I answer I affirm it was so but now it is abolisht and so I charge not you with it but infer that being equally under one Supremacie that one Supremacie hath equal power over the priviledges of both which was the thing to be proved Neither do I deny what you affirm parag 12 13. That there are two distinct jurisdictions in our Land under the same head Neither do I denie de facto but a Bishop by the standing laws is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of Justice in causes Ecclesiastical But the querie is whether this be so unalterable that the King and Parliament may not put it to a companie of Presbyters Which you have not yet disproved Whether covetousnes and ambition be more amongst Prelates then Presbyters whom you accuse God must judge But whether they be not like to rest more among those that would ingross all then among those that would have jurisdiction and maintenance divided men may easily judge For what you say parag 14. of Timothy and Titus I formerly proved them to be Evangelists and what they had extraordinarie to be ceas'd what they have ordinary to rest in Pastors who are Presbyter-Bishops the highest ordinarie Officers For that saying of Cyprian Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur I would have you reconcile it with that 1 Cor. 3.11 Other foundation can no man lay then that which is layd Jesus Christ We acknowledg de facto in Cyprians time that the acts of the Church were ruled by the Bishops but that as Jeroms tells you was by humane custome not Divine disposition nor was it without Presbyters as you would have it who therefore are as far from the government of his times as we what you quote after may be but the heat of a Bishop to whom we oppose Saint Ierem on Titus 1. and Phil. 1. What you cite out of Ignatius is spoken as upon search I finde onely of that Bishop as he then stood Orthodox in opposition to some cursed weeds or Hereticks of the devils planting but when the Bishop was an Heretick as you know in many places it often fell out would they have been blessed or cursed that held with the Bishop think you For what you add touching the privileges of Clergy For the most part you falsly calumniate me that I seek to ruine them you know I call the alieanation of their means Sacriledg neither do I envie any of their just priviledges but this is that which I have in hand whereas there be two sorts of priviledges some Divine some humane I question onely whether those humane priviledges separable from the offices appointed by Christ in his word such as the Monarchie of one above all other may not upon advisement for the good of the Republique admit of alteration as well as Laypriviledges Therefore you slander me grosly in objecting that I would take away all honour from the Ministery that the Scriptures by prophesie or precept have given to them But you on the contrarie egregiously abuse the Scripture in applying what the Scripture saith by way of honour or priviledg of the Ministerie that is of Apostles Prophets Evanglists and Presbyter-Bishops which onely are the Scriptures Bishops to a few Diocesans Creatures whom the holy page never knew And so you-sleight the generalitie of Pastors to exalt a few Lord-Bishops Constantines affection was pious to the Ministers of Christ But the Bishops he honoured so were men of another condition then those you plead for they lorded it not in the Church without the joynt help of their Presbyters in government And further if there were not some error of the times in some of the honours which he gave how came they so quickly to fall together by the ears for Primacie And to give occasion to that observation That when their Chalices were wooden the Bishops were golden but the Bishops became woodden when their Chalices became golden Sure the general abuse gives occasion to suspect some error in expression of those affections But I hope I have said enough to let the intelligent Reader see how far that assertion that I maintain to prooure peace and safetie to Church and Kingdom ready to perish by an unnatural war is from detracting from any just or useful respect commanded from the people to the Ministers if faithful though the meanest Pastours which I know and people will finde God will reward as done to himself But one thing is not unworthy notice in parag 8. Where you say Paul willeth the Philippians to receive Epaphroditus their Apostle or Bishop and also chargeth them to hold such in reputation Consider I pray you had not the Philippians then other such as Epaphroditus else why doth he give them charge of others of like quality And may you not thence see that Epaphroditus was no singular Bishop but such an one as might have other Presbyters his fellows in like honours Case of Conscience Resolved VVHo knows not that one of the priviledges of the Clergie was for the Bishops to sit and vote in the House of Peers yet that is abolisht as incongruous to their calling And then why may not the removall of their Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be consented to as well if it prove inconvenient and prejudicial to the Church The abolition of the one is no more against the oath then of the other CHAP. VI. Answering Doctor Boughens explanations for the removall of Bishops out of the House of Lords in his 12. chapter I Proceed now to examine your 12. Chapter spent most upon the Theam whether it be incongruous to the calling of Bishops to sit and vote in Parliament And here you are very passionate but I must first tell you your passionate follie falls more foul on King and Parliament then me for I do but render the reason given by them in effect in the very statute * Anno 17. Car. R. An act for disabling all persons in holy Orders to exercise any temporall jurisdiction or authority The words are these whereas Bishops and other persons in holy orders ought not to be intangled with secular jurisdiction the office of the
Ministery being of such great importance that it will take up the whole man and that it is found by long experience that their intermedling with secular jurisdictions hath occasioned great mischief and scandall both to Church and State His Majestie out of his religious care of the Church and souls of his people is graciously pleased that it be enacted And by authority of this Parliament be it enacted that no Arch-Bishop c. shall have any seat or place suffrage or voice or use or execute any power or authority in the Parliament of this Realm Now hath my phrase done any more then express the reason given for abolition in this Statute by King and Parliament while therefore you rave so at me doth not all more properly light on them I may therefore say as sometimes Moses who am I Your murmurings are not against me but against king and Parliament But you question whether they were not thrust out to make way for these civill broyles The Incendiaries knew well enough that those messengers and makers of peace would never have passed a vote for war I answer they should be makers of peace but have they been so indeed of late I pray who occasioned the war by Liturgie illegally put upon the Scots but Prelates who put on the king to raise an Army against them more then Prelates You know * Bishop Bath and Wells to excite his Clergy to contribute who called it Bellum Episcopale Who put on the king to break his first pacification with the Scots but Prelates Then oaths were no ingagements with them when against Prelates But now the kings oath must be cryed up to keep them up but you should remember Quicquid fit propter deum fit aequaliter which hints the hypocrisie of your pretences of renderness of an oath in this case if you had not the same tenderness in the other case Then Parag. 2. You tell an Apocrypha tale of the outcries of some Clothiers that occasioned the making of that statute as though men would believe your traditional tale before the express words of king and Parliament contained in the act Parag. 3.4 You inquire why it is incongruous to the calling of Bishop to sit and vote in the House of Peers and raise imaginary reasons and confute them looking over that in the statute That Bishops and other persons in holy orders ought not to be intangled in secular jurisdiction and this is grounded on Scripture 2 Tim. 2. comparing v. 4. 7. and more expresly speak the Apostles and you make Bishops Apostles It is not reason we should leave the Word of God Act. 6.2 and serve tables 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza and the vulgar non est aequum See how the grounds mentioned by king and Parliament in the statute are grounded on Scripture But Parag. 5. You would prove that there could be no incongruity between their calling and voting in the House of Peers by Scripture For then Melchizedeck that was both King and Priest had never been a type of our Saviour It doth not follow for he was therefore a type to shew that Christ should be both king and Priest but his kingdom was not of this world he would not intangle himself with the affairs of this life and divide inheritances Again you bring the example of Moses and Eli who were extraordinary persons as though God doth not things extraordinarily that are incongruous ordinarily as to make Deborah and Huldah Prophetesses But Joash thrived so long as he followed Jehojada the high Priest as though a good Bishop cannot give good counsell to a king unless he sit and vote among Peers You tell us also how some of our Kings prospered by their Counsels Is it not as easie to tell you of a Bishop that preached my head aketh to usher in the dethroning of a king to tell you how R. 2. was undone by the unpolitique counsell of the pious Bishop of Carlile which shews that usually the best Bishops are the worst States men Parag. 6. You add a wonder it is that my faction spies this incongruity which was never discerned by the wisest of our fore-fathers See you not how you call king and Parliament a faction whose sense I exprest If I had been so rude what out-cries should we have had of blaspheming and spitting in the face of authority Of the same nature are other your foolish arguings parag 7.8 about the writ of summons to Parliament as though the Supremacie being in king and Parliament they cannot change the state of the Parliament and so of the writ And therefore all your strange language doth not only question the integrity of king and Parliament in their expression and their wisdom in making but their power in performing which insolency whether it deserve words to answer let the reader judg and this same answer will also take off your 13. parag What you say parag 9. touching the sufficiency of Bishops for this work is not of validity to infer the conclusion which you would have are they more able to vote in Parliament then the Apostles to serve tables have they not a sphear as Ministers that will swallow up all their abilities why should they then any more then the Apostles leave their spiritual work for secular imployments What you add touching David parag 10. that he err'd for want of the presence and advice of the Priests and suffered but after he calls for the Priests and acknowledgeth his error c. This is true and yet withall his fault was not in not having the Priests at first but not using them as he should they drove the cart whereon it was instead of carrying it on their shoulders neither is it mentioned that they discovered the error to him but he to them having it as it seems by divine revelations on his humiliation and prayer 1 Chron. 15.2 But may there not be the Counsell and advice of Divines to a Parliament in matters of God unless they sit and vote with Peers in matters secular May they not in a Convocation or Assembly advise in matter of religion where they shall keep the sphear of Divinitie and meddle with nothing Heretogeneal to their calling So your reasonings parag 11 12. are too weak to infer votes with Peers For your statute Parag. 14. I know not what to say to it because I know not where to finde it But do you bring this to involve this king and Parliament under a curse and blame me for a moderate and necessary expression of vinculum iniquitatis Turp◠est Doctori c. What you say Parag. 15. Of the benefit of good Bishops as Ministers of the Gospel I assent to it but neither of the places speak as having them Ministers of State A King and Parliament may have the blessing of faithful Bishops by their preaching and prayers without their votes and presence among Peers yea more then with it for that usually makes them too great to preach in season and
use exhortation and application This finisht the rest meet together and the two speakers go aside untill the Moderator of the Presbyterie asketh every ones opinion of the doctrine delivered And if to say no worse they do but smell out any thing either it s forthwith buryed by common suffrage or if the Presbytery be divided in any question yet at least the whole matter is husht in silence untill the next Synod which come twice a yeer Hither come all the Pastors of the whole Province accompanied with their Elders as the state of every Church requires The Moderator of the precedent Synod begins with a Sermon and then either a new Moderator is chosen or which seldom falls out the old is continued The question refer'd to the Synod is either composed or husht up again in silence and refer'd to the National Synod held once every year Hither come not onely the Pastors but the King or his Commissioner and usually some of all degrees sufficiently furnisht with judgement and authority to compose any controversie so Heresie is stifled in the very birth So you may see that Presbyterie is a better way to keep out or under Schisms and Heresies in King James his judgement grounded on experience then Episcopacy For what you add That the Pulpits and Presses are lock'd up to all Orthodox men Is false if to any it is my grief I am not to answer for others faults Parag. 13. You say It s true and not true that by Parochial Pastors the work of the Ministery is chiefly to be performed True you say it is in the Fathers sence not in mine But my sence I shall prove to you is Scripture sence For Pastors in my sence are such as were ordained Act. 14.13 and Tit. 1.5 in every Church and were by the Holy Ghost made over-seers of them to feed them Act. 20.28 This you confess for these places you understand of Presbyter-Bishops And I hope you will not oppose Fathers to Scriptures if you do you know who must fall Gal. 1.8 It s true that the place of a Bishops jurisdiction was sometime called a Parish But that Parish was usually not so bigg as some Parishes in England now If they were how could six Bishops be assembled to the censure of every Presbyter as the Canon was sure thats above the number of all the Bishops that are in one of our Provinces which grates hard on your Diocesans shewing how unlike they are to ancient Bishops ' Nor are the ordering of the Church or ordaining of Presbyters without the sphear of Presbyters by any law of God but humane custom No nor are these the chief works of the Ministery No Doctor Preaching and sound Doctrine are the chief acts of the Ministery which deserve most reward as you may see 1 Tim. 5.17 and 1 Cor. 1.17 and therefore when Saint Paul reckons up Ministers and their Ministerial acts governing comes behinde teaching 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6 7 8. But Parag. 14. You think to prove ' That your Bishops do the chief work virtually from an axiom in philosophy propter quod aliquid est tale illud ipsum est magis tale But herein you shew your self as bad a Philosopher as Divine for doth propter quod note out an efficient cause or the final cause think you You are therefore mistaken in your axiom which is false being as if you had said Presbyters are made Preachers propter populum for the people ergo the people are more Preachers A wise conclusion We have a rule indeed quicquid efficit tale est mag is tale And I will grant that they that ordain Preachers ought to be more Preachers themselves but that you know is false in experience in most of your Bishops therefore you should know that such Axioms are true onely in natural not in voluntary causes as the Logicians will teach you Neither are the Bishops the total causes of Preachers Alas at the most they give them but Commission to use their gifts authoritatively which gifts they have from God and are the fundamental cause to make them Preachers Nor can Bishops alone ordain Presbyters that I have proved before And what if I should prove it now by an axiom of philosophie Generare sibi simile To beget his like is the affection of a living creature And Presbyterie you know is a living office ergo Presbyters may ordain Presbyters I believe you will sweat to give a rational answer to it What you add about ordinary Courts of justice and Parliament Sir though I count the Parliament the supream Court yet justice is chiefly done by inferiour Courts because it ordinarily lies on them and the Parliament is onely to supply and rectifie their errors But you proceed and Parag. 15.16 Compare the Ministers to souldiers in an Army and to Mariners in a Navy and your Bishops are as the General they are as the Admiral So then the people are no part of the Ship or Army or else you level the Presbyters with the people whom the Holy Ghost calls their guids set over them Such similitudes you use to make But every Preacher is not fit to be a Bishop that 's your judgement but the Holy Ghost saith none should preach except he be sent and none should be sent but such as are fitted to take the care and over sight of the Church and that 's the Holy Ghost's Bishop Whatever your opinion is see 1 Tim. 3.5 Acts 20.28 Indeed such a Bishop as you would have Monarchically to govern a whol Diocess of a Shier or two cannot be made ex quolibet ligno but neither Scriptures nor primitive times acknowledg any such Bishop But such a Bishop as may joyn with others in the government of a Church a meaner man may be without prejudice for others maturitie in judgement may help his want of experience What you object Parag. 17. about the Levellers Doctrine is sutable to this Is but a capritious fancie of your own for God hath comprized all ordinarie Ministers under the same name of Pastors and therefore man can make no difference among them but for orders sake Neither do I go about to level all Benefices you know there is a difference in a great disproportion which may be for men of different parts But Parag. 18. You exclaim because I say there will be no danger of sacriledg in my way And first you say to overthrow Episcopacy is to overthrow the Church and for that it s not enough for you to abuse a Father but an Apostle too for when Saint Paul saith we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 What 's that saith Beza but Jesus Christ So the Apostle who is the best interpreter of himself explicates it 1 Cor. 3.9 and adds Planè est Anti-Christus quî sibi tribnit quod unius Christi est He is plainly anti-Christ that arrogates to himself or to any other what is onely Christs What think you of this Again those that
promotion which was competible but to a few So the second inconvenience pressed parag 13.14.15 is avoided also parag 16. All the inconvenience you say that Master Geree presseth is that we are not subject to the Parliament But how far forth we are and are not we shall hear anon Parag. 17.18 You tell me I speak much of a first and ' second oath I answer if that be an error I was led into it by my first Opponent that distinguish'd between oath and oath and the oath to maintain the priviledges of the Clergie he saith expresly is taken after the oath to the whole Realm neither do I see any thing in your Analysis of the oath here or the delineation of the oath in the beginning of your Book that invalidates the expression of my Opponent in realitie though in some formalitie it doth For there I see that the King had particularly and distinctly engaged himself to the whole Realm before he came to the Bishops which are the onely part of the Clergie about whom our controversie is and what he last promises to them confirmed by his oath must not contradict what he hath promised to the other which promise must be understood to have a prioritie in order in the bond of the oath as well as in the bond of the promise Parag. 19. You speak of sending us to Magna Charta to know who the People and Commons of this Kingdom are c. whith only fills up so much paper being nothing to the question in hand But Parag. 20. You reckon up the Priviledges of the Church as you have gleaned them out of Magna Charta and Sir Edward Cook in number 8. The second is that no Ecclesiasticall person be amerced according to the value of his Ecclesiasticall benefice but according to his lay-tenement and according to the quality of his offence The latter clause is reason the former a priviledg without reason and prejudiciall to the Civill state and gives many Ecclesiastical persons leave to sin impunè The fourth That all Ecclesiasticall persons shall enjoy all their lawfull jurisdictions and other rights wholly without any diminution or substraction whatsoever I pray you if the Kings Coronation-oath engage so to the confirmation of this priviledg that the king cannot consent to allow it by Act of Parliament how can that act be justified that enables the Crown of England to appoint what persons else they will to execute all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in this kingdom If that statute were lawfully made notwithstanding this oath why then may not another statute be made against their standing sith by the former they may be made unusefull and yet the former you brag you have engaged your selves to maintain in your oath of supremacie Parag. 9. The fifth priviledg you name is that a Bishop is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of justice in causes Ecclesiasticall Whence I gather that by our law a Bishop is a kings creature no Apostle for he was the immediate Officer of Christ though subject in doing or suffering to the Civill Magistrate though heathen You conclude that it is provided by act of Parliament that if any judgment be given contrary to any points in the great Charter it shall be holden for nought c. True unless it be upon some particular statute of a latter Parliament with the king enacting things to the contrarie Parag. 21. You say that I go forward as if it were certain that this to the Clergie was a severall oath from that to the people I answer I disputed upon my opponents proposals and learned opponents do not use to make their cause worse then it is nor indeed doth he for though the king swear but once yet he ptomiseth the things he sweareth severally and the promise of this to the Bishops in question is last and therefore in competition must give way to other engagements neither do the statutes for confirmation of Magna Charta binde the hands of succeeding Parliaments Whose hands as the leaaned Chancellor Bacon observes cannot be bound by their Predecessors if they see reason of alteration a supream and absolute power saith he cannot conclude it self Hist of H. 7. p. 145. CHAP. X. PARAG. 3. Shewing that the Clergie are equally under the Parliament as well as Laytie in answer to Doctor Boughen's 9. Chapter I Now come to answer your ninth Chapter which is an angrie one which makes me think that you were sorely puzled My Dilemma is They are subject to the Parliament or they are not He answers subject they are to the Parliament consisting of head and members not to the members alone without the head for we are subject to the members only for the heads sake Truly this grant is all that I desire or need for the Parliament I propose the Dilemma about is that which consists of head and members united to which if they be subject then may these joyntly determine of any of their priviledges in their own nature alterable as they do of those of the people Indeed the King and Parliament ought not to take away any priviledges that are for edification but such as prove impediments rather but of that they are to be Judges in the application of their power and that 's all needfull to be said to parag 1 2 3 4 5. And yet I leave it with confidence to the judicious Reader as also what I have said in the former Paragraph touching a former and latter oath But whereas you ask Parag. 6. with what face I can say that the Kings oath to the Clergie is inconsistent with his oath to the people parag 6. I wonder with what face you can aver it when as I directly say it must not and therefore take off an interpretation of it that would make it inconsistent whereas you say the nation is weary of the Presbyterian government in three years it s but a piece of none-sence sith this three years except a little liveless shew in the City of London and some few places more the truth is and our miserie is that we have been under no Ecclesiasticall government at all Parag. 7. You mention my words if the oath had such a sence when the Clergie were a distinct Corporation on which you spend your judgment if you know what sence is Truly Sir you are the worst at picking out sence that ever I knew of a D. D. My meaning is plain if the oath had a sence to exempt them from power of Parliament it must be when they were a distinct Corporation under another Supremacie which now you disclaim Parag. 8. You mistake in saying I am zealous in distinguishing you and your Priviledges I answer to the distinction brought by my opponent that it is not such but that the Priviledges of Clergie and People I mean such as are alterable are equally under Parliamentarie power for alteration on just grounds And the kings oath to you is as obligatorie as to the people in the right
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