CHAP. I. Whether the King may lawfully consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy.

1. I Find a Case of Conscience proposed by Mr. Geree, and this it is; I. G. p. 1. Whether the King (considering his O that Coronation, to protect the Clergie and their Pri­viledges) can salvâ conscientiâ consent to the abroga­tion of Episcopacy? But why (I pray you) is the question proposed here, when you have determined it before? For doth not your Title page speak thus? In this Case of Con­science it is cleared, that the King may, without impeachment to his Oath, touching the Clergie at Coronation, consent to the Abrogation of Episcopacy. Thus you have full magisterially determined, before the question be so much as proposed. Is this the fashion, first to resolve, and then to argue the case? This may be the course of Hereticks; it is otherwise with good Catholicks. But you are resolved to maintain, that a Christian may swear and forswear, without the least prejudice to his soul.

2. And your practice is accordingly; witnesse the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; which you with your great Masters have taken more then once. And those of your perswasion have taken up Arms against their Soveraign Lord, without impeach­ment to their Oath of Allegiance; and maintain that Mr. Challenor [...] Speech. The Parlia­ment is subordinate to no power under Heaven, without any breach of the Oath of Supremacie. And your self, like a good Preacher of Gods Word, have taken the Oath of Canonicall obedience to the Bishop; and yet endeavour the abrogation of Episcopacy, and the extirpation of that Order, from whence you had your Orders, and without [Page 2] which you could have had no Orders.

3. Me thinks, the Smectymnuans should not endure this Pro­position, since with them a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same. Thus, while you endeavour to ruinate Episcopacy, you subvert the Presbytery, according to their tenets. I wonder much, how your case hath passed so long unsifted, and uncensured by the Divine Masters of your learned Assembly.

4. But I shall take it for your best advantage, as it is distin­guished, or (as we say) a distinct order from Presbytery. I shall al­so take into consideration, the severall motives, which you pro­duce for the Abrogation of Episcopacy.

5. Whereof your first is this; that I G p. 1. there is no hope of the Kings or Kingdoms safetie, without an union between our King and Parlia­ment. I must confesse with anguish of spirit, as matters have been handled, the King and Kingdom are driven into a great streight; and an Ʋnion between our King and your Parliament hath been prayed for, and sought for by all commendable, or tolerable means. The hope left us is onely in our God and Saviour, whose custome it is to S. Luk. 1 51. 52. scatter the proud in the imagination of their hearts; to pull down the mighty from their throne, and to exalt the humble and meek. Thus can he I [...]. v. 49. 31. shew strength with his arm, and do great things for us. And this, I hope, in his due time he will do, and reduce this Kingdom from irreligion and sacriledge; and not cast off the innocent with the prophane blasphemers. Oh, that we might begge that blessing from Heaven, to see a Parliament rightly re­gulated, religiously minded, and with-out any by ends of their own: Ex. 18. 21. men of courage, fearing God, men dealing truly, hating covetous­nesse. Such, as will not be Ex. 23. 2. led by a multitude to do evil, or to subvert the truth. I am certain, we should then have an Union, a blessed Ʋnion between King and Parliament.

6. But by you it seems, that That such an union is [...]a [...]tum [...]n [...]p [...]si [...]i [...]e, [...] the King condescend in the point of Epis­copacy l. G. p. 1. there is now no probable or possible means of reconciliation left, in mans judgement, unlesse the King yeeld to the extirpation of Episcopacy. You should have added, unlesse he lay down his Lands, Royalties, and just Pre­rogatives at his Subjects feet: unlesse he abandon the wife of his bosome, and become a stranger to the Children of his loins: un­lesse he sacrifice his friends to the malice of his foes, and the ruine of whole families to their avarice: unlesse he cast off the [Page 3] Service of God, that most excellent form of Common Prayer, and give up the houses and lands of God, and all that is accounted holy, to satiate their sacrilegious appetite.

7. But, in sober sadnesse, do you beleeve that the Abrogation of Episcopacy is that, they yawn at? You are mistaken, good bro­ther, the Episcopall houses and lands, as also what ever belongs to Deans and Chapters, to Archdeacons and Prebendaries, are the things they hunger and thirst after; they will wipe your mouthes of all such morsels: as their Ordinances for the sale of such Lands have fully manifested.

8. And wheras you seem to be much troubled for his Majesty, lest For the King to condescend renitente conscien­tiâ, though it might gratifie us, it would be sin­full to himself. I. G. p. 1. he should condescend renitente conscientia, against conscience, to gratifie you in this kind, and to bring sin upon himself. Which you perceive, and in a manner confesse, he must do, if he do, as you would have him: for you say, It would be sinfull to himself. Thus you endeavour to perswade our Soveraign into sin, upon pre­tence to sin: how you can salve it, we shall see hereafter. In the mean space I must tell you, that you trouble your self for the King, blessed be God, without cause; for we cannot perceive, that He is inclinable to gratifie you in this kinde. Neither doth every reluctance of conscience make a grant sinfull; but onely when my conscience checks me upon just grounds. It is not the renitence, or strugling, of conscience, but the pulling down of Gods Ordi­nance, Episcopacy, that makes the sin; though, I confesse, the sin is the greater, if it be done upon deliberation against conscience; let the pretence be, what you please. If this indeed should prove to be the Kings case, which God forbid, then must it necessarily follow, that I. G. p. 1. it would be sinfull to him; and so he should forfeit in­ward to procure outward peace; and be represented to times in the glasse of conscience, to adventure the heavenly, to retain an earthly Crown. No­thing more certain. Wo then be to him, or them, who ever they be, that plot, how they may endanger the Kings earthly Crown, that so they may deprive him of his heavenly inheritance. He hath been tried as gold in the furnace; he hath been enforced thorow fire and water; but for all this, with Gods blessing he shall arrive in the haven of happinesse.

9. But there is an The oath taken at the Kings Co­ronation hath been prest by some learned Pens with that probability, &c. I. G. p. 1. Oath, that stands in the way, which was taken at the Kings Coronation. This hath been prest by some Learned pens, [Page 4] with that probabilitie, that (by your own confession) may stumble a right intelligent Reader. But you are none of that number, you stumble not, but smoothly passe over such rubs; and though Neither have they that I know, received an [...] sa­tisfactory answer in Print I G p. 1. they have not hitherto received any satisfactory answer, yet now we shall have it in Print It may [...]e a work worthy some pains to resolve this case▪ and clear your obj [...]ctions, that while they stand unanswered, cast an ill reflect on both upon the King in condes­cending to abro­gate Episcopacy, and the Parlia­ment, in pressing him to it. I. G p. 1.. By your pains the Obj [...]ctions shall be cleared, which while they stand unanswe [...]ed, cast an ill reflection upon the King, in condescending to abrogate Episcopacy. I beseech you, do you dream? Who told you, that His Majestie had condescended to this impi­ous and Antichristian demand? No, no, blessed be God, he hath done Christ, and his Church, and himself that honour, in the re­fusall of this Proposition, that His memory shall be glorious in our Histories, and his Name high in the book of life. But for certain, they will cast an ill, a foule, an infamous ref [...]ction upon those, who ever they be, that shall presse him to this unchristian act. This you, and your Masters of the Assembly can never avert with all your Dutch devices, and Geneva fallacies. I say it now, it shall be explained hereafter.

10. But why am I so forward, when The bond of the K [...]ngs Oath may be taken off two waies Either by clearing the unlawfulnesse of it I. G. p. 1. the Kings Oath may be taken off two wayes; either by clearing the unlawfulnesse of it; or else by manifesting, that Though it be granted, that Episcopacy is lawfull▪ yet notwithstanding that his Oath, the King without impeachment may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy I G. p. 2. though Episcopacy be lawfull, yet notwithstanding that his Oath, the King may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy. Both these your wayes shall be severally taken into consideration; and first for the unlawfulnesse thereof.

CHAP. II. Whether the Kings Oath taken at his Coronation, be an un­lawfull Oath.

1. YOu say, and say truly, that It was vinculum iniquitatis, and so void the fi [...]st day: for qui jurat in iniquum obligatur in contrarium, [...]. G p. 1. the oath, which is vincu­lum iniquitatis, the bond of iniquitie, is void the first day. And your reason is firme; for Qui jurat in iniquu [...], obligatur in contrarium, he that swears to do that, which is unjust, is bound to performe the contrary. Your argument hitherto is good; and upon these very grounds we will joyne issue. But how will you proove, that his Majestie hath sworne to uphold that, which is [Page 5] unjust or impious? This shall be done by manifesting that I. G. p. 1. the King hath sworne to maintaine that, which is contrary to Christs Institution. And what is that? Episcopacy, say you. Your reso­lution is high and peremptory, as if you were settled upon in­fall blegrounds; which upon just try all will dissolve into sand. And yet with you I readily acknowledge, that I. G p. 1. If Prelacie in the Church be an usurpation contra [...]y to Christs Institution; then to maintain it, is to sin, and all bonds to sin are frustrate.

2. I hope you use no tricks; but fairely without any fallacie, according to the question proposed, by Prelacie you mean Episco­pacy, properly and strictly so called. Otherwise there are foure termes in your syllogisme. Now if this proposition be firme, up­on the same grounds it will follow, you cannot deny it, that If Supremacie in the Parliament be an usurpation contrary to Christs Insti­tution; then to maintain it, is to sin. But Supremacie in the Parlia­ment is an usurpation contrary to Christs Institution; Ergo to maintaine it, is to sin. That Supremacie in the Parliament is con­trary to Christs Institution, is evident by St. Peter, who placeth Supremacie in the King; in these words, 1 S Pet. 2. 13, 14. Submit your selves to eve­ry ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be unto the KING as SUPREME, or unto GOVERNOURS, that are SENT BY HIM, by the King. And every rationall man cannot but discerne, that there can be but one, not two Supremes, in the same Kingdome, I. G. p. 9. as you would have it. But of this more fully in the last Chap­ter. Secondly, it followes, If ordination by Presbyters be an usurpa­tion contrary to Christs Institution, then to maintain it, is to sin. But O [...]dination by Presbyters is an usurpation contrary to Christs Institution. To maintain it therefore is to sin. The mi­nor with Gods blessing, shall suddenly be made good against the Presbyterian Jus divinum. Thirdly, If Episcopacy in the Church be no Ʋsurpation, but Christs Institution, then to endeavour the extir­pation thereof, is sin. But Episcopacy in the Church is no usurpation; but Christs Institution. Therefore to endeavour the extirpation thereof, is sin.

3. That Solemn League and Covenant. you, your Assembly, and Parliament, have made and taken an oath to extirpate Episcopacy, is too notorious to be denyed. But if I shall prove, that Episcopacy is not contrary to Christs Institution, then shall I cleare the Kings oath from sin. Secondly, [Page 6] if I shall demonstrate, that Episcopacy is the Institution of Christ, then is your Covenant g vinculum iniquitatis, the very bond iniqui­tie; [...]. G. p. 1. and you are bound in conscience publickly and penitently to retract it. That the same Order cannot be Christs Institution, and contrary to Christs Institution, is so apparent a truth, that a meer idiot may discern it. But the Order of Bishops is Christs Insti­tution: and yet ye have sworne to up with it root and branch. Much like to those in the Prophet, Ier. 11. 19. Let us destroy the tree, with the fruit thereof. And yet the root of Episcopacy is our B. Saviour; Who is called S. Pet 2. 25. the Bishop of our soules; from him it takes his rise; from him it receives life, it springs up, and is watered with the dew of his heavenly blessing.

4. We know, that he, from whom a familie springs, is called the root of that familie. That As Scripture is the Rule of Church▪ Govern­ment▪ so Christ is the sole root and fountain wh [...]nce it originally flows I. D. p. 50 our Saviour is the root of Episcopa­cy, that from him it received being and life, is evident in the A­postles strictly so called, who had their Orders immediately from Christ, as is evident S. Mat: 10. S. Luk: 9. S. I [...]: 20. 21. &c. To them he gave power to ordain Apostles, in Gratis accepistis, gratis date. S. Mat. 10. 8. so S. Ambr. de dig­nit Sacerd c. 5. Ambrose, so S. Hieron. in Mat. 10. 8. Jerome, so Gen [...]ad apud Balsam. p. 1085. Gennadius Patriarch of Constantinople, with seventy and three Bishops more in a full Synod. Our Saviours words are [...], which the Greekes understands thus, A gift ye have received, give ye this gift. This Commission he renewed unto them after his Resurrection, in these words, S Ioh 20. 21. As my Father sent me, so send I you. So S. Hilar in Mat. can 10 Hilarie, so Cyril in Io. l. 12 c. 55. S. Cyril, and other with them, upon the strength of this commission Christs Apostles ordeined some other to be Apostles, conferring upon them the same honour and power which they themselves had received from Christ. This is evident in S Iames Bishop of Hierusalem, in Epaphroditus, Bishop of Philip­pi, and in Apollos Bishop of Corinth. These are called Apostles in Scripture; S. Iames, Gal. 1. 19. Epaphroditus, Phil. 2. 25. Apollos, 1 Cor. 4. 9. And these are confessed to be Apostoli ab ipsis, Ap sto­lis ordinati, Apostles o [...]dained by the Apostles; Even by Hieron i [...] Gal. 1. [...]9. S. Jerome, Calvin in 1 Cor 4. 9. Calvin, and your mighty champion Wal▪ Messal. p. 41. Walo Melsalinus.

5. Apostles they were at that time called, but afterwards that title, upon just occasion was taken from them, and the name of B [...]shop was setled upon them, and their successors in Office. So Theodoret. Theo in Phi. lip. 11. The same persons were sometimes called both Presbiters and [Page 7] Bishops, but those who are now named BISHOPS, were then called A­POSTLES. But in processe of time the title of APOSTLE was reser­ved to those, who were [...] APOSTLES properly and t [...]uly so called. And the name of BISHOP became appropriated to those, who were lately called APOSTLES. Hence is it, that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops and Apostles: Bishops in the postscripts of those Epistles, which were written to them by S. Paul; but Apostles by Ignat ad Eph. Ignatius, Theodoret▪ in 1 Tim. 3 1. Theodoret, and Walo. Messal. p [...]0 43. many other.

6. Bishops they were at that time called, when Episcopacy was distinguished from the Presbyteriall Order; But I [...] p. 53. Apostles they were named, when a Bishop and a Presbyter were one and the same. These were Timoth [...]m A­postoli munere & officio functus est Ib p 42. 52. Apost [...]es not onely by name, but in office and power; and Ib. p. 47 50. 244. governed Churches and their Presbyter-Bishops by the same right, and with the same authority, that the cheife and prime Apostles swaied them with. And as they governed, so they, and they onely ordained Pres [...]yters.

7. From hence we argue thus. They, that have the same name and office with the true Apostles, are of the same order with the true Apostles. Bu [...] Bishop Timothy, and Bishop Titus, and Bishop E­paphroditus have the same name and office with the true Apostles. They are therefore of the same order with the true Apostles. Smect. Answ. to the Remonst. p. 21. & 26. The major is Smectymnuus his Proposition, and not to be doubted of. The minor, or second Proposition shall be justified by Salmasius; who in severall passages acknowledgeth this name, and office, and power in Epaphroditus Bishop of Philippi. Take this for all; Epaphroditus by S [...]au [...] [...] cal­led the Apostle of the P [...]lippians, b [...]caus [...] h [...] had sent him to the Philippians to confirm their Church, and therein to ordain them [...]resbyters and Bishops Walo. Messal p. 58. Epaphroditus Pau [...]o dicitur Apostolus Philippensium; quia ad Philip­penses eum miser at ad Ecclesiam eorum confirmandam, & constituendos in eâ Presbyteros & Episcopos▪ That the name of Apostle was usually given to Timothy and Titus, I have already manifested. That the Apost [...]licall power was in each of them, is evident by those Epistles, which S. Paul wrote unto them: and more briefly in these words to Titus Tit. 1. [...]. For this cause left I thee in Creete, that thou shouldest SET IN ORDER, o [...] redresse, WHAT IS WANTING, or a misse, and OR­DAIN PRESBYTERS in every City as I have appointed thee. Herein is both Jurisdiction and Ordination allowed him; and the maine power of the Apostolicall Order consists in Jurisdiction and Ordina­tion. Herein the Bishops, and onely Bishops, succeed them.

8. Since then the Apostleship and Episcopacy, are one & the same [Page 8] Office, he that is the root and author of the one, is the root and author of the other. But Christ is the root and author of the A­postleship; he is therefore the root and author of Episcopacy. In Co­venanting then to take away Episcopacy root and branch, you have done no lesse then Covenanted to take away Jesus Christ, Ephes 4 11. 1 Cor. 12 28. who gave the Ap [...]stles, and ^u ordeined them in the Church. Indeed ye have taken the ready way to root him out o [...] our hearts & soules. For ye have absolutely stripped the Church of the three Creeds, the ten Commandments, and the Lords Prayer, with the Epistles and Gospels; wherein was daily mention made of our B. God. and Saviour, as also of his power, pleasure, and mercy. And what I pray you, is become of the Lords Supper, S. Luk. 22 19. 1 Cor. 11. 24, 25. which we are com­manded to administer and receive, in remembrance of our B. Savi­our? And [...] Joh. 6. 53. unlesse we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, in that holy Sacrament, we have no life abiding in us. Many Parishes in this Kingdom have been utterly deprived of this heavenly Sup­per, even since their lawfull Parsons or Vicars have been impri­soned, or sequestred by your instigation. So farewell ro [...]t and branch, and fruit, as much as in you lieth. And now, I hope, the Kings Oath is cleerly discharged of sin; and your Covenant suffici­ently proved to be the bond of iniquity.

9. But how comes it to passe, that if root and branch must up, yet by your Ordinance some branches of that root may be preser­ved? For it is resolved, that Ordinance for Ordinat. p 2. Ordination performed by a BISHOP, being a Presbyter, j [...]yned with other Presbyters, is for substance va [...]id, and not to be disclaimed [...]y any, that have received it. And most pro­bable it is, that you are a branch, or sucker, of that root. For Ib. p▪ 13. Presbyters so ordained, shall he admitted to a charge, without any new or­dination. Is not this a flat contradiction? some branches lopped off, and some spared; is this according to your solemne league and Covenant? Indeed had they taken all branches away, which spring from that root, there had hardly been a man of any learning left. And is not that Clerke, who hath been ordeined by a Bishop, a wise man, to sware to root himselfe up, if not here, yet out of the land of the living. For he that is not a member of the Church mi­litant, can never be a Saint in the Church triumphant.

CHAP. III. whether Prelacy in the Church of England were an u­surpation.

1. THe Question proposed is, of Episcopacy; the Oath is for the maintenance of Episcopacy; and your endea­vour is for the abrogation of Episcopacy. According to your sense therefore by Prelacy I understand Episcopacy, which you have vowed and covenanted to extirpate. Whether upon just grounds, or no, shall be now enquired. For the Office is either good or bad, lawfull or unlawfull, necessary or indifferent. If in it self bad, and utterly unlawfull, God forbid, but we should joyne in the extirpation of it. If indifferent, it is in the breast of authority, to allow, or disallow it. But if simply lawfull, and good, and necessary, for the being and continuation of a Church, then it is not in the just power of man to discard it, or cast it off. And yet you resolve, that I. G. p. 1. the Kings Oath to uphold Epis­copacy is sin. If sin, then it necessarily followes, that Episcopacy in it self is naught, and utterly unlawfull. Thus in the first place you condemne all the Kings and Queens of this King­dome, that have taken this oath. Secondly, you condemne those many Saints of God, that have discharged this Office of Episcopacy. Thirdly, You condemne all those Fathers, and Councels, which justify a necessity of Bishops. And last of all you condemn the whole Church of Christ, which from her Infancie hath been governed by Bishops. Is not this to Psal 89 50. blas­pheme the footsteps of the Lords anointed? Is not this to question the actions of those Saints S. Jude v. 3▪ to whom the Faith was first delivered? Is not this to vilifie the Spouse of Christ, and Christ himselfe▪ who hath suffered the Church to erre so foully from the be­ginning.

2. But how shall it be proved, that Episcopacy is so bad, that it is a sin to defend it? An universall Proposition must have an universall Proofe. Exparticulari nonest syllogizari. A parti­cular makes no proofe, but for that particular, whereof it treats. I [...] I manifest, that Monarchy, or Arist [...]cracy hath been [Page 10] a [...]used in such a State or Nation, by such or such a Prince, or Peeres, do I therefore justifie, that it is a sin to defend Mo­archy, or Aristocracy; O [...] if I shall make it appeare, That some Parliament men have abused that trust, which is committed to them, is therefore a Parliament naught? This follows not; but hereby I manifest, that they who at that time sat at the helme in that place, did abuse that, which in it self is good. Is the Apostleship naught, because Judas abused himself and that? Is Episcopacy bad, because Gregory VII▪ of Rome, George of Cappadocia, or Paulus Samosatenus abused their place and function? Far be it from me to argue, or conclude in this manner. I have learned to distinguish between the office and the Officer: The Office may be simply good, and the Officer extremely bad. This then is no argument against Episcopacy, though perchance you may prove, that Episcopacy hath been ill managed.

3. But view we your own words, which are the minor of your conditionall Syllogisme; which are these. I. G p 1. And truly as Prelacy stood with us in England ingr [...]ssing all ruledome in the Church into the hands of a few L. Bishops, I think it may be cleered to be an u­surpation. And truly I think not. So you and I are of two sever­all opinions. But truly your thinking shall be cleered [...]y this one argument. I. G p 1. That power, that dispoiles any of Christs Officers, of any Priviledge, or duty indulged or injoined 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 Prelacie was an usurpation against the word of God.

4. How properly you speake, and how strongly you argue, let the intelligent judge: That you, and others may be sensi­ble of the strength of your argument, under favour of Parlia­ment, I shall invert it thus. That power that despoiles any of Christs Officers of any priviledge or duty indulged or injoined them by the word of God, that power is an usurpation against the Word. But this the Parliament doth, as it stands now in England Ergo, the English Par­liament is an usurpation against the word of G [...]d. I hope you know your own argument; though it alter a terme, it alters not the forme. I G. p 2. The Major, you say, is cleer of it self, it needs no proofe, as you conceive. The difficultie is in the Minor; and that I [Page 11] make good thus, out of your own words. I. [...] ▪ [...] ▪ [...] ▪ Presbyters are by Christs warrant, in Scripture indued with power to rule in their own congregations, as well as preach. But the Parliament hath banish­ed many hundreds of us from our own congregations, and barred us from preaching therein. Ergo, The Parliament hath despoil­ed many of Christs officers of their priviledges and duties in­dulged, and injoyned them by the Word of God. You can­not deny us to be Christs officers, since we are Presbyters. That we are Presbyters, is acknowledged by your great Masters; Ordinance for Ordinat. p 2. who grant all those to be Presbyters, who have been ordained by a Bishop j [...]yned with other Presbyters. And so, I am sure, we are.

5. Let a review be taken of the soliditie of your former argument; and then we shall finde you offend in limine, in that Major, which is so clear of it self. For do not you say thus? That power, that despoils any of Christs [...]fficers of any priviledge, or duty indulged or injoyned them by the Word of God, that power is an usurpation against the Word. Had you said, That power, that wrongfully, or causelesly despoils any of Christs officers, &c. you had said something. You have not, it seems, learned to di­stinguish between justly and unjustly; but we must. And yet I. G. p. 2. this Proposition is clear of it self, if we take your word. But Gods Word and yours, are two. Gods Word saies, Rom. 13. 1. Non est potestas nisi à Deo, There is no power but of God; but you say, that there is a power, which is an usurpation against the Word of God. But how can that be usurpata, which is data; both usurped, and given? That it is given by God, Thou couldst have no power at all, ag [...]nst me, except it were given thee from above S. Jo. 19. 11. our Saviour testifies, S. Joh. 19. 11. Indeed this power may be abused; and the abuse of this power is an usurpation. The office is from God, the abuse from our selves. But you cannot, or will not distinguish between the office and the abuse. If all [...]ffi [...]es must be discarded, because the officers have done a misse, what office will remain in this Kingdom? I fear, not one.

6. We read, that Ier. 20. 2. Pas [...]ur the High Priest set Jeremie the Pro­phet in the stocks for preaching the truth, Ier. 19. 14. which the Lord had commanded him to preach. And yet who dares say that the High Priesthood in the old Law was an usurpation? We know, that Prov. 8. 15. the office of a King is Gods own ordinance; and yet we dare not say, that the power of Jehoi [...]kim King of Juda [Page 12] was an usurpation against Gods Word, when Ier. 26. 23. he slew Vrijah the Prophet. But we may safely and truly justifie, that he abused his power. And so did King Zedekiah, when Ier. 32. 3. he imprisoned Jeremiah for prophesying, what the Lord had injoyned him to denounce. Both Regall and Priestly power are the gift of God; they cannot therefore but be good. But the abuse of this power to other ends then God gave it, is the viciousnesse of man, and therefore bad. 1 Reg. 2. 27. 31. Solomon made just use of this power, when he despoiled Abiathar the High Priest not onely of his priviledges, but also of his office, and of all that belonged to his office. The reason is, because Ib. v. 26. Abiathar for his treason de­served this and an heavier doom. And I presume, it was no usurpation in St. Paul, when 1 Tim. 1. 20. he delivered Hymeneus unto Sa­tan, that he might learn not to blaspheme: nor yet when he Gal▪ 1. 9. ana­thematized and accursed those Preachers, that taught otherwise, then they had received. If then our Bishops have made use of this power in silencing or depriving hereticall, schismaticall, or se­ditious Preachers, 2 Tim. 3▪ 2. &c. they have done no more then they ought to do. This therefore is no usurpation, but a just use of that power, which with their Orders was conferr'd upon them for this end and purpose.

7. I have done with your Major; now to your Minor. I. G. p. 1. But this Prelacy did▪ as it stood in England. What did it? why it Ib de­spoiled Christs [...]fficers (the good Presbyters that preached up the Scottish discipline and doctrine) of their priviledges indulged, and duty inj [...]yned them by the Word of God. If they deserved this censure, it was no despoiling, but a just deprivation. If they deserved it not, let it be proved. I am sure, Courts and Com­mittees have been long enough open, to receive large infor­mations, and easie proofs against them. And I am as sure, that our Saviour never indulged any such priviledge to his Apostles, or any other of his [...]fficers, as to vent heresie, schisme, or sedi­tion. If any Bish [...]p be faultie, I plead not for him. I justifie Epis­copacy, not the Bishop. Judas was bad, cut his Episcopacy good; Judas offended, but not his office. Judas was cut off, not his Episcopacy; Act 1. 22. the office is continued, and a good man must be put into it. So St. Peter. And Act▪ 1. 20. let another take HIS BISHOP­PRICK. So the Spirit of Prophecie. Prelacy therefore is not in [Page 13] fault; but the Prelate. And it is as false a speech to say▪ Prelacy despoils any, as to say, Judicature wrongs any. Since we know, that Judicature is blamelesse, when the Judge is criminous. And as improper a speech it is to say, that a man is despoiled of his duty: I may be forbidden my duty, but not spoiled of it: be­cause I am bound to discharge it, though forbidden, if un­lawfully forbidden.

8. But what are these priviledges, and duties, whereof they are said to be despoiled? The particulars are these; Presbyters are by Christs war­rant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their own Con­gregations, as well as to preach. See 1 Tim. 3. 5 & 5. 21. Heb. 13. 17▪ 1 Thes. 5. 12. I G. p. 2. Power to rule, and to preach in their own congregations; and this power they are indued with [...]y Christs warrant. Power to Rule, and by Christs warrant, sound high, and raise attention. And this they have as well, as much, as power to preach; if we may beleeve you. As if they had ruledome (as you call it) from Christ himself. If this be doubted of, you give us Scripture for it, and that in foure severall texts. The first is this, 1 Tim. 3. 5. If any cannot rule his own house, how shall he take care for the Church? Here is care to be taken for the Church, but no rule given to a Presbyter in the Church, unlesse you allow him as much power to rule in his Parish, as he hath in his own house. To which assertion no man, I conceive, will subscribe. It is required indeed, 1 Tim. 3. 1. if any Lay-man desire to be a Presbyter-Bishop, that before he be ordained, he be known to be such a one, Ib. v. 4. that could rule his own house well. But what is this to prove, that by Christs warrant in Scripture a Presbyter is indued with power to rule in his eongregation? Alas, I. D. p. 12 [...] ▪ this government, as your learned brethren confesse, is but domesticall in private families; not Ecclesiasticall in the publick congregation. In like manner 1 Tim. 3▪ 12▪ Deacons must be such, as rule their houses and children well. And yet ye allow them no ruledome in the Church, but set Lay-Ruling Elders to over-top them. No warrant here for this Presbyteriall ruling power; what may come hereafter, shall be examined.

9. The next proof is from the same Epistle; the words are these; 1 Tim. 5▪ 2 [...] ▪ I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect Angels, that THOƲ OBSERƲE THESE THINGS without preferring one before another, and do nothing partially. This is something, were it to the purpose. Here is a large authori­tie given to Timothy in this Chapter; and a charge in this [Page 14] verse, that he be carefull to discharge his office with integri­tie. But what is this to the point in question? Alas, you are clean mistaken in your mark. It rests upon you to prove, that this power in Scripture is given to a Presbyter-Bishop; whereas it is here given to an Apostle-Bishop; who is clean of another, an higher order. If I should justifie, that a Sergeant at Law hath power to hear and determine Suits in Westminster-Hall, be­cause the Justices of the Kings Bench, and Common Ple [...] have such a Commission, you would think, I were beside the cushi­on; and so are you.

10. In the third place, you produce a text of the same A­postle to the Hebrews; where-in he commands his brethren, to Heb. 13. 17. obey those, that have the over-sight of them, and to submit them­selves un [...]o them. No question, but they ought to do so. But who are these Praepositi, these Rulers, here mentioned? Are they Presbyters onely? Presbyters are not mentioned here; and it is impossible to prove, that Presbyters onely are intended here; unlesse they be the onely Church-governors. It is rather to be beleeved, that all Church-governors, or else the chief Governors, were here intended. That he speaks of Presbyters, I deny not; but that he speaks of Presbyters onely, I utterly deny. When you can prove, that onely Presbyters Ib watch for the souls of the people, and that they onely must give an account for those souls, then shall I readily acknowledge, that the Apostle speaks only of Presbyters in this place.

11. If the Kings Majestie should command his Souldiers to obey their Commanders, could any man imagine, that he spake of the Lieutenants and Captains onely? No wise man can have this imagination: but this must reach, to Majors, and Collonels, and all other in authority. Thus, when the Lord commands his people, to obey those Governors, that watch for their souls, he means not onely Deacons and Presbyters, but Bi­shops also. For as in an Army there are Captains over souldiers, and Commanders over Captains; so in the Church, which is C [...]nt 6. 3. aci [...]s ordinata, a well-ordered Army, there are Episcopus est pres [...]yt [...]is pr [...]positus Cypr ep. 10 Praepositi po­pulo▪ & Praepositi Presbyteris, Spirituall Governors of the people, and some set over both people and Presb [...]ters. Such were the Apost [...]s in Scripture, and such their 2 Cor [...]. 23. Philip. 2. 25▪ [...], their copart­ners [Page 15] in labour, and successors in office; whom we now call Bishops. Such were Timothy and Titus, 1 Tim 5. 22. Tit▪ 1. 5. who had not onely the power of Ordination, but of Jurisdiction also: that is, they had authoritie, not onely to set in order, what was amisse in the Church, and 2 Tim. 3. 5. Tit 2. 15. & 3. 10. to reform the Laitie; but to 1. convent, 2. si­lence, and 3. excommunicate the Clergie, even Deacons and Presbyters, if they deserved it.

12. For convention, in the first place observe, that 1 Tim 5. 19. S. Paul ac­knowledgeth in Bishop Timothy power to receive an accusation a­gainst a Presbyter, or Elder; and upon proofe to rebuke him. Which could not be done without conventing him. 2ly. That the power to silence preaching Presbyters was in Bishop Timothy, these words manifest, 1 Tim. 1. 3. Thou maiest command some that they teach no other doctrine. And as for Bishop Titus Tit. 1. 11. [...], it be hoves him to stop the mouths of the disobedient and deceitfull, as also to Tit. 3. 9. stay foolish questions and contentions. And if this will not serve, then must they proceed to higher censures even to ex­communication. For doth not S. Paul command Timothy, to 1 Tim 6. 3. 5. withdraw himself from those, that teach unwholsome Doctrine? And what this means let Beza speake; Beza & Piscat. in loc. Gravissime damnatos extra Ecclesiam ejicit, he casts for [...]h these as condemned men out of the Church. For as S. Cyprian speaks, Si qui cum E­piscōp [...] non sunt, in Ecclesid non sunt▪ Cypr. ep. 69▪ n. 31. They that are not in commu­nion with the Bishop, are out of the Church. Timothy then being Bi­shop of that Church, and withdrawing his communion from them, they were no longer members of the Church. This po­wer, we see, was in the Apostle Bishops; but no man can shew that ever it was in the Presbyter Bishops, Par enim in parem non habet potestatem; it is a sure rule, that no man hath power over his equall, while his equall.

13. The last place is reserved for the first in Scripture, which you have kept for your reserve to help at a dead lift; and this it is. 1 Thes. 5. [...]2. We beseech you, brethren, that ye know them, which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you: A great friend of the Presbytery tels us that Hilar. Dial. Rom. in loc. apud Ambros. this is the same with that, which the Apostle speaks in another Epistle that those Presbyters are worthy of double honour, who labour in the word and doctrine. So then, in his judgement, this rule, you so much boast of is, but your labouring in the word and doctrine. And surely he hath two able [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 14] [...] [Page 15] [...] [Page 16] men, that back him very well, viz. The [...]d [...]ret and Ca [...]vin. The­odoret d Theodoret▪ in 1 [...]he [...]. 5. 12. tels us, that when S. Pau saith, Qu [...]praesunt, th [...]se th [...]t are over you in the Lord, it is all one▪ as if he ha [...] said, they that [...]ff [...] up prayers and supplica [...]ions for y [...]u. And Ca [...]vin thu [...], Calvin in loc. Qu DO­CENDO rite & fideliter GU [...]ERNANT, who by TEACHING orderly and faithfully GOVERN the people. And el [...]ewhere Caluin I [...]stit. [...]. [...]. c. 3. Sect. 15. he expounds this kind of G [...]verning by boris & salutaribus con­siliis popu [...]o praeire, by guiding the pe [...]ple with good and wholesome counsell. The Preifis rule then consists in 1 Prayer for Gods peo­ple, in 2 Admonishing, 3 Inst [...]ucting, and 4 Advising them; as also in 5 conveying to them those heavenly blessings by the Sacraments; which in an ordinary way they could not other­wi [...]e obtain. This is all the rule, that I can find belonging to Presbyters. And this was ever allowed you in your own Con­gregations, while ye behaved your selves as the Ministers, of Christ in all meeknesse and sobriety, dividing the Word of God aright; and while ye kept within the ru [...]e of faith.

14. Thus your ruledome (my fellow Presbyters) is come to no great matter by these texts. Shew me one place of Scrip­ture, that allowes Presbyters to excommunicate, or absolve, of their own authority; and I shall be of your mind, and justi­fie, that ye have susteined much wrong; If ye have been sus­pended from officiating, or silenced, ye may thank your un­bridled tongues, which have been so lavish in venting un­sound and seditious doctrine. The Bishop in these cases hath but discharged that dutie, which is required of him by Gods Word. 1▪ Tim. 6. 3. 5. 2. Tim. 3. 5. Tit. 1. 11. Tit. 3. 9. And it is no more, then the Presbytery chalengeth to it selfe in those places, where it hath gained autho [...]i [...]y.

15. As Prelacy stood in [...]ng­l [...]nd, the Pres­byters were [...]x­ [...]ed from all soc [...]tie in Rule. I. G p. 2. That ye were excluded from all society in Rule▪ is that, which troubles you. Society pretends equ [...]litie, and Rule is that which ye affect. So ye may be made Bishops, or B [...]shops fel­lowes, equall with them in rule and authority, all sh [...]ll be well, but till then we must expect no p [...]ace, if ye can hinder it. H [...]d your leading Church-men be [...]n made Bish [...]ps or Deanes, the K [...]ngs oath had been most just, and unalterable; yea unque­stion [...]ble. Some mens mouths have been stopt so heretof [...]re; the more the pitie: And ye have gaped after such morsels. [Page 17] What the benefit hath been, is sufficiently discerned, and am­bitious male-contents shall no more, I hope, be tempted in this manner to continue among us, when they are neither with us, nor of us. But, I pray you, what Society in Rule, can you chalenge with the Bishops, when by Scripture ye are made subject to them? We know your pride; Ye would faine be hail-fellows with your Governours both Ecclesiasticall and Civill. Faine would ye have the raines in your own hands, with Phaeton, though it were with the same issue. But how shall they learn to govern, that know not how to obey? All Baristers are not qualified to be Judges.

16. But there is another thing, which troubles you mar­velously, that you deem to be Which was much more pre­iudiciall to the dignity & lioerty of the Ministery, the Presbyters w [...]re subiected to a Lay Chancelor. I. G. p. 2. much more prejudiciall to the dig­nity and liberty of the Ministery; namely to be subjected to a lay Chancelour. And yet how many lay Chancelours have you sub­jected us to? The Clergie & their priviledge [...] are subiect to the Parliament. I. G. p. 7. To the whole Parliament; that's plaine; and yet not so much as one Presbyter among them: And to every Committee-man both in Citie and Countrie, Whose busie Ap­parators are all persons disaffected to the Doctrine and Disci­pline of the Church of England. And all this is for the dignity and liberty of the Ministery, according to your new Magna Char­ta. Thus much to manifest, that ye are deeply plunged in those crimes, which you boldly charge upon others. But this is no new, no strange thing. For this hath been generally ob­served; when your great Masters blemish our most gracious Soveraigne with any foule or illegall surmise, they usually act it themselves. Dominisimiles, such Masters, and such Chap­laines. Greg Naz. orat. 52. [...] 15. Par autem erat, ut vel quod accusant, non facerent, vel quod facerent, non accusarent. But it were meet, that either they should not do, what they blame; or not blame, what they do.

17. And now, I beseech you which is most prejudicall, to be subject to one lay Chancelour in a Diocese, or to those great lay Courts of Lords and Commons and others at Westminster? to so many lay Committees in the City; to so many in every Coun­tie? Without whom ye are not able to subsist, nor to abide in your Congregations, if these men take but the least offence against you. And how can the Gentrie and Comminaltie of this Kingdome take it well, that you complain so much of one [Page 18] lay Chancelour in a Diocese, and yet enthrall them to so many lay Elders, Parochiall, Classicall, Provinciall, and Nationall. Say not, that there be preaching Elders joyned with them, least it be re­turned upon you, that the lay Chancelour is but the Bishops Of­ficer in such cases of Judicature, as belong to his profession; and to the Bishop he is accountable. But you can endure no loy Judges over you, on any hand. And whereas An [...] was not here [...]urpation against Gods di­rection? I. G. p. 2. you charge the lay Chancelorship with usu [...]pation contrary to Gods direction, I am certain, ye have made use of it against Gods direction. For how many of you have been instituted into Benefices by lay Chancelours? Qu [...] jure, comes not now to be scanned. Thus ye can abuse them, and yet use them. But I shall turn you over to the Doct [...]rs of the Commons; them it concerns, they are well able to argue the case with you, and to wash off these as­persions.

18. Your first argument is, I hope, sufficiently confuted in the eye of indifferent and judicious men. I shall not therefore any longer insist upon it, but observe, at how low a rate you value authority. Nor Bishop, nor King, nor your Idolized Par­liament shall be a Power, but an usurpation against God and his Word, if they deny you any priviledge indulged, or debarre you any dutie, which ye suppose to be injoyned you by the word. If they sequester you from the Pulpit, or from ruling in your con­gregations, farewell my great Lords and Masters at Westminster. And when they have sold the Bishops and Chapters lands, they shall no longer be a Parliament, but an Ʋsurpation; because they have I. G. p. 6. despoiled you of those lands, which ye lay claim to, and which they ought to have disposed of, to supply you and your predicant brethren with such maintenance, as your selves hold sufficient.

CHAP. IV. Whether the King may consent to the abrogation of E­pi [...]copacy, if so that calling be la [...]full.

1. SAving your argument, in the first place this is certain, [...]f Episcopacy be lawfull, then the Kings Oath at Coronati­on [Page 19] was not as you would have it vinculum iniquitatis, a bond of iniquitie. And hereupon it follows, quod non obligatur in con­trarium, that he is not bound to break this oath. Take this by the way. You must then seek some other way, to cleere it to us, that it is lawfull for his Majestie to wave this oath. But your own conscience seemes to check you for your former re­solution; you therefore confesse, that Though this way o [...] i [...]valida­ting the K [...]gs oath be most sa­tisfactory to some, I. G. p. 2. this way of invalida­ting the Kings is most satisfactory but to some.

2. Surely if to some it be satisfactory, those some are such, that are either very weak, or wilfully blinded with avarice; 1 Tim. 6. 5. Whose gaine is godlinesse. But the end will prove, th [...]t 1 Tim [...] 8. Godlinesse is pr [...]fitable to all things. Gen. no [...]e in loc. That is (as the Geneva Note hath it) he that hath faith and a good conscience, is promised to have all things necess [...]ry for this life, and to injoy life everlasting. This would be seriously layed to heart.

3. But though your former argument seem satisfactory to some Yet to those that are not on­vin [...]ed of the un­lawfulnesse of E­p [...]scopacy, it will not hol [...]. I. G. p. [...] yet to some it will not hold; namely to those that are not c [...]nvin­ced of the UNLAWFULNESSE OF EPISCOPACY. What? so satisfactory and yet not hold? Alas, alas, what creatures have you to deale with? Pitie it is, that you have to deale with learned and rationall men, and not with Ignoramus and his Dull man. What shall now become of your Case of Conscience? Why? It would cast the res [...]lution of th [...]s [...]ou [...]t a [...]out the oa [...]h, upon another qu [...]stion touc [...]g the l [...]w­fulnesse of Epis­copac [...], which is a lar [...]er feild. I. G p. 2. It will cast the resolution of this doubt upon another question. From one question to an other. And what's that? The law­fulnesse of Episcopacy. This is a large field, that you are not ac­quainted with. And yet to satisfie the conscience of your Rea­der, you have already concluded, that I. G. p. 1. 2. Episc [...]pacy is an usurpa­tion against the word of G [...]d; and therefore sinfull and unlawfull. How? Conclude first, that Episcopacy is unlawfull, and then I sh [...]ll endea­v [...]u [...] to shew, that though for argument s [...]ke, it be grant [...], that Episcopacy [...]e law­full I G. p 2. grant it to be lawfull. But this is granted onely for argument sake. That is, because your argument is so loose, that it proves just nothing again [...] Episcopacy. For a firme demonstration admits of no contradiction, it leaves no doubt behind.

4. Well, be it lawfull, I. G. p. 2. yet not withstanding that his O [...]th, th [...] King without impea [...]hment may in this circumstance consent to the a­b [...]g [...]tion of Episcopacy. What mean you by circumstance? Is the Kings O [...]h, or Episcopacy, or the abr [...]ga [...]i [...]n of Episcopacy but a circumstance? A circumstance is that, which is not substantiall, [Page 20] or essentiall to the point in question; but comes in upon the by; at most, for illustration. The question is, I. G. p. 2. Whether the King, notwithstanding his oath, may consent with a safe conscience, to the abrogation of Episcopacy? All these then I take to be essenti­all to the question; unlesse a safe Conscience be with you and with your brethren but a circumstance. And yet it is such an in­gredient, that a man may neither swear, nor consent to, nor act, but what he may undertake with a safe conscience. 1. S. Joh. 3 20. For if our heart (if our conscience) condemn us, God is greater then our heart, and knoweth all things; His Majesty, I make no question, hath sadly thought on this.

5. That he may abrogate that which is lawfull, you say, and we deny not, since God hath given Kings a power nt onely over things indifferent, but even in such things, as are lawfull, and honest, and in their kind necessary for the preservation of a Common-wealth. This is evident in Jona­dab the sonne of Rechab, Ier, 35. 6, 7. who commanded his posterity, that they should neither drink Wine, nor build House, nor sow seed, nor plant Vineyard, nor have any. And yet as lawfull, and ne­cessary, as these things were, Ib. v. 8. they obeyed their fathers voice. Ib. v. 19. God approves of their obedience, and crowns it with a bles­sing. And what a father is in his own familie, that is a King, at least, within his own Dominions.

6. But here the case is different, for the question is concer­ning Christs own Ordinance and Institution; which the King hath sworne to maintaine. This then being lawfull, and legally sworne, the oath may not in any wise be dispenced with. Nay, if we say, that the King, or any authoritie upon earth, may alter, or abolish any one Ordinance of our Savi­our, we contradict our selves, and complie with the Papists. What reason bring we against the halfe Communion, but Christs own institution, who commanded it to be deliver'd and re­ceived in both kinds. And Calvin in Amos 7. 13. Calvin deservedly reproves Bishop Cardiner for attributing this power to a King: Now if Episco­pacy be our Saviours institution, then may no humane power root it up; least they that do it, be rooted out of the land of the living. But that this very order, which we now call Episcopa­cy, is Christs own institution, is already proved cap. 2. 6. 7 8.

[Page 21]7. Besides, if this be the onely Order, to which Christ hath given power to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons, who shall con­fer these Orders, when Bishops are taken away, and utterly extinguished? Say not, that in case of necessity Presbyters may ordaine, when you maliciously make the necessity. God pro­vides for such necessities, as are inforced upon us, or happen casually and inevitably; not for those, whereinto we witting­ly and wilfully plunge our selves; Delve up the root, & God will hardly work a miracle to provide sap for the branches, or body of the tree. Aug. ep. 180. Sine nostro officio est plebi certa pernicies. It is S. Austins. Without our, without the EPISCOPALL OF­FICE there is certaine ruine to the people. S. Austine was a Bishop, when he resolved thus, and wrote it to a Bishop. Nunc malori li­bertate & fiduciâ veritatem profite­mur: ne al [...]oqui per [...]miditatem hâc poenâ mul­ctemur, ut Deo minimè placea­mus Greg. Naz. Orat. 35 n. 2. That I may speake plainly; God and the times require it: No Bishop, no Preist; no Preist, no Lords Supper; no Lords Supper, no Salvati­on, according to the ordinary way prescribed by our blessed Saviour.

8. This shall be made good, first according to your Prote­station; secondly, according to your Solemn League and Cove­nant. In your The Protesta­tion. Protestation, ye have vowed in the presence of Al­mighty God, to maintain and defend the true Reformed Protestant Re­ligion expressed in the doctrine of the Church of England. This do­ctrine is punctually and carefully delivered in the 39 Articles. According to which Articles I proceed thus. The ordinary way to heaven is by the Word and Sacraments. No man may preach, or administer the Sacraments, but he that is lawfully called and sent. None are lawfully called and sent, but they onely, who are called and sent by those, that have authority. But Bishops, and onely Bishops have authority to send in this kind. And therefore No Bishop, no ordinary way to heaven.

9 The first Proposition is not doubted of by Protestant or Papist; it is therefore taken for granted. The second Propo­sition is in terminis let down Art: 23. It is not lawfull for any man to take upon him the Office of PUBLICKE PREACHING or MI­NISTRING THE SACRAMENTS in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent, to execute the same. The third is like­wise expressed in the same Article. Those we ought to judge lawful­ly called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men, who [Page 22] have publick, authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send Ministers into the Lords Vineyard. And who are these men, that have this authority? Bishops, onely Bishops; So the 36 Ar­ticle. The book of consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops, and order­ing of Preists and Deacons, doth containe all things NECESSARY to such consecration and ordering And whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, [...]e decreed to be RIGHT­LY, ORDERLY, and LAWFULLY CONSECRATED and ordered. But therein the Bishop onely hath authority to ordain. And in the Preface to the Book of Ordination it is resolved that I is requisite that NO MAN SHALL EXECUTE ANY OF THESE ORDERS, except he be called, tried, examined and ad­mitted, ACCORDING TO THE FORME FOLLOW­ING in that Book.

10. Thus we cannot but see, that according to the expresse doctrine of this Church of England without a Bishop no Sacra­ments, and consequently no salvation. For though God can save without meanes, yet he hath tied us to the meanes; and the meanes must be used, if we desire to be saved Art 36. This book was composed and set forth in the time of K Edward the sixt, by those holy men, who afterwards were blessed Martyrs, and at the same time confirmed by full consent and authority of Parliament. VIII Elis. 1. After this in the time of Queen Elizabeth it was again confirmed, and alwaies ratified with the 39 Articles; and XIII. Elis. [...]2. the Clergie injoyned to subscribe to this booke, in and with those Articles, that so they might be known to be in Communion with the Church of England. Thus far with the Protestation.

CHAP. V. Whether ye have not bornd your selves by your Solemne League and Covenant, to maintain Episcopacy.

1. NOw I descend to your Solemne League and Covenant, wherein ye have publickly vowed to endeavour the Re­formation of Religion according to the word of God, and the example [Page 23] of the best reformed Churches. I shall therefore prove first by the Word of God, and secondly by the best reformed Churches, that ye have solemnly bound your selves to maintain Episcopacy, if so ye are resolved to keep this branch of your Covenant.

2. First, we know, that Act. 4. 12. there is no other name under heaven, whereby we may be saved, but onely the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, we are agreed, that Rom. 10. 17. Faith comes by hearing, and hear­ing by the Word of God. Thirdly, our Saviour saith flatly, S. Joh. [...]. 53. Ex­cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of man; and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. We cannot therefore but acknowledge, that with­out the Word and Sacraments, there's no salvation. Since then all those, that are in Orders, exercise Artic. 26. the ministration of the Word and Sacraments, not in their own name, but in Christs, and do MINISTER BY HIS COMMISSION AND AUTHO­RITY; we are therefore to enquire, who have this Commis­sion given them in and by the word of Christ. For S. Paul won­ders, Rom. 10. 15. how any man can preach, in publick, except he be sent. The Commission for preaching was immediately given by our B. Sa­viour, both to the twelve Apostles, and to the seventy Disciples. To the twelve, St. Luk 9. 2. St. Matth. 28. 19. To the seventy, St. Luk. 10. 9. 16. The Commission to consecrate and administer the Lords Supper, is given to the twelve Apostles, St. Luk. 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 24. Gal 1. 1. St. Paul, and Act. 1. 26. St. Matthias also were immedi­ately admitted to the Apostleship by Christ himself. These, and onely these, who are here mention'd, were immediately or­dained by our B. Saviour.

3. But our Saviour having commanded and provided, that S. Mat. 28. 19. All Nations should be taught, and baptized; and having Com: Prayer book, at the Communion. instituted, and in his holy Gospel commanded us to continue a perpe­tuall memory of his precious death, untill his coming again; that this might be done, he gave his Apostles this large commission, S Ioh. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And how was that? even to preach, to baptize, to consecrate, and administer the Lords Supper; to binde sinners, and loose the penitent; and to or­dain other Apostles and Presbyters, which might continue these blessings to his people in all ages. As also else-where in S. Matt. 10. 8. [...]. A gift ye have received, give this gift. The Greeks take not [...] adverbially, but substantively: and [Page 24] I beleeve, in the East they understand their own, the Greek tongue better, then we do in the West. And as they were com­manded, they did. Act 14. 4. 14. S. Paul and S. Barnabas were Apostles; and them we find ordaining Presbyters in every Church, where they come. Act. 14. 23. 2 Tim 1. 6. S. Paul himself ordains Timothy to be the Apostle, or Bishop of Ephesus. He gives the power of Ordination to Titus. Tit. 1. 5. And acknowledgeth it to be in Timothy. 1 Tim. 5. 22. These were the Apostles, or Bishops properly so called, of their severall Churches. These had the power of Ordination, but not the Seventy, not those of the inferior order, not meer Presbyters.

4. Besides, doth not St. Paul justifie, that Rom. 10, 15. none may preach, except they be sent? Talk not of an inward calling, or extraor­dinary sending. Neither of these will serve the turn, without the outward, without the ordinary Ordination. St. Pauls words are full to this purpose. Heb. 5. 4. No man taketh this honour [of Priesthood] to himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was. The extraordinary calling, which some pretend to, is abolish­ed, in that, No man takes this honour to himself. How then must he attain the Priesthood? The Apostle tels you, he must be called of God, as Aaron was. And how was that? Non immediatè a Deo, sed mediante hominis ministerio; he was not called or ordained immediately by God, but by the interceding Ministery of man. The Apostle therefore doth not say, He, that is called of God, as Moses was; but, He, that is called of God, as Aaron was. But we know, that though Exod. 28. 41. Exod. 29. 9. &c. Moses were immediately ordained by God, yet Levit. 8. 12. Aaron was not, he was ordained by Moses. And yet both Psal. 99. 6. Moses and Aaron are among his Priests; for Moses dischar­ged the Priests office, before Aaron was ordained. Exod. 24. 4. &c. Exod. 29. 12. 18. 25. 36. &c. Exod. 30. 29. 30.

5. I have done with your first way, having, according to your Covenant, proved by Scripture, that none may confer Orders in the Church of Christ, but onely Apostles, or Bishops, as we take them in a strict and Ecclesiasticall sense: that is, onely such, as are of the same order with the Apostles, and may fitly be called Apostle-Bishops.

6. We are now cast upon the Example of the best reformed Churches, which may raise some dust. For when we descend [Page 25] to comparisons, we cannot but displease those, who are left out of the superlative. Yet this I dare say, that those Churches are best reformed, which come neerest to the Primitive Church in Doctrine and Government. For to reform is not to inno­vate, but In primaevam & veram formam reducere, to settle it in the ancient and true state. For Ier. 6. 16. thus saith the Lord; Stand in the wayes, and behold, and ask for the OLD WAY, WHICH IS THE GOOD WAY, AND WALK THEREIN, and ye shall find rest for your souls. This rule therefore is given by Zan­chius, Zanch. Exempla veteris Ecclesiae nobis debent esse instar praecepti; and your learned Ministers of London second him, assuring us, that I. D. p 11. the examples of the ancient Church bind us as firmly, as any precept. And reason good, since Hug. Grotius de Jure belli. l. 1. c. 4. Sect. 5. & 7. the custome of the ancient Church is Optima legis interpres, the best interpreter of the Law of Christ. The ancient Church then ought to be a pattern to all Re­formers.

7. Well, what kinde of Government was there in the pri­mitive Church? Peter Moulin testifies, that Statim posttem­pora Apostolorum, aut etiam eorum tempore, constitu­tum est, ut in unâ uroe unus inter caeteros Presby­teros Episcopus vocaretur, qui in suos collegat hate­ret pr [...]minentiam Pet. Molin de Munere Past. p. 20 21. either in the Apostles times, or suddenly after, Bishops had praeheminence over Presbyters, in the severall Cities, wherein they were setled. This Government is very ancient; and in the Church of Christ every thing the MORE ANCIENT it is, the TRUER AND BETTER it is. Zan­chius justifies it. Zanch. de verâ reformand [...] Ec­cles ratione. Thes. 5. In Ecclesia Dei, quo quid ANTIQUIUS, eo etiam est VERIUS, ideo (que) & MELIUS. And lest I may seem to wrest that famous learned mans words to another sense, then he intended them, I shall give you his resolution at large concerning this point in question, whether Bishops, or no Bishops: and this it is. Ib. Thes. 7. Sect. Pono. Hoc unum addo, me coram Deo IN MEA CON­SCIENTIA, non alio habere LOCO quàm SCHISMATI­CORUM, illos OMNES, qui in parte Reformationis Ecclesiarum ponunt NULLOS HABERE EPISCOPOS, qui AUTHO­RITATIS GRADU supra veros compresbyteros emineant, ubi liquido, possint haberi. Praeterea cum D. Calvino, NULLO NON ANATHEMATE DIGNOS CENSEO, quotquot illi Hierar­chiae, quae se Domino Jesu Christo snbmittit, subjici nolunt. These are his words in Latine; and to your comfort you shall have them in English: like them as you please. This one thing I adde (saith learned Zanchius) that IN MY CONSCIENCE [Page 24] [...] [Page 25] [...] [Page 26] before God, I esteeme ALL those NO BETTER THEN SCHISMATICKS, who make it A PART OF REFOR­MATION TO HAVE NO BISHOPS in the Church (where they may readily be had) which maybe above their true fellow-Pres­byters IN DEGREE OF AUTHORITIE. Yea, with Mr. Calvin, I HOLD THEM WORTHY OF THE MOST GRIEVOUS CURSE, who will not submit to that SACRED PRELACY, which is subject to Christ. He was far from a Rooter.

8. Neither is Zanchius alone, he hath that moderate and judicious Melancthon to second him; who is so right and home for Episcopacy, that he comes with his Jurisdictionem [...]otsm, [...] reddo Episconis. Melane. ad Ioach. Carner [...]1 ep. 99. Ego reddo, I, for my part, restore the whole Jurisdiction and dignitie to Bishops. And Io. he wisheth with all, that he and the rest of his friends might redeem peace, though it were upon harder terms. Yea, he af­firms, that Io. ep 104. he sees not, quo ore, with what face they can take from Bishops their Ecclesiasticall government. And then he adds: Ib. That I may speak my mind Ʋtinam, utinam POSSEM, non quidem dominationem confirmare, sed ADMINISTRATIONEM EPIS­cOPORUM restituere: I would to God, I would to God, IT WERE IN MY POWER, not to confirm the Dominion, but to restore the ADMINISTRATION OF BISHOPS. For I see, I see (saith he) what a [...]inde of Church we are like to have, when the Ecclesiasticall policie shall be dissolved. Video postea MULTO INTOLERABILIOREM futuram TYRANNIDEM, quam antea unquam fuit I see, we are hereafter like to have a FAR MORE INTOLERABLE TYRANNY, then ever we have known heretofore Note that; and consider, whether experience hath not made us sensible, that his words were but a Pro­phecie of these times. And after this he expostulates the same businesse with Camerarius, and questions, Ib. ep. 106. Quo jure, by what law it might be free for them, to subvert the Ecclesiasticall Policie; if so the Bishops would yeeld unto them, what is meet? The question being thus proposed, his resolution follows; Ib. Et ut liceat, certè non expedit; but suppose it lawfull yet is it not expedient. Luther himself was ever of this opinion; whom some, I perceive, love meerly for this; because by his means they had shaked off their Bishops, and thereby gained Libertatem minimè utilem ad posteritatem, such a LITER­TIE, [Page 27] AS WILL BE LITTLE FOR THE GOOD OF POSTERITIE. This he spake, and we feel. Ib. For what kinde of state shall the Church be in, in after ages, if all ancient customes and manners be utterly abolished, and no certain Governors established? God knows, and we imagine.

9. Hitherto you have seen, how Zanchius for himselfe and Calvin; and Melanthon with Luther, did endeavour, even in the shell, to crush that new model, I. D. Passim. which ye boast to be of di­vine Right, and yet confesse, that I. D. Pre [...]at. Sect. The impu­tation. it is not much above fourscore yeers standing; and that but Ib. in some Churches. For, the truth is, ye can give us no President for the Presbyteriall Government in any one Orthodoxe Church, for 1500 yeers after our Savi­ours ascension. All this while the wisedom of God, it seemes was breeding this truth, and stayed for you, and such as you are, to be her midwives. Her pangs were long and doubtful, but now Juno Lucina hath done her part, and the strip [...]ing reckons fourescore yeers, and that but in Cantons, in some odde corners of the world. Truth it is, he was creeping in here a­bout seventy yeers since; but banished he was as dangerous to the Crowne. But now he is returned in a fresh suite, and hath got the hand both of King and Bishops; yea he hath put the Peeres shroadly to it; even those, that complyed with him.

10. It may be, for all this, you will replie, that these are but the opinions of a few particular men. What say you to that memorable convention at Auspurg, where met all, or most of the learned, that endeavoured the Reformation? These were, at least, the whole Reformation representative; and Melancton gives them that very title in his Apologie. Wherein he tels us, that P. Melane. Apo [...]. confes. Aug cap. de ord Eccles. ALL THE REFORMATION did often professe in their meetings at Auspurg, that they desired exceedingly, to Politiam Cano­nicam non repre­hendimus. [...]b. c. de [...]otest Eccles. preserve that Ecclesiasticall Policie, which was settled by the Cannons of the Church: as also to continue those very Degrees in the Church, which were a­greed upon by humane authority. These pious men desired not the subversion, but the Reformation both of Church and Church­men. Yea, Ib. de ord. Eccl. by Protestation they cleer themselves to all porste­rity, that it was neither their intent, nor fault, to overthow the Order, or authority of Bishops. Melancthon therefore, in be­half [Page 28] of all his brethren, acknowledgeth, that Ib. de Potest. Eccles. Bishops have both potestatem ordinis, & potestatem Jurisdictionis, power of Order, and power of Juridiction. And I beleeve, that these men had se­riously considred of their Protestation.

11. But what is this, that he calls power of Order? Surely a power to do that, which Presbyters could not do; that is, a power at least, to ordain Ministers. For Veteres ho [...] saepe habent, non differte aliâre ab Episcopo Presby­terum, nisi quia ordinandi potesta­tem non habet. Calv. Instit. l 4. Sect. 15. herein by Calvins con­fession, was the difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop pro­perly so called, in the opinion of the ancients, that a Bishop hath power to ordain, but not a Presbyter. Indeed the resolution of the ancient Church is this, Epipha. haer. 75. Presbyterorum ordo non est potens generare patres; the whole Order of Presbyters is not able to beget Fa­thers, that is, Presbyters for the Church; but Bishops are able: The Order therefore of Bishops and Presbyters is not one and the same. Hence it follows, that there is a necessity of con­tinuing Bishops in the Church, if so we desire Presbyters; since without a Bishop no Presbyter; and without a Presbyter (at least) no Lords Supper.

12 Besides, your grand Champion Walo Messalinus ac­knowledgeth, that Vbi distingui ordines & gra­ [...]us caepti sunt, atque Episcop [...] exit it Pr [...] ly [...], tum ordi­natio non potuit esse utriusque commnois. Wal. Messal p. 299. from the time that those Orders and degrees were distinguished, and that a Bishop became greater then a Presbyter, ORDINATION COULD NOT BE COMMON TO THEM BOTH. But those Orders and degrees were from the beginning distinguished by our Saviour, though not by these specificall titles Observe, I beseech you. In the first place S Luk 16. 13. he names the Twelve, those of the higher Order, Apostles; and after this, those of the lower Order, the Seventy, are cal­led Diciples, as I conceive, 3. Luk: 10. 22. Or else in the four Evangelists they are distinguished from his other Diciples by number onely, and not by title. In the other writings of the New Testament they are distinguished into Apostles and Pres­byteres, or Bishops. Qui Apostoli vocabantur duo rum generum fue­re, primi & se­cundi. Primi à Christo missioné suam acceperunt, immediatè ab ip­so missi Secundi ab ipsis Aposto lis Walo Messal. p 4 [...]. The Apostles are of two sorts; either such as were immediately ordained by Christ, or such as were or­dained by those Apostles. The former are called the Apostles of Christ; or Ephes 3. 5. Apoc. 18. 20 the holy Apostles; and sometimes [...] Cor 11. 5. &c. [...]2. 11 the chief A­postles. The other are styled Phil. 2 25. Apostoli vestri, and [...] Cor. 8. 23. Apostoli Ecclesiarum, your Apostles, and the Apostles of the Churches; be­cause they had set Cities, and a certaine people committed to [Page 29] their charge. The twelve were ordained by our Saviour, while in the flesh he was conversant here on earth. But S. Matthias, and S. Paul, after his ascension were Gal. 1. 1. called to be Apostles by Jesus Christ and God the Father. These did ordain, but not the Seventy, not Presbyters, or such as in Scripture text are called Bishops. S. Paul and S. Barnahas were Apostles; those we finde ordaining Presbyters, Act: 14. 23. And S. Paul professeth, that he ordained Timothy, 2 Tim. 1. 6.

13. Let us now descend to those Apostles, who were ordain­ed by Christs Apostles. Such were S. Iames, Appollos, Epaphrodi­tus, Timothy, and Titus. None of these were immediately or­dained by Christ; and yet they are called Apostles. The three former plainly in Scripture, as is heretofore evidenced; Walo Messal. p. 40. 41. 43. &c. the latter by your good friend Salmasius. That Timothy & Titus did ordain, is too plain to be denyed; and Ib. p. 38. for Epaphroditus we have an acknowledgement likewise from Salmasius.

14. These Offices were necessarily to be continued in the Church; for Eph 4. 12. Christ gave them for the gathering together of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery, and for the edifying of the body of Christ Ib. v. till we all grow up unto a perfect man: Which is now but in fieri, in polishing, not perfected, neither will it be, till the second comming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. For Col. 1. 24. the Church is the body of Christ, which will have her imperfe­ctions and blemishes, till she be made fully compleat in the Kingdom of glory. Our Saviour therefore saith, S Mat. 28. 20. Behold I am with you alwaies, even unto the end of the world: which could not be spoken of their persons, but of their Office, I. D. p. 14. 32. 168. as is confessed by the London Ministers: Since their persons were shortly to leave this world; but their Office is to continue, till heaven and earth passe away. When therefore Calv. in ep. Ded. ad Edvard▪ Somerseti Du­cem. S. Paul had lively described the true Government of the Church, and instructed Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus 1 Tim 3. 15. how he ought to behave himself in the Church, he charged him in the sight of God, and before Jesus Christ, e 1 Tim. o. 13. 14. that he keep these commands without spot, and unrebukeable, untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. But this he could not do in his own person, which was shortly to depart; Calvin there­fore readily acknowledgeth, that Calvin arg in 1. & 2. ad Tim. these things were written not so much for Timothy s as for other mens directions, that were to [Page 30] come after him; since Beza in 1 Tim. 3. 14. herein (as Beza observes) many parti­culars belong to the daily Office of a Pastor. These things then must be daily and duely done, as occasion requires: But diverse of these ought, and might be done by Timothy onely, and by such as were of his ranke; but by no other; needs therefore must this Order be continued for the edifying and perfecting of the body of Christ. This Office then being quotid [...]a [...]um munus an Office of daily use, must of necessitie be continued in the Church.

15. But what Office was this, that Timothy and Titus did beare in the Church? Let Salmasius speake. Walo Messal. p. 4 [...]. They at that time were mamed Apostles, & revera erant EPISCOPI JVRE EODEM ET ORDINE, QUO HODIE HABENTUR, qui Ecclesiam regunt, & Presbyteris praesunt, and indeed were BISHOPS IN THE SAME RIGHT, AND OF THE SAME ORDER, WHEREOF AT THIS DAY THOSE ARE ACCOUN­TED, Who govern the Church, and rule Presbyters. But this very Office was none of those, which were extraordinary, and to continue for a season onely, no, no, in Beza's judgement it is quotidianum munus, an Office of daily use; of necessity there­fore it must be perpetull in the Church. And yet the duties of that Office were such, Calvin. in 1 Tim. 1. 3. quibus sustinendis non alius quilibet (e vul­go pastorum) par fuisset, as none of the vulgar Pastors, no ordina­ry Presbyters, were meet to undertake. And what are these? Tit. 1. 5. E­ven to redresse, what is amisse, and to ordain Presbyters. These are matters of moment, and require more then ordinary discre­tion. Ib. For this cause S. Paul left Titus at Creete; and for this ve­ry end Ad Philippen­ses eum misit, ad Ecclesi [...]m eorum confirm and am, & constituendos in eâ Presbyteros & Episcopos. Walo Messal. p. 58. he sent Epaphroditus to Philippi, though at that time there were in that Citie many Bishops. Phil. 1. 1. If then there needed no ordination, but every man without orders might have discharged Presbyteriall duties; or if the Presbyter-Bi­shops of that Citie might have set that Church in order, and therein ordaine Presbyters, Why did S. Paul send Epaphroditus to Philippi, to do those things, which might either have been left undone, or at least have been done as well without him. Surely S. Paul imposeth not needlesse businesses upon any.

16. Bishops there were (you will say) before in that Church; if then it belong to the Episcopall Order to ordain, and reforme in [Page 23] the Church, what is amisse, why was Epaphroditus sent thither? Take notice (I beseech you) that those Bishops were but Pres­byters, or Presbyter. Bishops; Chrysost. in Philip. 1. 1. which Order never had the power either of Ordination or Jurisdiction. S. Paul therefore sends un­to them, Epaphroditus an Apostle-Bishop, who could performe both. This you see acknowledged by your most able and sub­till advocate.

17. Well, let it be, what it will, lawfull or unlawfull, tis all one, in this exigent or distresse that his Majestie is put to, I. G. p. 2. not­withstanding that his oath the King (say you) without impeach­ment, may in this circumstance, consent to the Abrogation of Episcopa­cy. His Majesties oath now falls in question; and I shall be willing fairely and calmely to consider, wherein, and how far forth a Christian King is bound to keepe, or breake his Oath.

CHAP. VI. Whether the King, without impeachment to his Oath at Coronation, may consent to the Abrogation of Epis­copacy.

1. THis question hath two branches. The first, Whether a Christian King be bound to keep his Oath. The second, Whether he may notwithstanding his Oath, consent to the Abrogation of Episcopacy. His Majesties Coronation deserves also to be look­ed upon; since an oath deliberately and solemnly taken, de­serves the more seriously to be thought on; and will draw from God the heavier doome, if despised, or slighted.

2. By your own confession it is evident, that I. G. p. 1. an oath against Christs Institution is vin [...]u um iniquitatis, an impious oath, and ought not to be observed; but to be cut off with shame and sorrow; since Ib: all bonds to sin is frustrate Confesse we must, that an oath against God revealed will or honour, is a bond to sin; and therefore no sooner made then void, and to be ab­horred Such is your Covenant against Episcopacy. And had the King either through misunderstanding, ill advice or fear ta­ken [Page 32] that irreligious Covenant, he had been obliged, by your confession, to have made it frustrate; since it is a bond to sin, be­cause it is against Christs Word and Instituition, as is manifest­ed c. 2. & 4.

3. But Ie [...]. 4 2. an oath taken in truth, and righteousnesse, and judge­ment, because it is of such things, as may justly and lawfully be performed, yea because God approves & ratifies this oath, is vinculum aequitatis & necessitatis, such a bond as equity and conscience bind us necessarily to performe, to the utmost of our power. But such is his Majesties Oath at Coronation concer­ning the Church, the Spouse of Christ.

4. No unrighteousnesse can ye shew in it, the lawfulnesse of E­piscopacy, as also their just right to govern Presbyters, is suffici­ently justified c. 4. No untruth; for our Soveraigne hath sworn to maintaine an Ordinance of truth, of Christ himself. And sub paenâ judicij, upon paine of judgment he is bound to make good this his Oath, so justly taken, least he fall into the hands of God, and so into eternall judgement. Hoc jus ipsum postulat, quo quisque tenetur. Zanch. in 3 prae­cept. de Jura­mento. Thes 3. Sect. Actionem. For Justice requires, that every man, much more a Christian, and a King, keep his Oath made upon such grounds, Ib, Sect. Quid fit. though it be with hazard both of Crown, and life, and all that may be indangered up­on earth.

5. Consider, I beseech you, how Ib. Thes 6. Sect. Quid. sit. in an oath we call God to record; and we make him not onely our witnesse, but our suretie, that we will, with his blessing, performe, what we have vowed, or sworne in his name. And not onely so, but we call upon him to be our Judge, and the Revenger of our perfidious­nesse, if so we wittingly depart from this Oath. With what face then can we fall back, and wilfully incurre perjury? Is not this as Philo Judaeus hath it, to Philo Iud de special. leg [...] 1. make God a shelter for our wickednesse, and to cast our sin upon him? That so to the infamie of Christian Religion, we may [...]oder up a faire repute before men. Is not this to cast aside not onely a fore-head, but all conscience, and the fear of God? Oh, (saith S. Austin) Quid i [...]â caeci­tate tenebrosius, ad obtinendam inanissimam glo­riam, errorem hominis aucupari, & Deum testē in corde contemnere? Quasi verò ullo modo com­paran [...]u [...] sit error illius, qui te bo­num putat eirori tuo qui homini de [...] bono placere stu [...]s, de [...] dis­plices Deo Aug. in Gal c. 6. What blindnesse can equall this, to hunt after a little vaine glory by deceive­ing man, while in thy heart thou sleightest God the searcher of all se­crets? As if his error, who thinks thee good, were comparable with thine, who seekest to please man with a show of good, whilest thou displealest [Page 33] God with that, which is truly naught.

6. But this is no new thing to you, that have dispenced so long, so often, so variously with so many Oaths of Supremacie, Allegeance, and canonicall obedience: That have done so many strange acts, contrarie to your faith, and subscription. Take heed in time, lest not onely your oaths, but your own hand­writing arise in judgement against you, for casting off the Book of Ordination; For renouncing the Booke of Common-Prayer; For disclaiming the Articles of the Church of England, with those three Creeds, the glory and hope of all good Christians. Thus you, and your brethren, are become Apostata's and renega­does to all Religion and piety; gracelesse, faithlesse, perjured men. God of his mercy give you a sence of these sins, that so you may in time repent, and make some satisfaction to the Church of Christ, by an open confession, and by a full detesta­tion of those presumptuous and crying sins.

7. This Oath his Majestie took solemnly before God, in the house of God, in the presence of the Nobility, and Clergie, and a multitude of his leige people. And shall not all these oblige him so much the more to be tender of this Oath? Zanchius tels us, that Gravius est peccatum, facere contra publicum s [...]enne jusju an­dum, quàm contra privatum. Zanch. in 3 praecept. Thes. 4 Sect. Acti­onem. it is a more grievous sin to offend against a publick so­lemne oath, then against one made in private. What may we then think of an oath taken with such high Solemnity?

8. This Oath was voluntarily, freely taken, without com­pulsion, or perswasion; so no excuse that way. Indeed it was taken Jer. 4. 2. in truth, in judgement, and in righteousnesse. In truth, his sacred Majesty resolving truly to keep it: In Judgement, judi­ciously, upon mature deliberation; and in righteousnesse; inten­ding that every branch of this Oath should be justly and righ­teously observed in all his Courts of Justice. How then can he infringe this Oath?

9. He made this promiss [...]ry Oath to a great body of this His Kingdome, the whole Clergie of this Land; and those not the meanest of his Subjects. And not onely so, but to holy Church his mother, and to God the Father of us all. How can he then disclaime this Oath? which so obligeth his consci­ence before God. that Omnino jura­mentum quisquis suum. sine ullo prorsus dot [...], aut de [...]raudatione, [...]u [...] Gentium le­geque Dei, ipsis etiam hostibus, & latronibus ferva­re teneatur: eos (que) à nemine hominum ta [...]i i [...]r [...]mé­to lib rari possit. Zanch in 3, prae­cept. Thes. 6. [...]ad he bound himself by such a tye to high­way robbers, or to his professed [...]nemies, he had been bound by the Law [Page 34] both of Nations and Christianity, strictly to haue observed it without fraud or coven. Talke not of a dispensation. Nor life, nor death, nor principalities, nor powers, whether civill or spiri­tuall, can possibly discharge him of this oath; no more then they can me of my oath of Allegiance. And yet it is a point of your Religion to perswade to perjurie; as if it would ease your consciences, to have millions concurre with you in the same perfidiousnesse and end.

10. Is perjurie a sin, or no sin? If it be a sin, and an heinous sin, Gen. 39. 9. how then can I commit this great wickednesse, and sin against God? Is it no sin? If you be of that mind, speake out, shew your self in your true colours. What Religion are you of, I know not well; little use hath your conscience made of Religi­on in this case. Your eye is wholly upon the Parliament, and the present necessity, those members have wrought our good King and this whole Nation. Necessity hath so far prevailed with you, as rather to be forsworne, then to forgo your pre­sent maintenance. But our most gracious Soveraigne, whom God ever blesse, hath wholly fixed his heart upon God, and his Word, wherein we are charged Levit. 19. 12., not to sweare falsely by the name of the Lord; no, S. Matth. 5. 33. nor to forsweare our selves, but to performe our oaths unto the Lord. Marke; though the oath be made to the servant, it must be performed unto the Lord; because the caution is given to the servant in the Lords behalfe; yea upon the Lords credit; for by his name, and upon his book we sweare to do it. And if we do it not, Exod. 20. 7. the Lord will not hold us guiltlesse. Minus dicitur, plus intelligitur; by this one word much may be understood; For Mal. 3. 5. the Lord will come against us in Judge­ment, and call us to an account for our oaths. S. Isa. 5. 12. Oaths therefore must be avoided, lest we fall into condemnation. For perjurie is a foule, a dangerous, a damnable sin. Zech. 8. 17. Odious it is to God, because, Levit. 19. 12. it defiles his most holy name. Hos 4. 2. 3. For this very sinne the land mournes; I beseech God, it become not disolate. Sure I am, Zech. 5. 4. a curse will enter into his house, that sweareth falsely; it will settle there, till it have consumed the timber and stones thereof. Or as the wise man hath it, Ecclus. 23. 11. his house shall be full of calamities, and the plague shall never depart from it. Let Zedekiah be our evidence. 2 Chron, 6. 13. He took the Oath of Allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar; but slight­ed [Page 35] it, and rebelled against that his Soveraign Lord, who had so highly honoured him, and trusted him with a Kingdom. But what became of him? 2 Reg. 25. 6. 7. The Caldees came, besieged Jeru­salem, conquer'd it, took Zedekiah prisoner, and slew his sons before his eyes. This done, they put out his eyes, and in fet­ters carried him captive to Babylon. Here was an end of the Kings of that Land, descended from the Tribe of Judah. Are not here the timber and stones of his house, his strong men, and the sons of his loins utterly consumed?

11. Think not to excuse your selves or any other, by some later Covenant; this will not serve the turn. Was the first sworn in truth, and judgement, and righteousnesse? or was it not? Doth it truly and justly agree with the Word of God; at least, not contradict it? If so, thou art bound in justice to observe it, lest judgement fall upon thee. For this is a true rule, if Zan­chius mis-guide us not, Zanch. in 3. praecept de Jura­mento Thes. 6. Sect. Prima igitur. Posteriores promissiones, etiam juramento firmatae, nihil de prioribus detrahere, aut imminuere possunt: Later aths cannot possibly make the former of no, or lesse validitie. Why then do you perswade the King to break his oath? He that enticeth a man to perjurie, under pretence of pietie and Re­ligion, Nihil judican­dus est dicere, qui dicit aliquae iustae esse mendacia, nisi aliqua iusta esse peccata, ac per hoc aliqua iusta esse, quae iniusta sunt. Quo quid ab sur­dius dici potest? Aug. cont. mend. c. 15. what doth he else but affirm, that some perjuries are lawfull. Which is as much to say, as some sins are lawfull. Which is naught else, but to conclude, that some things are just, which are unjust. I appeal to men of understanding, whether this pro­position savours of pietie, or discretion. Think not then to ensnare prudent and conscientious men, with such frivolous and senslesse pretences; which favour strongly of absurditie, if not of Atheisme.

CHAP. VIII. Whether the King may desert Episcopacy without perjury.

1. GIve me leave to passe over a few pages, and to take that into consideration, which follows next in reason, though not according to your method. We are now fallen upon a strange question, too high to be proposed by any Sub­ject. [Page 34] [...] [Page 35] [...] [Page 36] But you have enforced me to make that a question, which is harsh to loyall ears, lest I may seem to avoid your subtill and sawcie cavils, as unanswerable. For do not you say▪ that I G. p. 7. your second Ant [...]gonist plainly [...]ffi [...]ms, that the King cannot desert Episcopacy without flat perjury? His words are far more manner­ly: but I am bound to trace your steps; and shall, with Gods assistance, manifest, that His Majestie without violation to his Oath, and to Religion, may not desert Episcopacy, and leave it naked to the subtill fox, or the mercilesse swine.

2. First, according to your own confession, his sacred Ma­jestie hath sworn to almighty God, in his holy place, before a solemn Assembly, to I. G. p. 8. protect the Bishops, and their priviledges to his power, as every GOOD KING in his Kingdom IN RIGHT OUGHT to protect and defend the Bishops, and Churches under their Government. 1. Good Kings protect Bishops; and good they are in doing so; there is no evill then in protecting Bishops. 2. They ought to do it: it is therefore their duty; and to fail of this their duty, when they may choose, is sin. 3. In right they ought to do it: they do wrong therefore, if they do it not. This right is grounded upon Scripture; for God saith, Es 49. 23. Erunt Reges nutritii tui, Kings shall be nursing Fathers, and Queens shall be nur­sing Mothers to the Church. Who then dares say, they ought not, or shall not?

3. Besides, what is done in right is injurious to no man; since jus and injuria, right and wrong cannot consist in the same action, under the same consideration. And yet no right is done, but it is displeasing to the adverse partie. God did right in protecting Moses and Aaron, against Korah, and his confe­derates. He did right in destroying those factious and rebel­lious persons; and yet Num. 16. 41. this was displeasing to all the congre­gation of the children of Israel. And shall God or the King for­bear to do right, because the multitude murmure at it? This be far from the Lord and his Vicegerent. A Judge is sworn to do right. If then he do not right to the utmost of his under­standing, he is perjured. And the more eminent a man is in place, the greater the sin. You know, to whom it was said, Sam. 12. 14. Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the childe that is born unto thee, shall surely [Page 37] dye. And of Jer [...]boam it was said, z Go, tell him, thus saith th [...] Reg. [...] &c▪ Lord God of Israel; For as much as I ex [...]ted the fr [...]m [...]m [...]g the peo­ple, and made thee Prince over my people Israel: and yet th [...] hast done evill above all that were before thee, and hast cas [...] me behind thy [...] ▪ Therefore behold, I will bring evill upon the house of Jeroboam▪ &c.

4. Secondly, the King hath sworn to be the Protect [...]r and Defender of the Churches under his Government: and this, you will confesse, the King ought to do. But the King doth not protect the Church, unlesse he protect the Bishops; since without Bishops the Church must needs crumble away, and come to nothing. The Bishop is the ministeriall Spouse of the Church: how then can the Church be protected, if her husband be taken from her, or stripped of his means? Just as our wives are maintained with the fift part. Fed with an Ordinance, with words; but where's the fift part? which of our wives have had that justly payed them?

5. The Bishop is, under Christ, the Father of the Church. De­stroy the Father, and how shall the Children be provided for? Nay who shall beget children of the Church, when she is void of an Husband? And the Bishop is the onely Husband of the Church; Concil. Chal­ced. can. 25. take [...]way the Bishop, and the Church is a Widow; if you will beleeve the Councell of Chalcedon. C. 5. I have heretofore manifested, that none but a Bishop can ordain either Priest or Dea­con. And Zanchius determines, that Ministris carere non potest Eccle­sia, qui externas res administrent, ver [...]um & Sacra­menta. Zanc. in 4. praecept. de Mi­nist Eccles. 9. 1. Sect ontavo. the Church may not want Ministers, who are to administer these externall things, the Word and Sacraments. Remove the Ministers that have this power deri­ved unto them from Christ, and the Sacraments must fail, and consequently the Church. For what Act. 19. is the Church, but a Con­gregation of Christians, wherein the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administred, ACCORDING TO CHRISTS ORDINANCE. But, according to Christs Ordi­nance, none may administer the Word and Sacraments but Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Take these away, and what be­comes of the Sacraments? Take away Baptisme, and according to Gods ordinary and revealed way, we cannot become Christians, [...]. Joh. 3. 9. we cannot be born anew of water, and of the holy Ghost. And when we are become Christians, take away that food of life, the Lords Supper, and we must needs famish: for [Page 30] S. Ioh. 6. 53. unlesse we eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood (in that blessed Sacrament) we have no life in us. Hence is that of Calvin: Neque vel Solis lumen ac calor, velcibus ac po­tus tam sun▪ prae send v [...]tae foven dae ac sustinendae necessari [...], quam est conserv [...]ndae [...]rris Ecclesiae postolicum, ac [...]storale munus. Calvin. Instit. l. 4. ▪3, Sect. 2. The light and heat of the Sun, meat and drink are not so necessary for the cherishing and sustaining this present life, as the APOSTO­LICALL and P [...]storall OFFICE is for the PRESERVA­TION OF THE CHURCH on earth. If then it be proved, that Bishops properly and strictly so called, be of the same of­fice and order with the Apostles, then have we Calvins acknow­ledgement, that the Church cannot subsist without Bishops.

6. Indeed it cannot, if we beleeve S. Cyprian; for he saith, that Cypr. ep. 99. n. 31. we ought to know Episcopum in Ecclesia esse, & ECCLE­SIAM IN EPISCOPO; that the Bishop is in the Church, and the CHURCH IN THE BISHOP: it stands and fals with him. What then becomes of that Church, where there is no Bishop? Ib. Si qui cum Episcopo non sint, in Ecclesia non esse. We must also know (saith that blessed Martyr) that they, which are not with the Bishop, are out of the Church. Thus the Bishop is in the Church causaliter, causally; but the Church in the Bishop virtually. The fountain is in the brook causally; and the brook in the foun­tain virtually; because from the fountain the Rives derives his being, from thence it is derived and fed. Damne up the fountain, or divert his course, and what becomes of the river? Thus is it between the Bishop and the Church. Hence I infer, that the matter of the Oath is lawfull: I conclude therefore, with the Author of the Review, that I. G. p. 7. His Majestie is bound in Religion and conscience to protect the Bishops with their Churches, and pri­viledges. Unlesse it be so, that you can bring him a new Christ, who will ordain another way to heaven.

7. But, say you, ▪ it is a ground laid down by this Author, that Ib. [...] no oath is obligatory beyond the intention of it. That is, according to the common, plain, and literall meaning thereof, other­wise we know no intention of an oath. We must therefore look back to the intention of the first framers thereof, as also to the good and securitie of those, to whom, and for whose sake, it is tak [...]n. n. That I propose to consideration, whether the in tention of this Oath be not only against a ty [...]nnous invasion on the rights of the Clergie: not against an o [...]derly alteration of them, if any prove inconvenient, and to protect them against violence, not against [...]egall wayes of change. I. G. p. 7. the intention of this oath, and the framers there­of, is against a tyramous invasion on the rights of the Clergie; as also [Page 39] to protect them against violence, no question at all is to be made; and you do well to acknowledge it. So far then the King is to protect them to the utmost of his power. And hitherto, by the as­sistance of God, he hath done it: and my trus [...] is in Jesus Christ, that he will strengthen our good King to live and dye in this pious and Princely resolution.

8. This Oath is to the Clergie; the King then must have an eye upon them, and their intention, who so humbly begge his pro­tection, and to whom he makes this oath. Aug. ep. 225. Expectationem enim eorum, quibus juratur, quisquis decipit, non potest esse non perjurus: For he that deceives their expectation, to whom he swears, cannot but be perjured. This S. Austin proves at large in the preceding E­pistle; wherein Aug ep. 224. he wonders, that any man should be of such an opinion, as to conceive, that a man might incur certain perjurie, to avoid uncertain danger, losse or death. It is a rule therfore in the Canon Law, C. Quacunque 22. quaest. 5. Quacunque arte verborum quis juret, Deus tamen, qui conscientiae testis est, ita hoc accipit, sicut ille, cui juratur, intelligit. What art soever a man use in the words of his Oath, God who is witnesse of the conscience, takes the Oath in that very sense, wherein the party takes it, to whom we swear. Otherwise we shall not onely deceive others, but we shall cheat our selves into equivocation, wherewith of late we have so justly charged the Jesuites; and for which the Fathers most deservedly hereto­fore condemned Euseb hist. l 6. c. 31. the Helcheseites, Iren. l. 4. c. 53. Valentinians, Sulpit. Sever. hist. l. 2. Priscillia­nites, and Hierom. ep. 65. c. 1. the followers of Origen. Truly, I am much afraid, we are fallen into such times, as Roger Hoveden complains of under K. Steven; Perjurare fi­dem, mentiri, no­bile factum: Pro­dere vel Domi­nos, actio digna viris. Rog. Hove. in R. Steph. p. 485 wherein it was accounted a noble act to lye, and forswear; and a manly deed to betray their Lords and Masters.

9. And is not this, which is wrought against the Clergie, a tyrannous invasion? What Law is there to countenance, what of late yeares hath been done against us? Where is the orderly alteration, you speak of? Hath not all been done by tumults, and insurrections? Have not divers of the Peers been assault­ed, and many of the Commons vilified, and terrified by a se­ditious faction, that so they might bring them to their own bend? How many have been inforced to flye with all secrecy from Westminster, because they would not passe their Vo [...]es [Page 40] against Law and conscience? Was it orderly to frame Petitions at Westminster, against the Bishops and Orthodox Clergie, and then to gleane hands in the Countrey from factious spirits, to your own Petitions? Was this an orderly alteration, without a­ny pretence of Law, to deprive us of our freeholds, to plun­der our houses, to imprison our persons; and to thrust into our Benefices men with unwashed hands, Felt-makers, Black­smiths, Taylors, and I know not whom? And yet all this hath been done by our great Masters in Israel.

10. By your own confession, the King hath taken an oath to protect the Clergie and their rights against violence, and a tyrannous invasion. But how shall he protect us, that is not able to secure himself? This, it seems, was his dutie, and with Gods assistance in his power, when his sacred Majestie took the Oath. His du­ty still it is, though he be robbed of his power. And when God shall restore him to his power, he is bound to discharge this du­tie. For you confesse, that I. G. p▪ 8. 9. his Majestie is ingaged to his power to protect the Bishops and their priviledges. And if he breake this solemne Oath, in his own person, with what conscience can he punish perjurie in others?

11. An orderly alteration, or Legall waies of change, who con­demnes? But we justly complaine, that no such alteration hath been endeavoured. For that is not orderly, which is illegall: neither can that be imagined rationall, which is wrought by violence, or forced upon a King. He is to be ruled by the word of God, and right reason, Sir Ed: Coke in Litleton▪ [...]. 2. Sect. 138. which is the life of the Law; not to be over-awed, or over-swayed by a faction.

12. That This is as much, a [...] rationall for a King to un­derta [...] & th r [...]. f [...] in [...]g [...] rea­son the Oat [...] should have no other [...]n [...]e I G p. 7. it is rationall for a King to undertake, to protect the Clergie against violence, you acknowledge; and it is no more then all the Kings Ministers are bound in conscience to per­forme, The King hath done it, blessed be God, to the utmost of his power. Whether the Kings Officers, and those he hath put in trust, have done their dutie, wi [...] be answered for at an higher barre. In right reason the Oath should have no other sense. Th [...] sense then it hath; and we desire that sense may be made good by Parliament, and we restored to our free-holds, ac­cording to reason, and Law; and satisfaction made us for our losses, [...]nd illegall imprisonment, [...]ill an orderly and Legall change be made.

CHAP. VIII. Whether the Kings Oath taken to the Clergie, be in­jurious to his other Subjects, and inconsistent with his Oath to the people.

1. YOu Object, and we confesse, that This Oath to the Clergie, must not be intended in a sense incon­sistent with the Kings Oath to the people, first taken for their prote­ction in their Laws, and Liber­ties. I. G. p 7. this oath to the Cler­gie, must not be intended in a sense, inconsistent with the Kings Oath to the people? How? Inconsistent with the Kings Oath to the people? What? All blind but Mr. Iohn Geree, and his confederacy? King and subject, Preist, and people, compo­sers, approvers, takers, all dimme-sighted? How came you to spie this foule mistake? Surely this is one of your new lights; for both these Oaths as you please to call them, have happily stood, and may long stand together. There was a time, when the devill had found a device, to set God and Caesar at odds: but our Saviour set them to rights; S. Mat. 22. 21. Give (saith he) unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God, what belongs unto God. That difference being reconciled, that Arch enemie of man, hath found out a late device, to raise a quarell between Cler­gie and people, as if the Liberties of the one could not consist with the Rights of the other. But we have learned of our bles­sed Master to set these also at one, and beseech his Majestie, to give unto the people what belongs to the people, and to the Clergie, what belongs to the Clergie. We desire nothing, that is theirs; and we are certaine, that no good man will repine, at what is iust­ly Gods, or ours.

2. It is Gods command to Rom 13 7. give every man his due. And if a­ny Law be made contrary to this, it is no Law. The reason is, because Ib. v. 1. all power i [...] from God, and under God. Lex divina sicut à solo Deo [...]rtur, ita à solo also tolli, aut abroga [...]i po [...]est Lex autem human [...] sicut per hominem con [...]ti­tuitur, ita ab ho­mine tolls, aut abroga [...]i potest. Franc. à V [...]ctor. Relect 3 n 16. That Law then, that God hath made, man may neither abrogate, nor al­ter; it is onely in the Lords breast to do it. Indeed what is set­tled by man, may be changed, or abolished by man. But man must be carefull, that the Law be just. Tho. 1. 2 [...]. [...]. 96. 4. Lex enim non obligat sub­ditos, in foro conscientiae, nisi s [...]t justa: No Law binds a subject in case of conscience, unlesse it be just. Indeed it bind [...] them not to performance, but to submission. Though they be not bound [Page 42] to performe, what is injoyned; yet must they submit, to what shall be inflicted; since resistance is damnable. Ro. 13. 2.

3. Since then it is onely the just Law that binds us to obedi­ence, it will not be a misse to set down, what Laws are just, and what not. Tho. Ib. That a Law be just (saith Thomas) three ingredi­ents are requisite: first, Power in the Law-maker; 2ly. the end, that it be for the common good; and 3ly. the forme; namely, that all burthens and taxes be equally, evenly layed upon the Sub­jects; not more upon one then upon another, but proporti­onably upon every man according to his estate. Laws so qua­lified, are just, because impartiall.

4. From hence we may safely conclude, that I▪b. those Laws are unjust, where, in the first place, the Imposer wants autho­ritie. 2ly. When burdens are imposed, that are not for the common good, but for private interest, gaine, or glory. 3ly. When taxes, or subsidies, though for the publick good, be unequally layed. Or, in the last place, when Laws contradict Gods written Word: For Gul. Ockam de Jurisdic. in causis matrimon. all Laws ought to be so framed, vt illis, quos tangunt, prosint, & nemini praesertim notabile afferant n [...]cumentum: That they may be commodious for those, whom they con­cerne, and yet not be evidently injurious to others. From these or the like grounds, I find it resolved by the Sages of this Kingdom, that Fitzherbert. nat. brev. tit. Protection. p. 28. the King may grant priviledges to any Corporation, so they be not prejudiciall to some other of his Subjects.

5. But wherein is the Kings Oath to the Clergie, inconsistent with his Oath to the people? Because his Majestie hath first (say you) taken an oath for the protection of the people in THEIR LAWS and liberties. Their Laws? The peoples Laws? Who made them makers▪ or Masters of the Laws? Do the people use to make Laws in a Monarchie? Behold, all are Law-ma­kers. Who then shall obey? None but the Clergie▪ Thus the Clergie must obey the people; and if obey, then please. For whom we obey, them we must please. And yet there is much danger in pleasing the people: For Gal. 1. 10. If I should please men, (that is, the common people) I were not the servant of Christ. The plain truth is, the Laws are the Kings Laws, so we call them, and so they are; and his subjects must observe them. Otherwise Rom. 13. 4. he bea­reth not the sword in vaine. The Liberties indeed are the peoples, [Page 43] granted and confirmed unto them by the Soveraignes of this Realme. But wherein For then the latter Oath would be a present breach of the former, and so un­lawfull. I. G. p. 7. will the latter Oath be a present breach of the former and so unlawfull? One would think, here were some great wrong offered to the people, as if some immunities, or means were taken from them, and transferred upon the Cler­gie by this Oath. But when all comes to all, it is no more then this, that Ib. One of the priviledges of the people is, that the Peers and Commons in Parliament, have power, with the consent of the King, to alter what ever in any particular estate is inconvenient to the whole. I had thought, that this priviledge, you speake of, had not been a priviledge of the people, but of the Parliament, that is, of the Peers and Commons, representees of the people met in a lawfull and free Parliament with the Kings consent. Not of the represen­tees of the people alone. But you would faine incense the peo­ple a new against us, under a pretence, that all is for their good, and for the maintenance of their priviledges; because they are represented by the House of Commons. Whereas the truth is, you endeavour to devolve al upon that House, for the erection of P [...]ssbytery; That so both Church and State may be Democraticall, both settled under a popular government.

6. Let us take a view of this passage, and see what truth is in it. One of the priviledges of the people is, say you, that the Peers and Commons in Parliament HAVE POWER TO ALTER what-ever is inconvenient. How the Lords will take this, I know not, though of late they have been so passive. Can they en­dure, that their power should be onely derivative, and that from the people? Your words are plain; one of the priviledges of the people is, that the peers have power. As if the Lords had no power in Parliament, but what issued from the peoples priviledges. Why then are they called Peers; when they are not so much as Peers to the people, but their substitutes, if not servants? Surely you lay the Lords very lowe. And if it be one of the peoples priviledges that the Lords have power; then is it also one of their priviledges, that the Lords have no power, that the people may take it from them, when they please. Cuius est instituere, ejus est & desti­tuere; they that can give power, can also take it away, if they see good. This of late hath been usually vaunted against the House of Commons; and you say as much to the House of Peers. [Page 44] Whereas the peoples priviledges are but severall grants of the Kings of this Land, proceeding meerly from their grace and favour. Alas, the people hath not so much as a vote in the Election of Peers; neither have they liberty to choose Mem­bers for the house of Commons; no, not so much as to meet, for any such purpose, untill they be summoned by the Kings Writ. So the peoples priviledges depends upon the Kings summons; no such priviledge till then.

7. And whereas you say, that the Peers and Commons have power to alter, what-ever is inconvenient; You are much mista­ken. When by the Kings summons they are met in Parlia­ment, they have power to treat and consult upon alterations, as also to present them to his Majestie, and to petition for such alterations, where they see just cause. But they have no power to alter: that is in the King; or else, why do they Pe­tition him so to this day, to make such changes good, as they contrive? Hoc est testimonium regiae potestatis, vbi (que) obstinentis prin­cipatum. This a full testimonie of the Kings power in all cau­ses, and over all persons, that the Lords & Commons Assem­bled in Parliament are faine to Petition for his Royall con­sent and confirmation, before they can induce an alteration. The truth is, the Power of making laws is in him, that gives life to the Law, that enacts it to be a Law: not in them, that ad­vise it, or Petition for it. Eccles. 8. 4. Where the word of a King is, there is power; it is his word, Le Roy Le V [...]lt, that makes it a Law; then tis a Law, and not before. No power makes it a Law but his. For Ib. v. 3. he doth, whatsoever pleaseth him. When it pleaseth him; not when it pleaseth them: many times therefore he rejects Bills agreed by both houses, with his Roy ne veult, the King will not have them to be Lawes. The reason is given by that renowned Justice Jenkins; because Lex terrae. p. 14 & 15. the Law makes the King the onely Judge of the Bills proposed. Eccles. 8. 2. I counsell thee therefore to keep the Kings commandment (or, to take heed to the mouth of the King) and that in regard of the Oath of God. Gen. note in loc. That is (saith the Geneva Note) that thou obey the King, and keep the Oath, that thou hast made for the same cause. This is agreeable to Scripture. And the wisest of this Kingdome not long since acknowledged, that 1 I [...]c. 1. without the Royall consent, a Law can neither be complete nor [Page 45] perfect, nor remaine to posterity. A Law it is not, it binds not, till the King speak the word. Yea the Kingdom of Scotland hath declared, that the power of making Laws is as essentiall to Kings, as to govern by Law, and sway the Scepter. Declar. of the Kingdome of Scotland. p. 34.

8. But if this be the peoples priviledge, that the Peers and Com­mons in Parliament have power WITH THE CONSENT OF THE KING to alter, what is inconvenient: Whose priviledge is it, I pray you, for the Lords and Commons, without the Kings con­sent, to make alterations, and abrogations with root and branch? This is no priviledge of the people, nor yet of the Hou­ses; Lexterrae, p. 29 Because (as Justice Jenkins observes) it is against their Oaths to alter the Government for Religion. For (saith he) every of them hath sworne IN THIS PARLIAMENT, That His Maje­stie is the onely Supreme Governour in all causes Ecclesiasticall, and over all persons

9. But what inconvenience, I pray you, ariseth to the people from the rights and priviledges of the Clergy? Not tithes. No, say you, I D. p. 33. that justifie them to be due to your precious Presbyters, by divine right. Not the Bishops revenues. By no meanes; I. G. p. 6. they must not come into any mans hands but yours; who are the Parochiall Pastors; These must be your maintenance. Ib. To seize them to private or civill Interest, is detestable sacriledge, cried out upon all the world over, and to be deplored of all good men. So you with your Master Beza. Indeed to take them away from those, that are intrusted with them, would prove marvelous inconvenient to the people.

10. How many inconveniences will arise to the people of this Kingdome, by stripping the Clergie of their immunities, and lands, cannot suddenly be discovered. Some of them I shal lay down, and leave the rest to be displayed by those, that are cleared fighted. First the curse, that is likely to fall upon this whole Nation by sacriledge. For a nationall sin must have a nationall punishment. Deut 25. 2. Admensuram delicti erit & plagarum modus; according to the fault, and the measure thereof, the num­ber of the stripes shall be. Let it be considered, how from severall Counties multitudes came in with Petitions, for the exrirpa­tion of Episcopacy. By whose instigation the Petitioners best [Page 46] know. Think not to avoid the scourge, because multitudes conspired in the sin: ^c Exod. 23. 2. We must not follow a multitude to do evill. Hope not to lye hid in a throng; Num. 32. 23. be sure, thy sin will find thee out, as Iosh. 7. 18. it did Achan among the thousands of Israel. His nobility could not excuse him. Remember that this was for sacriledge; for Ib. v. 21. he stole two hundred shekels of silver, & a wedge of gold, Iosh. 6. 19. which were consecrated unto the Lord. This is a dreadfull sinne, Gen. 4. 7. it will lye at thy doore; it will be a stone of offence to thee, at thy going forth, and thy coming in.

11. I know there are men of severall mindes met at West­minster. Some are wholly bent upon Church lands, and are re­solved to swallow them up, come what will come. Others are content to Covenant, Vote, or do any thing to save their own stakes; For to what purpose were it for them to withstand? Alas, they are but an handfull; they may wrong themselves, but no good can they do to Church, or King. But we forget the Lords rule; Exod. 23. 2. Thou shalt not speak in a cause, to decline after ma­ny, to wrest judgement.

12. Some young gentlemen there are, that must plead Igno­rance in their votes, as being not acquainted with the state of the question; much lesse with the mysterie of iniquitie, which worketh powerfully in the sons of disobedience. But they must know, that there be sins of ignorance; for these there must be an attonement made by the Preist, and without this, for ought I read, no forgivenesse. Levit. 4. Yea, saith the Lord, Levit. 5. 17. If a soule sin, and commit any of these things, which are forbidden to be done by the Commandments of the Lord, though HE WIST IT NOT, yet is be guiltie. And he shall beare his iniquitie, for Ib. v, 19. he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord. But to bring it home a little neerer to these times, that are so violent for sacriledge, let all Achans broode give eare to the words of the Lord, Ib. v. 15. 16. If any person transgresse, and sin through ignorance, by taking away things consecrated to the Lord, HE SHALL RESTORE THAT, WHEREIN HE HATH OFFENDED, in taking away of the holy thing, and SHALL PUT THE FIFT PART MORE THERETO, AND GIVE IT UNTO THE PREIST. Then Ib. v 15. shall the Preist make an attonement for him, not before; then shall the sin be forgiven him, not before. Here then remaines no [Page 47] excuse for any, that have the least hand in sacriledge, without restitution. But why do we Rom. 2. 22. abhor Idols, and commit sacriledge? Why rob we God, as if he were an Idol, not sensible of these wrongs, nor able to revenge them?

13. Next, when the Church is stripped of her means, what kinde of Clergie shall we have? 1 Reg 12. 31. Jeroboams Priests; the lowest, and meanest, of the people. For as now, so then, 2 Chron. 11. 13. 14. the Priests and Le­vites followed their true liege Lord. For that Arch-rebell and his sons had cast them off from executing the Priests office. This being done, 1 Reg. 13. 33. who would, might consecrate himself, and be one of the Priests of the high places. Like King, like Priest; each had alike right to their places. A lively character of our times. These are called the Devils Priests, 2 Chron. 15. 11. men that wanted either the knowledge, or the fear of God, or both. And surely this is the ready way to fi [...] our Priests places with men void of Learning, not 1 Tim. 3. 2. apt to teach, not Tit. 1. 9. able by sound do­ctrine either to exhort, or to convince the gainsayers. Now S. Peter tells us, that 2 S. Pet. 3. 16. the unlearned and unstable (ungrounded men) wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. What then shall be­come of the people? S. Mat 15. 14. If the blinde lead the blinde, both shall fall into the ditch. This will bring us to that passe, which Bishop Latymer speaks of, Bp. La [...]yme [...] Ser. 5 before K. Edw: VI. We shall have nothing but a little ENGLISH DIVINITIE; which will bring the Realm into very barbarousnesse, and utter decay of Learning. It is not that, I wis (saith that good Bishop) that will keep out the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. And this will be a strange dishonour to this Nation, which hath alwayes abounded with Learned men.

14. ³ Hospitalitie will come to nothing; ⁴ your rents will be racked; and ⁵ your sons barred from one fair and most com­mendable course to preferment. For with us no one familie, or set persons are tyed to be Priests, as was the Tribe of Levi. The qualification of the person, and not his pedegree, is with us inquired into. What understanding man then will freely de­dicate his son to the Ministerie, and be at an extraordinarie charge to breed him up to Divinitie, when his reward shall be certain poverty? And what Scholer of worth will desire Or­ders, when he knows, that by these he shall be exposed to con­tempt and beggary? Though we love the Priesthood, when we [Page 48] are miserable in it; yet no man affects the Priesthood, that he may be miserable. I know many, since our coat is grown so contemptible, who intended Divinitie, that have diverted their studie to Physick; knowing that this Nation is carefull of their bodies, though carelesse of their souls.

15. Is it not enough by this extirpation to barre your selves from heaven, unlesse ye sink your posteritie into the same dam­nation? Is it not enough to murder Priests, unlesse ye slay the Priestood also? Certainly ye run the readie way to do it. If ye will not beleeve Bishop Latymer, because a Priest; yet trust Sir Edward Coke, because a Lawyer and a States-man. This great learned man assures us, that Sir Edw: Coke Reports, 2d. part. Levesque de Winchesters Case. fol. 44. It is a more grievous and dangerous persecution to destroy the Priesthood, then the Priests. For by robbing the Church, and spoyling spirituall persons of their revenues, in short time insues GREAT IGNORANCE OF TRUE RELI­GION, and of the service of God; and thereby GREAT DE­CAY OF CHRISTIAN PROFESSION. For none will apply themselves, or their sons, or any other they have in charge, to the Study of Divinitie, when after long and painfull studie they shall have no­thing whereupon to live. Will not our Church then come to a sweet passe? And yet to this passe we are almost brought.

16. All the inconvenience, that Mr. Geree presseth, is this, that I. G. p. 7. we are not subject to the Parliament, to be whipped and stripped as they please. If we be not subject to them, I am sure they have made us so. But how far forth, and wherein we are subject to the Parliament, and what Parliament, shall speedi­ly be taken into consideration. Chap. 9.

17. You speak much of Ib. a former and a latter Oath; the for­mer to the people, the latter to the Clergy. As if His Majestie took two severall Oaths, at two severall times. Whereas in truth it is but one Oath, The Kings Oath taken at Corona­tion I. G. p 1. as you acknowledge p. 1. taken at the same time, and, as it were in a breath. Indeed there are seve­rall priviledges proposed to the King, which he first promi­seth, and afterwards swears to maintain. As for the promise, it is first made in grosse to the people of England; & afterwards to the severall States of this Realm; but first to the Clergie by name. In generall to the people of England, the King promiseth to keep the Laws and Customs to them granted by his lawful and religious [Page 49] Predecessors. Under this word People are comprehended the No­bilitie, Clergie, and Commons of this Kingdom. Afterwards distinguishing them into severall ranks, he begins with the Clergie, promising that he will keep to them the Laws, Customes, and Franchizes granted to them by the glorious King S. Edward his Predecess [...]. Secondly, he promiseth to keep peace and GODLY AGREEMENT entirely, to his power, both to God, the holy Church, the Clergie, and the People. Here also, you see, his pro­mise to the Church, and Clergie, goes before that to the People. In the third branch His Majestie promiseth to his power to cause Law, Justice▪ and discretion in mercy and truth to be executed in all HIS JUDGEMENTS, to all before named. Next he grants to h [...]ld and keep to the Comminalty of this HIS KINGDOM, the Laws, and rightfull Customes, which they have TO THE HO­NOUR OF GOD [mark that] so much as in him lyeth. The Commonalty, you see, are not mentioned, till we come to the fourth clause. And last of all, lest the Bishops, though implied in Church and Clergie, should seem to be omitted, and an eva­sion left to some malignant spirits, to work their ruine, and yet seem to continue a Clergie; the King promiseth to the Bi­shops in particular, that he will preserve and maintain to them all Canonicall priviledges, and due Law and Justice; and that he will be their Protector and Defender. How then can he desert them, or leave them out of his protection?

18. These promises made, the King ariseth, is led to the Communion Table, where laying his hand upon the holy Evangelists, he makes this solemne Oath in the sight of all the people: The things, that I have promised, I shall perform and keep; So help m [...] God, and the contents of this Book. Though then the promises be severall, the Oath is but one: and so no former, no latter Oath; not two, but one Oath. The Kings Oath to the people, first taken for their protection▪ &c. I▪ G. p. 7. The Kings Oath to the people is not first taken; but you are wholly mistaken.

19. If any man desire to know, who the People and Commonalty of this Kingdom are, let him look into Magna Charta; where he shall find them marshalled into severall estates, Cor­porations, and conditions. There you shall also see the seve­rall Laws▪ Customes, and Franchizes, which the King and his religious Predecessors have from time to time promised, and [Page 50] sworn▪ to keep and maintain. That Great Charter begins with the Church; Mag. Charta [...] These words are added to avoid all scruples that this Great Parliamentary Charter might live, and take ef­fect in all succes­sions of age [...] for ever. Sir Ed Coke in loc. Inprimis concessimus Deo: First, we have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, ^f in behalf of our selves and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England be free, and that she have her Rights entire, and her Liberties unmaimed. Now Sir Edw: Coke, that Oracle of the Law, tels us, that Sir Edw Coke Proeme to Mag­na Charta. this Char­ter for the most part is but DECLARATORY OF THE AN­CIENT COMMON LAWS OF ENGLAND: to the obser­vation wherof THE KING WAS BOUND AND SWORN. And not onely the King, but Ib. the Nobles and Great Officers were to be SWORN to the observation of Magna Charta: Ib. which is confirmed by thirtie and two Acts of Parliament.

20. The Liberties of this Church, as I have gleaned them from Magna Charta, and Sir Edw: Coke are these. First, that Sir Ed Coke in Mag. Chart c. 1. the possessions and goods of Ecclesiasticall persons be freed from all unjust exactions and oppressions. Secondly, that Mag Cha c. 14. no Ecclesiasticall person be amerced (or fined) according to the value of his Ecclesia­sticall Benefice, but according to his Lay tenement, and according to the quantitie of his [...]ffence. Thirdly, that Ib. c. 1. the King will neither sell, nor to farm set, nor take any thing from the demeans of the Church in the vacancie. Fourthly, that Sir Ed. Coke in Mag. Chart. c. 1▪ Sect. Et habe. bunt. all Ecclesiasticall persons shall enjoy all their lawfull Jurisdictions, and other rights wholly without any diminution or subtraction whatsoever. Fiftly, Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton l. 2, Sect. 201. A Bishop is regu­larly the Kings IMMEDIATE OFFICER to the Kings Court of Justice in causes Ecclesiasticall. Sixtly, Ib. in Sect. 136 It is a Maxime of the Common Law, that where the right is spirituall, and the remedy there­fore onely by the Ecclesiasticall Law, the conusans thereof doth apper­tain to the Ecclesiasticall Court. Seventhly, Ib. in Sect. 201. Sir Edw: Coke tels us from Bracton, that Nullu [...] ali [...] praeter Regem po­test Episcopo de­mandare inquisi­tionem [...]ciendā. Bract. l. [...]. 10 [...]. no other but the King can demand (or com­mand) the Bishop to make inquisition. Eightly, Sir Ed. Coke in Mag Chart c. 1. Sect E [...] habeat. Every Archbi­shoprick and Bishoprick in England are holden of the King per Ba­roniam (by Baronry). And IN THIS RIGHT THEY THAT WERE CALLED BY WRIT TO THE PARLIAMENT, WERE LORDS OF PARLIAMENT. Sir Ed Coke in­stit part l 4 c 1. Sect O [...] what persons. And every one of these, when any Parliament is to be holden, ought ex debito Justitiae (by due of Justice) to have a Writ of Summons. And this is as much as any Temporall Lord can chalenge. The conclusion of all is this, that Mag. Cha. c 38. neither the King, nor His Heirs (or Succes­sors) [Page 51] will ever endeavour to infringe or weaken these Liberties. And if this shall be done BY ANY OTHER, nihil valeat, & pro nullo habeatur, let it be of no force, and passe for nothing. Hence Sir Ed Coke Proeme in Mag. Chart. it is provided by Act of Parliament, that if any Judgement be given CONTRARY TO ANY OF THE POINTS OF THE GREAT CHARTER, by the Justices, or by any other of the Kings Ministers whatsoever, IT SHALL BE UNDONE, AND HOLDEN FOR NOUGHT. Let all true hearted English­men observe this, that are lovers of their Countreys liberties.

21. We have seen, what the King hath granted & sworn, as also in what order; and that the Oath is but one. And yet Mr. Geree goes forward, as if it were certain without question, that this to the Clergie, were a severall Oath from that to the people. Confidently therefore he presseth it, that He cannot af­terwards in [...]age himsel [...] to any particular estate to exempt it fr [...] this power: for by that Oath at least cessit [...]re suo I G p▪ 3 the King can­not afterwards ingage himself. Whereas he ingaged himself alike to his people at the same instant, that he would preserve the priviledges both of Clergie and Commonaltie, because both his people. Now, why His Majestie should be bound to maintain the priviledges of that one estate, rather then of the other▪ I cannot conceive. Especially when I consider, that Conce [...]imo Deo, quod Ecclesi [...] A [...]glicana libera [...]it Mag. Cha. c. 1. the privi­ledges of the Clergie are granted to God; without whose blessing nor privilege, nor people can be preserved. The King then here­in non c [...]sit jure suo, hath not yeelded up the Clergie or his right to any other; neither can he with a safe conscience do so. But since Sir Ed. Coke Proem. in Mag. Chart. Magna Charta hath been so often confirmed, even by 32. severall Acts of Parliament, the Parliament, in that sense you take it, hath parted with that right it had, by these severall Grants and Confirmations: and we ought in justice to enjoy our pri­viledges, and they to maintain them▪ unlesse they mean to affront and subvert so many Acts of Parliament, and that main Charter and honour of this Kingdom. As if they onely had the judgement of infa [...]ibilitie; which Scotland denies. De­clarat. of the Kingdom of Scotland, p. 19.

CHAP. IX. How far forth, and wherein the Clergie is subject to a Par­liament, and to what Parliament.

1. THe net is prepared, the snare layed, danger is at hand, and yet we must not forsake, or betray the truth in time of need. The noose layed by our Church adversary, is this: I. G. p. 7. The Clergie and their priviledges are subject to the Parliament, or they are not. To this we must say, yea, or nay; and the man thinks he hath us sure enough. But the man is mistaken, one mesh is not well made up; and I must tell him that we are sub­ject to the Parliament, and we are not. Subject we are to the Parlia­ment, consisting of head and members; but not to the members without the head, not to the members alone; since we are sub­ject to the members meerly for the heads sake; and in those things onely, wherein he subjects us to them. Set apart the head, and we are fellow members, fellow subjects. For Iowe no temporall subjection to any or many Subjects, but onely for the Kings sake. Though the Parliament be a great, a re­presentative, an honourable body, yet it is but a body: And that body, with every member thereof, owe obedience and service to the head; not one to another. I say nothing, if I prove it not by Scripture. 1 S. Pet. 2. 13. 14. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake; Whether it be to THE KING AS SU­PREME; or unto Governors, AS UNTO THOSE THAT ARE SENT BY HIM, by the King. As if he should say, Submit your selves to the King, for the Lords sake; and to other Governors for the King [...] sake. For King [...] have their Commission from God; but all State Governors from the King: and Iowe them no sub­jection beyond their Commission. If then it shall please the King to give the members of Parliament power over us, we must submit either by doing, or suffering. Either by doing, what they shall command, or by suffering, what shall be in­flicted on us.

2. Subjection is not due to them, as they are great, or rich men; but as they are the Kings Ministers. This is evident, be­cause Lex terrae. p. 8. all Commissions breath and expire with the King [Page 53] Ib. 7. Upon death of the King follows necessarily the dissolution of Parliament. None of us, that are meer Subjects, have at such a time power one over another, but onely by advice; none of us authority, but onely as this or that man hath gai­ned esteem by his wisedome and integritie. Onely the Preist­hood never dyes, because Christ ever lives, from whom the Preist hath his Commission. But all other subordinate powers ex­pect a new Commission from the succeeding Prince. This ex­perience taught us upon the death of Queen Elizabeth.

3. Though this be truth, yet no truth can charge us, that I hope they will not now claim an exemp­tion from secular power. I. G. p. 7. we claime exemption from secular power. You see, we acknowledge our selves subject to the King, as also to those Ministers, that he sets over us. But as these may not exceed their Commissions given by the King; neither may the King exceed his Com­mission granted him by God. The Kings Commission is like the Preists, 2 Cor. 13. 10. ad aedificationem, non ad destructionem, for uphol­ding the Church and service of God; not for the ruining of either. And the King may not grant a larger Commission to his ministers, then himselfe hath received from the King of Heaven▪ His Commission is, to be Es. 49. 23. a nursing father to the Church, not a step-father; to Meaning, that Kings converted to the Gospel, shall bestow their power and au­thoritie, for the preservation of the Church Gen note in Is. 49. 23. preserve to her all her rights and dues, to see, that she be provided with necessaries, and to protect her against her profaine and sacrilegious enemies. Surely if our Soveraigne hath intrusted the Parliament with any power o­ver the Church and Church-men, it is but with some part of that, wherewith God hath enriched him, and no other.

4. Well, But if the [...] be under Parliamen­tary power, how can it [...]ationally be conceived to be th [...] meaning of the Kings Oath to pr [...]s [...]rve the privi [...]edges of the C [...]er [...] a­gainst that power to which they are legally subject? I. G. p. 7. if we be under Parliamentary power, it cannot ratio­nally be conceived, to be the meaning of the King so to subject us to the Parliament, as to forget, or renounce his hath, by destroying the priviledges of the Clergie (which he hath swo [...]ne to preserve) against (or in dishonour to) that power to which they are legally sub­ject▪ How far we are legally subject to this Parliament, I know; and how far we are▪ or may be under Parliamentary power, I have alreadie declared. The power we are legally subject to, is his Royall Majestie; and it is not, it cannot be, the meaning of the Kings oath, to preserve our priviledges against his own power▪ or to exempt us from his Iurisdiction. Let the world judge, whe­ther your, or our priviledges and principles be distructive of le­gall [Page 54] power. We are bound by Canon Canons Eccles. [...]an. 1. faithfully to keepe and ob­serve, (and as much as in us lieth) to cause to be observed and kept of others, all and singular Laws and Statutes made for restoring to the Crown of this Kingdome, the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ec­clesiasticall, 1 Eliz. 1. AGAINST ALL USVRPED and forraign PO­WER. Marke that; it is not onely against forraign, but it is against usurped, and all usurped power▪ Shew me, if you can, one such loyall Canon or resolution from any Presbyteriall As­sembly. Ib. This Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall is by the Lawes and Statutes restored to the Imperiall Crown of this Realme, and not up­on the Parliament; because it is by Gods Word settled upon the Crowne.

5. Can Eccles. can. 2. This authority in causes Ecclesiasticall was in the godly Kings amongst the Jews, & Christian Emperors in the primitive Church; and hath been exercised by the Kings of this Realme, accor­ding to an Act of Parliament in that behalfe, An. 32. Henr. 8. c. 36. According to this Statute were the Bishops and the rest of the Clergie assembled b [...] King Edward VI. and Queene Elizabeth for composing the Articles of Religion, which were al­lowed to be holden and executed within this Realme, by the assent and consent of those Princes; and confirmed by the sub­scription of the Arch-Bishops & Bishops of the upper House, and of the whole Clergie in the neather House in their Convocation. As is to be seen in the R [...]tification of those Articles. Agreeable to the same Statute, the Arch-Bishops, Bishops and other of the Clergie were summoned & called by K. Iames to treat of Ca­nons and Constitutions Ecclesiasticall; Which were by them a­greed upon An. Dom. 1603. and were by the same King of bles­sed memorie ratified and confirmed by his Letters Patents. And I am certaine, that we have subscribed and sworne, 1 Eliz 1. That the Kings Majestie under God is THE ONELY SUPREME GOVERNOR of this Realme, and of all other his Highnes Domi­nions and Countries, as well in all Spirituall, or ECCLESIASTI­CALL THINGS OR CAUSES, AS TEMPORALL.

6. The substance of your touchie argument is, I hope, sa­tisfied in the eye of every moderate and discreet man. The rest▪ that follows is but a Rhetoricall flourish, or reiteration of what passed before, as if Or how were the Oath in that sens [...] consistent with the p [...]ivi­l [...]e of the Nati­on▪ formerly [...]orn to [...]y the King. I. G. p. 8. the Kings Oath to the Clergie [Page 55] could not be consistent with the priviledges of the Nation, formerly by him sworn to. As if, without peradventure, there were a for­mer and a latter Oath, which I have proved to be most false. And as if we of the Clergie were none of the Nation. Or as if we were bastards, and not legitimate; slaves, and not free­born subjects. And yet, blessed be God, diverse of our Ortho­dox Clergie are as well descended, as any that speake against them, Is this, my good brother, to Thou shalt count the Priests holy, and reve­rence them. Gen. note in Levit. 21. 8. reverence the Preists, and count them holy? Is this the way to invite men of worth, to in­corporate themselves into your Presbyteriall Hierarchie? Sure­ly we are a part of this Nation, to whom this promissory Oath was made. Our Rights consisted comfortably many yeers with the priviledges of the people, to the honour of this Nation, and to the astonishment of others. With what face then can you say, that the Kings Oath to the Clergie cannot be consistent with the priviledges of the Nation? Whereas it is evident, that in three or foure yeers this Nation is so weary of the Presbyteriall en­crochments, that they can no longer possibly endure them.

7. But by your words it seems, If the Oath had such a sense in the times of Po­pery, when the Clergy were a distinct Corporati­on, yet when that exemption was abolisht, as a branch of An­tichristian usur­pation, the change of their conditi­on must needs change the in­tention of the Oath. I. G p. 8. when and while the Clergy were a distinct corporation from the Laitie, the Oath had this sense, viz. that the Kings oath to the Clergie was consistent with the privi­ledges of the Nation▪ That must be the sense, if I know what sense is. But the Clergie were and are a distinct corporation. In ceasing to be Popish, we are not ceased to be Preists: neither is that necessary and just exemption, or distinction yet abolisht. If it be, why are you so zealous, to distinguish us and our privi­leges, from the people and their priviledges? Whereas if we be all one without distinction, our priviledges must needs be the very same; and so no inconsistencie at all. But of this more fully Chap. 11.

8. A Popish exemption it was for the Clergie to be free from the Kings Commands. But this is abolished, and we readily submit to every Ordinance of man; and wish, that you, and your Assembly brethren would learn the same Christian obe­dience. A Popish exemption it is for the Bishops and their Chur­ches to know no Governor but the Pope. That also is disclai­med, and at the Kings Coronation it is publickly acknowled­ged, that the Bishops and their Churches are under the Kings govern­ment. [Page 56] The Antichristian usurpation is condemned, and true Chri­stian subjection justified. The King is the [...]nely Supreme O vern [...]r, to him we owe obedience, and to others for him, and under him. And though all Antichristian usurpation were abolish [...]d upon the death of Queen Mary, yet in all the Acts since that time to this present Parliament the Lords spirituall are distingui­shed from the Lords temporall, the Clergy from the Laity, and the Convoc [...]tion from the Parliament. Yea even in these times of confusion, the Clergie are doomed by your great Masters, to be unfit for Lay▪ or Civill imploiment▪ If there be no such men, then was that sentence sencelesse: & while we are of the same Corporation with them, we are as capable of any office of State, as the rest of our fellow-subjects, even to be Members of both Houses. But this distinction is still on foot; the Kings Oath there­fore to us is still binding; especially since our immunities may as well subsist with the priviledges of the Commons, as the priviledges of Bristoll with the Franchizes of London.

9. Indeed you may well twit us with the change of our con­dition; for we have just cause with Bishop Latymer to complain, that B [...]. Latymers Serm. before K. Edw. VI. March 8▪ 1549. there is a plain intent to make the Clergie slavery: which was far from the intention of this Oath, till your faction prevailed in the change. But what inconvenience will follow, if we confesse, that the intention of the Oath was changed, with the change of our condition? Not that, which you aime at. For therein, and so far forth onely is the intention of the oath changed, as our conditi­on is changed. But wherein is our condition changed? A Church we are still; Bishops and Preists we are still; onely our condition is thus far changed▪ before we were subject to Antichristian usur­pation, but now we are altogether for Christian Allegiance. Be­fore our Bishops and Preists were subject to the Pope; but we sub­mit wholly to the King. And I hope, we shall not fare the worse for that. The Kings Oath is, to protect the Church, as it is, not as it was; not as she was popish and superstitious, but as she is Ca­tholick and Apostolike. Then she was subject to the Pope, and free from the King, but now she is subject to the King, and free from the Pope. But you would faine enforce us to our old vo­mit; for we cannot but discern, that a far more intollerable tyranny is drawing on, by how much the more dangerous it [Page 57] is to be subject to a multitude, then to one; to a multitude at home, then to one abroad: Both of them being equally de­structive to the liberty of the Church, and alike contrary to the Word of God.

10. Besides, the change of our condition is either for the bet­ter or the worse. If for the worse, this is to maintain Popery. He that saith our condition is changed for the worse, justifies, that it is better for us to be subject to the Pope, then to the King. If for the better, then must the intention of the Oath be changed for the better. For are not these your words, that the change of the Clergies condition must needs change the intention of the Oath? Without question the intention of the Oath was to pro­tect all his subjects in their severall places, dignities, add de­grees; and not to suffer them to oppresse or devoure one ano­ther, to see justice done for them and upon them, according to the Laws established; and not to yeeld to any Law, that may be distructive to the rights or liberties of any of his sub­jects.

11. The intention of the Oath is, to maintain the ancient, le­gall, and just rights of the Church; and to preserve unto the Bishops due law and justice. We desire no more, and no man may with reason deny this, to be the intention of the Oath. The The words are plaine: Sir, will you grant, and keep, and by your Oath confirme the Laws, Customs, and Franchizes granted to the Cler­gie by the glorious King S. Edward▪ your Predecessor, &c. And again; Our Lord and King, we beseech you to pardon and grant, and preserve unto us, and to the Churches committed to your charge, all Canonicall priviledges, and due Law and Justice. All this the King hath sworne to performe; and hath acknowledged, that by right he ought to do it. And would you have him to be forsworne, and to neglect that, which by right he ought to make good? Surely you would make an excellent ghostly father for the man of sin.

12. Neither is this the peculiar opinion of us Church-men onely; that great Oracle of the Law resolves, that Ecclesia est in­fra aetatem, & in custodiâ Domini Regis, qui tenetur jura & haeredita­tes suas manu tenere, & defen­dere. Sir Ed: Coke in Mag, Chart. c 1 The King is bound to maintain and defend the rights and inheritance of the Church. And he gives two reasons for it; first, because the Church is alwaies in her minoritie, it is under age: Seconly, she is in Wardship to our Lord the King. And then he addes, Ib. Nec [Page 58] est juri consonum, quod infra aetatem existentes, PER NEGLIGEN­TIAM CUSTODUM SVORUM exhaeredationem patiantur, seu ab actione repellantur: Neither is it consonant to the Law (nor yet to conscience), that those who are under age, should either be spoi­led of their inheritance, or barred from action at Law, THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR GUARDIANS. Especi­ally Kings being by divine Ordinance made Guardians and nur­sing fathers to the Church. Es. 49. 23.

13. You see, we have divine and humane Law for what we say, we claime no Vnlesse they will say, that the Crown stands still ingaged to them, to main­tain such privi­ledge [...], as by Act of Parliament were long since abolisht: which is to make his Oath to them contariant to that taken before, for the maintenance of the Laws. I. G. p. 3. priviledges long since by Act of Parliament abolisht. We desire not his Majestie to contradict, but to ratifie bis Oath, and to maintain those Laws he found in force. But as for you, all your endeavour is to perswade the Laity, that our weale is their woe, and that the upholding of the Clergie in their due and ancient state, would be certain ruine to the Commons. As if our Priviledges were like Gen. 41. 4▪ Pharaohs lean kine, ready to devoure the fat of the Laity: as if our aime were to reduce Antichristian usurpation, & to subvert the ancient Laws. Whereas every man may readily discern, that these are but pretences. The true end aimed at in these invectives and in­centives, is that the caninus appetitus the wilde ravenous sto­machs of M. Geree and his fellow Presbyterians may be satisfied. But at seven yeers end they will be as lank and hungrie as Pharaohs famished kine. It was so with King Henry VIII: and it will be so with all, that tread in his steps.

14. It▪s apparent then, to make the intention of the Oath to be against legall al­teration of their priviledges by Parliamēt, makes it unlawfull, and so not obligatory. And if it be not intended against legall alteration, the King may passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy when his Houses of Par­liament think it convenient, and petition for it, without violation of his Oath▪ I. G. p. 8. Its apparent then to make the intention of that Oath to be false and fallacious, and under pretence, that it may not be against legall alteration, so to wrest it, that it may be to the ruine of a great body of his subjects, and those not the worst; that it shall be against all Law and conscience, (for ^f that Law, which is unjust is no Law): That it shall be to the subversion of the true Religion and service of God, to the distraction of his people, and to the eternall dishonor of himself and the whole Kingdome, makes his Oath in your sense utterly unlawfull. And if unlawfull, then is it not obligatory either in foro consci­enciae, or in foro justitiae, either before God, or any good man; unlesse it be to do the contrary. But if this Oath in the true and literall sense be not against legall alteration, but against un­just [Page 59] oppression, sacriledge, and profanenesse, manifest it is, that it is both lawfull and obligatory; and the King may not, with­out violation of his Oath, and certain danger of the pure and un­defiled Religion, passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy, what ever His Houses of Parliament think, or Petition, or presse never so violently.

15. But your opinion is, that the King may passe a Bill, for the abolition of Episcopacy. And what I thinke, or what the King thinks; it is no matter if His Houses of Parliament think it conveni­ent, he may do it. It is wonder, you had not said, he must do it. Indeed you say that, which is equivalent; for are not these your words; I. G. p. 9. He cannot now deny consent (to their abolition) without sin? And if the King without sin cannot deny it, then must he assent unto it. Thus by your words it seemes, he is at their disposing, not they at his. Indeed, if a man may beleeve you, the power is in the Houses, and not in the King. For do not you say, that Ib. p. 7. the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power, with the consent of the King, to alter whatsoever, &c. And againe; Ib. p. 5. There's no question of POWER IN THE PARLIAMENT to over-rule it. The power, it seemes, is in them, consent onely in the King. And here, The King may passe a Bill, when His Houses think it convenient. Well, he may, and he may choose; he may consent, or dissent. He that hath power to consent hath power also to dissent. Cujus enim est consentire, ejus est & dis­sentire. And so long we are well enough. For the Kings Nega­tive in Parliament is a full testimony of his Supreme power. Hence is it, that the Houses Petition for his consent, which they need not do, if the power were in the Houses. Besides, His Houses, the Kings Houses, you call them; and so they are. This also manifests, that they are at his disposing, and not He at theirs. They must therfore wait his pleasure, til he thinks it con­venient. His consent they may Petition for, enforce they ought not, since they are his subjects; enforce it they cannot, since 1 Cor. 7. 37. he hath power over his own will. And whatever you suppose, it is in his power to consent, or dissent, when he sees it conveni­ent; and consequently to keep, or not to keep his Oath. His affirmative makes it a Law; his negative denys it to be a Law. For Lex terrae, p. 14, 15. The King is the onely Judge, whether the Bills agreed up­on, and presented, be for the publick good, or no: And to [Page 60] take away the Kings negative voice, is contrary to your Covenant; it diminisheth the Kings just power and greatnesse; and cuts off all Re­gall power. Witnesse the Declaration of the Kingdome of Scot­land. p. 18.

CHAP. X. Whether it be lawfull for the King, to abrogate the Rights of the Clergie.

1. THe question proposed is concerning Episcopacy; but now you are fallen to the Rights of the Clergie. As if this were a sound and unanswerable argument, It is lawfull for the King to abrogate the Rights of the Clergy: Ergo, It is lawfull for him to abrogate Episcopacy. It is for all the world, as if one should say, It is lawfull for the King to take away the Rights of Lawyers; Ergo, he may also take away Judicature. Yet all men would say, that this were flat tyrannie; since without Judicature no man can compasse, or enjoy his own with peace.

2. But I shall return your argument so upon you, as shall concern you more neerly. It is lawfull for the King to abrogate the Rights of the Clergie: it is therefore lawfull for him to abrogate Pres­bytery. How like you this? Is it not your own argument, chang­ing terme Episcopacy into Presbytery. Ye have strooke out the former & set up the latter in the place of Episcopacy. And your scholers, by the same argument, may live to root up thut too, if any lands be annexed to this great Diana of Geneva. Thus you have made a rod to scourge your selves with.

3. But you will say, that though it be legall for the King, to take away the Rights, yet he may not destroy the Order. And why so? Because the Rights are granted by man, but the Or­der was settled by God: And what God hath ordained, is not lawfull for man to abrogate. I must return you the same answer, since tis sufficiently justified. C. 4. 5. That the Order of Episcopacy is the immediate institution of our B. Saviour, and Mini­steriall root, from whence all Orders spring. Though then this be I. G. p. 2. the usuall way of cleering this your assertion, and you Ib. con­ceive it to be a sound resolution, yet learned men see, that you have [Page 61] said just nothing, unlesse you confesse, that the Order of Pres­byter may likewise be ex [...]i [...]pated by Royall authority.

4. But return we to the Rights of the Clergie, and take notice upon what grounds you suppose it lawfull for the King to ab­rogate those Rights, which he hath vowed so solemnly to main­tain. Ib. The King (say you) is sworne to maintaine the Laws of the Land in force at his Coronation. Yet it is not unlawfull for him after to abrogate any of them, upon the motion, or with the consent of his Parliament. I am glad that you acknowledge it to be the Kings Prerogative, to maintaine the Laws of the Land; and that it is not unlawfull for him, to abrogate any of them with the consent of his Parliament. If he be bound by Oath, either he hath power to maintain these Laws, or not. If he hath not power, it is a sense­lesse Oath. If he hath power, where is it? What is become of it? Hath he resigned it? We know the contrary. Hath he for­feited it? To whom? To his subjects? He can no more for­feit his Regall power to his subjects, then a father the right of fatherhood to his children. He is no more a King upon con­dition, then a father is a father upon condition. His power he hath not from the people, but from God. Prov. 8. 15. Cujus iussu nas­cuntur homines, huius iussu & Re­ges constituun­tur. Iren. l. 5. p. 601. Per me Reges regnant, by me Kings reign, saith God. And, I hope, God speaks no un­truth. His substitute the King is, for 2 Chron. 9▪ 8. He sits on Gods (not on the peoples) throne; and Ib. King he is for the Lord, in his stead.

5. If you object misdemeanours, or bearing armes against His Parliament; your self say, that I. G. p. 2. He is sworne to maintain the Laws of the Land. The Laws, Liberties, and Properties were all at stake, they were trampled upon by his faithlesse, but potent Subjects. This enforced him to take up Rom. 13. 4. that sword, which he ought not to beare in vaine, but to Ib. execute wrath as the Mini­ster of God, upon them that do evill; upon such, as plunder his good subjects, and turn them out of house and home. For 1 S. Pet. 2. 13, 14 the King is made by God the Supreme Governor, for the punishment of evill doers, as also for the praise of those, that do well. But suppose the King were a tyrant, as bad as bad may be, yet Magistratibus ex animo de [...]eren­dus est honor, [...] etiam tyrannis. Beza in Act. 23. 5 we ought from our hearts to give him all due honour; so Beza; and not to rob him of his just power. If he sin Psal. 51. 4. it is against God onely; and to him onely he must account; not to his Subjects.

6. Well, bound he is by Oath, I. G. p. 2. to maintain the Laws, while [Page 62] they are Laws. As yet then the rights of the Church are safe, and the King is bound to maintain them. But how long are these Laws in force? Ib. Till they are abrogated BY JUST POWER IN A REGULAR WAY. They are your own words, and we sub­scribe them. But the just power is in His Majestie, by your own confession, both The King is sworn to main­tain the Laws of the Land in force at his Coronati­on Yet no man questions, & the constant practise shews, that it is not unlawfull af­ter to abrogateany upon the motion, or with the consent of HIS PARLI­AMENT. I. G p. 2 to maintain, and to abrogate Laws. And the regular way, say you, is at the motion, or with the consent of HIS PARLIAMENT. But with all our loyall Predecessors we say, at the petition, or humble suit [not at the motion] of His Parlia­ment. And His it is, his they are all, though Members of Parlia­ment, since the Parliament is His. They are not then a Parlia­ment of themselves, at their own choice, or disposing, nor yet without him. His they are; I am sure, they should be so; I would to God they were so. Declarat. of the Kingd. of Scotland. p. 22. The King is the fountain of honour and power within his own Dominions. And Eccles 8. 4. who may say unto him, What doest thou? Why doest thou honour this man, and not that? Why doest thou call a Parliament at this time, and not at that? Ib. Impius est, qui Regi dixerit, inique agis: He is impi­ous, that saith unto the King, thou dealest unjustly, or unequally. So the Fathers read that place. No obbraiding, no controul­ling of a King; Lex terrae, p. 19 He can do no wrong. So the Law.

7. His, the Kings, they are, when they are met, and set in Parliament, Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton, l. 2. Sect. 164. His great Councell, Magnum Concilium Regis; I. G. p. 8. His Houses, Ib. p. 2. His Parliament. And Sir Ed: Coke in Litleton, l. 2. Sect. 164. therefore called so, that they may Parlar la ment, speak their minds freely for the generall good. Him they may entreat, not controul; advise, not com­mand; perswade, not enforce. Suppose, the King grants them power and authoritie, he grants them none either over, or against himself: this he cannot do. This were to set the Mem­bers above the Head, and to make his Subjects superior to himself. This were to despoil himself of the power of the Sword. But this he may not do, since 1 S Pet. 2. 13. God hath made him supreme, and Rom. 13. 4. given him the charge of the Sword. And His Majestie may not invert that order, which God hath set; nei­ther may he repeal Gods ordinance, or make it void. God hath laid the charge upon him, and he cannot with a safe conscience decline it, or neglect it.

8. Observe, I beseech you: Gen. 41. 40. though Pharaoh set Joseph over [Page 63] his house, and over his people to rule and arm them at his pleasure: though Joseph were so Ib. v, 43. 44. made Ruler over all the land of Egypt, yet without him no man might lift up his hand or foot, within that land; yet Joseph is not king. Ib. v. 40. Pharaoh keeps his throne; and therein is he greater then Joseph, who still is but Pharaohs deputy, though Gen 45. 9. Lord of all Egypt. And though he be Ib. v▪ 8. a father to Pharaoh, yet Ib. v▪ 19▪ & 21. is he still at his command. Thus is it with the Parliament of Eng­land; though they are put in highest trust by the King, yet are they still at his disposing, either Lex terrae, p. 27 to be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved at his pleasure; and are at his command in all things lawfull and honest. To this great Councell we are no further to submit, then in those things they are sent for by the King, and so far forth as they have commission from him. S. Peter saies the same. 1 S. Pet. 2▪ 13, 14. Submit your selves unto THE KING AS SU­PREME, or unto Governors AS UNTO THEM, THAT ARE SENT BY HIM, by the King. So far forth, and in such things, for which they are sent, I owe them obedience; but no further.

9. How far forth the King is sworn to maintain the Laws of the Land, and upon what grounds they may safely be repeal­ed, we have alreadie seen. Now we are called upon to descend to the Rights of the Clergie; whereof your resolution is this, by way of consequence. I. G. p. 2. So the King by his Oath is bound to main­tain THE RIGHTS OF THE CLERGIE, while they con­tinue such. But, blessed be God, such they do continue: the King therefore by Oath is bound to maintain them.

10. Ib. But (say you) if any of their Rights be abrogated by just power, he stands no longer ingaged to that particular. Why, I beseech you, do you leave out something here, that you held necessary for the abrogation of the Laws of the Land. Before it was, that the Laws might be abrogated by just power in a regular way. But here you grant, that the Rights of the Clergie may be abrogated by just power. But what's become of the regular way? Was it forgot­ten? or left out on set purpose? Surely there is a my fiery in it; for your argument ought to procede thus:

By what means the Laws of the Land may be abrogated, by the same means may the Rights of the Clergie be abrogated.

But the Laws of the Land may be abrogated by just power in a regular way.

[Page 64] Ergo, The Rights of the Clergie may be abrogated by just power in a regular way.

Thus the Syllogisme stands fair for the form; and the Major or Minor Proposition must be denied by the respondent: otherwise he is at a non-plus, and convinced. But your con­clusion is, So, or, Ergo, the Rights of the Clergie may be abrogated by just power. But this so is faultie; and so is the Syllogisme; be­cause the minor terminus is maimed in the conclusion; it comes not in whole, as it should do. The reason why, is plain; be­cause you are not able to set down a regular way, wherein, or whereby those Rights, you aim at, may be abolished.

11. And what wonder, that you can finde no regular way for the Clergie and their rights, since you have put them clean out of the regular, the right way. And when ye will find the re­gular way, God knows; for, plain it is, that ye are out of the way. Ye wander this way, and that way, like men in a Maze, or mis-led by an Ignis fatuus, by Jack in a lantern. No rule at all you have to be guided by but onely this, that the Book of Common Prayers must down, and Episcopacy shall not stand. So fare­well heavenly devotion, and all true faith; and farewell Church. If this be not to be possessed with the spirit of giddi­nesse, and impietie, I know not what is.

12. But, I pray you, give me leave, before I passe further, to tell you, that Just power goes alwayes in a regular way. And when it leaveth that way, it ceaseth to be just; unlesse infor­ced by such necessitie, as cannot be provided for in a regular way. That power onely is just, which doth nothing wittingly but what is just; and distributes to every man and societie their severall dues. If it do otherwise, we cannot call it just, unlesse we desire to incur that sentence of the Almighty, Prov. 24. 24. He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous, him shall the people curse, Nations shall abhor him.

13. Well, be it just, or unjust, be it never so much cursed at home, or abhorred abroad, you are resolved to justifie the Ab­rogation of the Rights of the Clergie. What? A Clergie-man, and a Preacher of the Word of God, and altogether for ruine and de­struction? Surely you are not a Preacher of that Word, which S. Paul taught; for he professeth, that 2 Cor. 10. 8. authoritie is given to [Page 65] men of our calling, not for destruction, but for edification. Shew me one Preacher in the word of God, besides Corah and his confederates, that ever spake, or wrot any thing against the Rights of the Clergie. You cannot possibly, unlesse you bring in Judas with his S. Matth. 26. [...]. Ad quid, finding fault, with that cost, which was bestowed upon our Saviours person. Indeed no man so fit for your turn; Christ is the head of his body, the Church. Col. 1. 18. 24. he robbed and betrayed the head, and you the body. But you know, what censure is passed upon him for it; S. Joh. 12. 6. This he said, because he was a theife, and did carrie the bag. He did, and you would. It is private, not publick interest, that stirres up ambitious and greedy spirits against Christ and his Vice­gerents. I can shew you Rom. 11. 13. S. Paul magnifying his office, and 1 Cor 9. 1. &c. 2 Cor. 10 4 &c. 2 Cor. 11. 7. 8. justifying the priviledges therof. But you are none of S. Pauls followers; Demetrius and Alexander, silver-smiths and Cop­per-smiths, are your good Masters, and with them I leave you.

14. But what are these Rights that you are so eagar to have abrogated? Every subject in his severall place and degree hath right to his lands, to his goods, to his liberties and privile­ges: and so hath every Clergie-man; unlesse we of the Clergie be no longer subjects, but slaves. Would you have all these, or onely some of these abolished? A question it was at first, but now I see, what they are. First, I. G. p. 4. Episcopacy. 2ly, Ib. p. 4. 5. The Cler­gies priviledges, & immunities. 3ly, the Ib. p. 4. Bishops Ecclesiasticall, or sole Jurisdiction in so large a circuit. 4ly, Ib. The Bishops great reve­nues. Thus the Rights of the Clergie, are precisely inventoried, that so neither root nor branch may scape their fingers. Epis­copacy we have already taken into consideration; now let us take a survey of the rest.

15. But first let us observe the course, you propose, to strip us of these Rights. Your method is subtil, and your expressi­ons at first view seeme moderate: you put us in equall balance with the rest of our fellow-subjects. Thus you argue; I. G. p. 2. It is not unlawfull to abrogate ANY of the Laws of the Land: It is not therefore unlawfull to abrogate ANY of the Rights of the Clergie. Thus far your argument seemes to proceed fairely. But how comes it to passe, that out of this Any of the Kingdome, you conclude against All the Rights of the Clergie? For what have [Page 66] the Clergie besides their Orders, priviledges, and immunities; be­sides their Jurisdiction and revenues? And yet all, all these you expose to the mercie of a Parliament. But, in good sooth, do you think, that if it be lawfull for a Parliament to alter or a­bolish any particular Laws of the Land, that therefore it is law­full to take away all, that the Clergie have, or should have? In­deed this is something answerable to the proceedings of these times. It would sound very harsh, if it were thus resolved; It is lawfull for King and Parliament to abrogate any of the Laws of the Land: It is therefore lawfull for them to abolish all the Laws of the Land. And yet this is your manner of arguing. As if a parti­cular included the generall; as if any were equivalent to all. Which is apparently false; for universals are of a far larger extent then these individua vaga, uncertain notions. Though all comprehend any, yet any comprehends not all. For law­full it is not to subvert the fundamentall Laws; therefore not all. This were to raze the foundation of the Kingdome. Were this justified of any particular Corporation, or body politick, besides the Clergie, it would not be indured. Oh, how would the Citizens of London storme, if we should conclude thus; It is lawfull to take away any of the Laws of the Land; and therefore it is lawfull to take away all the Rights of the City of London. Yet let wise men judge, if this be not your argument right. But the Cler­gie is become the asse of the times; it must bear all, or sink un­der the burden.

16. But you say, that this is to be done I. G. p. 2. by just power in a regular way. Well and good. But can that be a just power, which deals unjustly? For Iust [...]s est animus qui scientia atque ratione, in vitâ ac moribus▪ sua cui. que distribuit. Aug. de Trin▪ l. 8. c. 6. Justice gives to every man his own; according to Gods Command, Rom. 13. 7. q Ea, quae contra legem Dei fiunt, ju [...]ta esse non poss [...]nt. [...]ug cont mendac. c. 15. Render to every man his due. The Law of God we confesse to be the Supreme Law? Whatever then is done against the Law of God, cannot be just. Yea though it be done by a Law, no Act can justifie it; since a Law contrary to Gods Word, is no sooner made, then void. I speak to Christians. But with you I. G p. 5. the Law shall be valid, though injurious. To the injuriousnesse of this Law I shall submit, because a subject; but never ac­knowledge any validitie therein, because a Christian.

17. By a just power, we see, this cannot be done; how then shall it be done in a regular way? A regular way, as you conceive [Page 67] you have set down; wherein any Law of the Land may be ab­rogated. And that is, I. G. p. 2. upon the motion, or with the consent of the Parliament. How comes this to passe? Because the Parliament consists of the head, and the representative body of the whole Kingdome. And who are these? First Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton, l. 2. Sect. 164. the King, who is the head. 2ly, the Lords spirituall and temporall: and 3ly, the Commons. But the Parliament is maimed of late. Lex terrae, p. 15 1. The House of Commons represents the greivances of the Countrey. 2. The House of Lords advise his Majestie with their counsell, and propose for the common good, what they conceive meet. 3. It is no Sta­tute, if the King assent not to it: and he may dis­assent. Lex terrae p. 7. It is in the Kings po­wer to assent to these proposals, or to disassent, to make them Statutes, or no Statutes. And that the Crown may receive no detriment, the King hath the Judges of the Land, his Coun­cell, and other Officers of State present, to prevent such mis­chiefes. The Lords take care of their Lands and honors, that they be not damnified by any new Law. The Knights and Bur­gesses by the severall Counties and Corporations, are intrusted with such things, as concern their generall or particular good. And all are to take care for the good of the Church, the com­mon mother of us al. In these things every man doth, or ought to provide, that all things be so done for the Common good, that (if it be possible) nothing be done to the prejudice of any.

18. And reason for it: for as 1 Cor. 12. 13. by one Spirit we are all bapti­sed into one body spirituall, or mysticall, so by the goodnesse of God we all are under one King incorporated into one body politick. Ib. v. 14. But the body is not one member, but many. Indeed Ib. v. 19. if it were all one member, where were the body? And God hath so tempered this body together, that Ib. v. 21. every member hath need one of another; and Ib. v. 22. those, which seem to be most feeble, are ne­cessary. All this was done by the great wisedome of God, Ib. v. 25. that there might be no divisions, or distractions, in the body: but that the members should have the same care one for another. Thus God hath knit us together with the bonds of a mitie and necessity, that we might love one another sincerely. But Charity is so farre from doing wrong, that 1 Cor. 13. 5. she seeketh not her own. Which is thus to be understood, according to S. Austins expression, Aug. in Reg. 3. Quia communia propriis, non propria communibus anteponit: Because Cha­rity [Page 68] prefers the Common good before her own private interest, and not her own private interest before the Common good. Where this love is, ther's the Common-wealth. But what state is that Kingdom in, where they that are intrusted by the publick, seeke their own, and indeavour with might and maine, to make that theirs, which is none of theirs? Where under pretence of the Com­mon good, they ingrosse all into their own clutches? Is not this the crying sinne, the grand Monopolie of these times?

19. The regular way to abrogate any of the Rights of the Cler­gie, or Laity, is at their own motion, or consent, made and deli­vered by their representatives in Parliament, or Convocation. Henry VIII, with Cromwell, and the rest of his blessed Councel, after banishment of the Popes power, knew not which way to make a title to Monasteries with their lands and goods, but onely by grant and surrender of the Abbots. With them there­fore he labours by his great and active servant Cromwell; who prevailes with some by promises and large annuities; with other by violence and the sword: as is manifested by Master Spelman, in the Preface to his ever honoured fathers book De non temerandis Ecclesiis. The Statute therefore 31. Hen. VIII. C. 13. tells us, that These Grants Surrenders, &c. were made FREE­LY, VOLUNTARILY, AND WITHOUT COMPULSION, to the King, his Heires and Successors. What ever the truth be, this was the onely legall pretence they could devise. And this is the onely course you can take, to make a plea in Law to the Church-lands. You are faine therefore at last to perswade the Clergies consent, p. 5. But of that in due place.

20. In the mean space thus much by the way. Either we are subjects, or no subjects; If we are subjects, then ought we to have the liberties and priviledges of subjects; whereof this is one, that not so much as a Subsidie, or a little Ship-mony be taken from any one of us, without our assent yeelded either by ourselves, or by such as we put in trust. And this present Parliament hath often protested before God and the world, that the Rights and Liberties of Subjects they do and will defend with their lives and fortunes. Why then are our Rights and Liber­ties so strook at, and exposed to contempt and sale? Are we no subjects? Surely we were borne so. How then did we forfeit [Page 69] The ancient Rights, Laws, and Liberties, are the birthright of the Subiects of this Land. Declarat. Parl. July 12. p. 458. our birth-right? By taking Orders? Then is it better to be Mr. Gerees groom, then himself. And, it may be, this is the reason, why so many step up into the Pulpit without Orders, lest per­chance they lose their birth-right.

21. It may be, you will say, that we were not born Priests or Clergie-men. You say right; neither is any man born a Law­yer, a Goldsmith, or a Draper. And yet when any of our bre­thren undertake these professions, they enjoy the Rights and Liberties, they were born to, with some additions. And why not we? And yet we poore Clergie-men are the onely free-born Subjects, that are out-lawed, as it were, and cast forth as dung upon the face of the earth. Surely it is better to be a Parlia­mentarians foot-boy, then 1 Cor. 4 1. a Steward of the mysteries of Christ. And yet such we are. Little do these men consider, that all Subjects are born alike capable of these Rights, if so they be fit to take Orders. The wrong therefore is done alike to all free-born Subjects; perchance to Mr. Speakers grandchild. Since then I. G. p 2. the Kings Oath (as you confesse) is against acting or suffering a tyrannous invasion on Laws and Rights; it must neces­sarily follow, that as he may not act, so he may not suffer any such tyranny to be used. Hitherto he hath withstood these temptations: and God, I hope, will ever deliver him from them, and from the hands of his enemies. Even so Amen, Lord Jesu.

CHAP. XI. Whether the Clergie and Laitie be two distinct Bodies, or one Body Politick. That Church-men in all ages had some singular priviledges allowed them.

1. THat with some colour you may perswade the people, that it is lawfull not onely to clip the wings, but to pick the carkasse, and to grate the very bones of the Clergie, you tell them, that I. G p. 3. this Oath was so framed, when the Clergie of England was a distinct Society or Corporation from the people of Eng­land. When was this Oath, I beseech you, framed? You should have done well to have pointed out the time; and not tell us, [Page 70] that This distinction of the Clergie from the Laity, that they should be a distinct Pro­vince of them­selves, being a branch of Popery, s with it quite extinguisht. I. G. p. 3. this distinction is a branch of Popery. But this is the fashion of such, as you are, when you intend to disgrace, alter, or de­stroy any thing, that concerns the Church, then presently 'tis Popery. Thus you cast a mist before the peoples eyes, that loath Popery; and yet know not, what Popery is.

2. But this His Majesties Oath is grounded upon the Word of God, who hath made promise to his Church, spread a­mong the Gentiles, that Es 49. 23. Kings shall be her nursing fathers, and Queens her nursing mothers. When therefore Christian Kings are inthroned, they take a most solemn Oath, not onely to admi­nister true justice to the people, but that they will also main­tain the Rights and priviledges of the Church and Clergie, as by right they ought to do. The reason is, because there are so many envious & mischievous eyes upon the Church: because Psal. 83 5. &c. the Edomites and Ishmaelites, the Moabites and Hagarens, have cast their heads together with one consent, and conspired to take her houses and lands into possession. Gods Word prevails with few; the Kings sword therefore must stand between the Church, and such sacrilegious spirits.

3. If they fail in this duty, then Isa. 3. 14. will the Lord enter into judgement with the Ancients of the people, and the Princes thereof. What, for this cause? Yes, for this very cause: Ib. For ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poore is in your houses. Is this any thing to the Church? Yes marrie is it, the Geneva Note tels you so. Gen. note in loc. Meaning (saith the Note) that the Rulers and Governors had DESTROYED HIS CHURCH, and not preserved it AC­CORDING TO THEIR DUTY. Those, who are guilty of this mischief, let them beware: His Majesties comfort is, that he hath withstood these impious designes according to his duty. For Isa. 54. 15. whosoever shall gather himself IN THEE, AGAINST THEE, shall fall. Gen. note in loc. Meaning the DOMESTICALL ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH, as are the HYPOCRITES. Dear bro­ther, take heed to your feet, and remember, that Heb. do. 31. it is a dread­full thing to FALL into the hands of the everliving God. But view we your reason.

4. I. G▪ p 3. The Clergie and Laitie (say you) were distinct bodies; but this distinction is taken away, and Laity and Clergie are now one body Politick. One body Politick? Are we so? Whence is it then, that [Page 71] the Bishops are thrust out of the House of Peers; and that none of us may vote, or sit in the House of Commons? Are we of the same body; and yet have no priviledges with the body? In at subjection, out at immunities? In at taxes, out at privileges? This is one of those even Ordinances, which your blessed Co­venant hath hatched. Of the same body we are, under the same power, subject to the same Laws, and yet not capable of the same privileges. Is this equalitie? Scoggins doal right, some all, and some never a whit.

5. Neither do we say, that we are a severall or distinct body; but we are a severall state, or Corporation in the same body. One body, but severall members in and of the same body. In Ecclesiasticall persons of this Kingdom are commonly three qualities or conditions: one is naturall, the other two are ac­cidentall. 1. Englishmen and denisons of this kingdom we are by birth: 2. Ʋniversitie men by matriculation and education: and 3. Clergie men by Ordination. By the first we have an in­terest in the privileges of the kingdom. By the second we have an interest in the immunities of the Universitie. By the third we have an interest in the Rights of the Church. The later privileges do not annihilate that right or claim, which we have by birth. Neither cease we to be the Kings Subjects, be­cause Clergie men. In taking Orders we put not off Allegeance; we rather confirm and inlarge it. For Thou which teachest another, teachest thou not thy self? Thou, that preachest, a man should not steal, doest thou steal? Rom. 2. 21. a shame it is for us to teach others, what we do not our selves. And our duty it is, to Tit. 3. 1. put every man in minde to be subject to principalities and powers, and to obey Magistrates.

6. That there are severall relations in us of the Clergie, and that we have severall privileges by these relations, will appear evidently in S. Paul, who was Rom. 11. 1. an Israelite by blood, Act. 22. 25. a Roman by freedom, but Gal. 1. 1. an Apostle by Ordination. By his Orders he lost none of his former privileges, but 1 Cor. 4. 1. and 9. 4. 5. 1 [...]. acquired new, whereto he had no right as Israelite, or Romane. Yet, as occasion serves, he stands upon his privileges as a Romane; and both Act. 22. 26. 29 [...]. the Centurion and the Commander in chief were afraid to offend against that law, or privilege. But we with bl [...]shlesse foreheads trample upon Gods Laws, and the pri­vileges of his nearest servants. But though S. Paul stand upon [Page 70] his privileges, and ^e magnifie his office, yet ^f he acknowledgeth Rom. 11. 13. Act. 25. 10. himself to be Cesars subject, and that at his tribunall HE OUGHT TO BE JUDGED.

7. Our Saviour himself had severall Relations: S. Matt. 22. 42. &c. he was the Son of David, and the Lord of David; the Son of David, ac­cording to his humanitie; but the Lord of David, in his Deitie. As Lord of all, he receives tithes and sacrifices; ^h as a Subject he S. M at. 17 27. payes tribute to Cesar: and when an arraigned person, ⁱ he ac­knowledgeth S. Ioh. 19. 10. 11 Judge Pilate to have power against him. Besides this, he is a King, a Priest, and a Prophet: a King, to command; a Priest, to offer sacrifice; and a Prophet, to foretell, what he sees meet. Nay there is hardly a Citizen of London, but hath a treble relation to severall privileges: 1. to the generall Rights as he is a free denison of this Nation; 2. to others, as he is Citizen of London; and to a third sort, as he is free of this or that Company. And shall the meanest Freeman enjoy his severall Rights, when the Ministers and Stewards of God are cut out of all. Are we dealt with as the Dispensers of Gods high and saving mysteries? Nay, are we so well dealt with as the lowest members of this Nation? Is not this the way to lead in Jeroboams Priests; to fill the Pulpits with the scum of the people, and to bring the Priesthood into utter contempt? O all ye, that passe by the way, behold, and consi­der, if ever the like shame befell any Nationall Church, that is threatened to ours, at this day. But Iud. 21. 25. thus it comes to passe, when there is no King in the Israel of God.

8. If this distinction between Clergie and Laity be a branch of Po­pery, how comes it to passe, that those great Reformers, and zealous enemies to Popery, suffered the Clergie to continue a di­stinct Province of themselves; and that they did not with Pope­ry quite extinguish this distinction? Why doth Q. Elizabeth call them 8 Eliz. 1. a great State of this Kingdome, if they be no State at all? Why did King Edward VI. that vertuous Lady Queene Elizabeth, and wise King Iames, summon the Bishops to convene in Convocation as a distinct society; and to vote in the House of Peers as Lords spirituall; plainly by title distinguished from the Lords temporall? I. G. p. 3. Ʋndoubtedly (say you) all priviledges of the Clergie, that are (or were) contrariant to the Laws of the Land, [Page 71] were abolisht in the reign of Henry the eight. They were so. It fol­lows therefore undoubtedly, that these priviledges, which were continued through so many Princes raigns that were enemies to Popery, were neither Popish nor contrariant to the Laws of the Land. And yet some of those times were not over favourable to the Clergie.

9. That we are a distinct society, or Corporation from the peo­ple is evident; by the Coronation Oath, by Magna Charta, by severall Acts of Parliament, and by Scripture itself. The Coro­nation Oath observes the distinction of Clergie and People; and assures us, that they shall be distinctly preserved. Magna Char­ta does the like: and the Acts of Parliament distinguish the Kings subjects into Clergie and Laity, allotting to each their severall priviledges; allowing the people to take many courses, which the Clergie may not. This distinction is approved by Scrip­ture, where Numb. 3. 12. & 18. 6. the Lord takes the Levites from among the children of Israel. S. Paul assures us, that Heb. 5. 1. p Occumen. in loc. Every High Preist is TAKEN FROM AMONG MEN. And the Scholiast tels us▪ that [...] is there taken for [...] as if the Apostle had said, he is set apart from men, from the Common people. This exemption or distinction, which you are pleased to call I. G. p. 3. a branch of Popery, or Ib. p. 8. of Antichristian usurpation, is here justified by Gods owne word. And Josephus that was well skilled in Moses writings, and Judaicall Antiquities, testifies, that Moses tribum Levi, à commu­nione populi se­gregavit. Joseph. Antiq. l. 3 c. 13. Moses did seperate the tribe of Levi from the communitie of the people. He might have said, that God himself did it; for the text saith plainly, that Deut. 10. 8. Num. 16. 9. THE LORD SEPERATED THE TRIBE OF LEVI to beare the Arke of the Covenant, to stand before the Lord, to admi­nister unto him, and to blesse in his name. From that time forward Num. 1. 47. 49. Num [...]. 33. &c. they were not numbred amongst the rest of the people; Num. 3. 12. the Lords they were: and Num. 1. 51. the rest of the tribes were strangers to their office. Gen. 47. 20 22. The very light of nature taught the heathen to distinguish between Preist and people; and to allow them di­stinct priviledges. And the light of Scripture taught Christi­ans to do the like: hence is it, that not onely in the Canons of the Church, but also in the Imperiall constitutions this distinction between the Clergie and Laity is most frequent and familiar. O­therwise what strange confusion must necessarily have over­spread [Page 72] the face of the Church, if this distinction had not been religiously preserved? What diverse would not see, these times have enforced us to feele.

10. And yet for all this, we say not, that Vndoubtedly that privilege was abolisht, that any Society should be ex­empt from secu­lar power: for that were to set up two Supremacies [...] G p. 3. we are exempt from secular power; neither set we up two Supremacies. This will prove to be your Popish or Anarchicall doctrine; yours, I say, that would so fain cast this aspersion upon us. For do not you tell us, that Ib. p. 9. ther's a Supremacie in the King, and a Supremacie in the Parliament? Are not here two Supremacies set up by you; that so you may make the Parliament Law-lesse, and subject to no power? We detest and have abjured the Popes Suprema­cie; and not onely that, but all other Supremacies, besides the Kings, within these his Majesties Dominions and Countries. For we have sworne, that King Charles is THE ONELY SU­PREME GOVERNOR of all his Realms, over all persons in all causes. But you induce the peoples Supremacie. Wheras we know no Coordination but a Subordination of all persons severally and jointly to his Majestie, and to his Majestie onely, within all his Dominions.

11. We protest before God and the world, sincerely and from the heart, that the King is major singulis, & major univer­sis, greater then any, and greater then all the Members of his Dominions, whether in, or out of Parliament: and that he is Tertul ad Scap. c. 2. homo a Deo secundus, & solo Deo minor, second to God, and lesse then God onely. To this our best Lawyers bear Testimonie, even that Bracton. temps H. 3. l. 4. c. 24. Sect. 5. Sir Ed [...]: Coke in Litleton La. Sect. 140. the King is Superior to all, and Inferior to none. And our 3. Ed. 3. 19. Acts of Parliament say the same. Thus much in substance we have sworne; and we unfainedly beleeve, that all the world cannot absolve us of this Oath. As therefore we hitherto have done, so shall we still, by Gods grace, bear faith, and true Al­legiance to his Majestie, his heirs and successors, though it be to the hazard of our liberty, of our estates, and lives. Yea we acknowledge our selves obliged to the Laws of the Land in all those things, which concern the right and peaceable ad­ministration of the State. To the King we pay first fruits and tenths: which Lay Impropriators are seldome charged with. To the King we grant and pay subsidies after an higher rate, [Page 73] then any of the Laity, by many degrees. Where then are the two Supremacies, which we erect?

12. 'Tis true indeed, that Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton, l. 2. Sect. 136. For deciding of controversies, and for distribution of Justice within this Realm, there be TWO DI­STINCT JURISDICTIONS, the one ECCLESIASTICALL, limited to certain spirituall and particular cases. The Court, wherin these causes are handled, is called Forum Ecclesiasticum, the Eccle­siasticall Court. The other is SECULAR and generall; for that it is guided by the Common and generall Law of the Realme. Now this is a maxime, affirmed by the Master of the Law, that Ib. The Law doth appoint every thing to be done by those, unto whose of­fice it properly appertaineth. But Cod. Asric. can. 59. unto the Ecclesiasticall Court di­verse causes are committed jure Apostolico, by the Apostolicall Law. Such are those, that are commended by S. Paul to Timothy the Bishop of the Ephesians, and to Titus the Bishop of the Cretians. First, to 1 Tim. 5. 1 [...]. receive an accusation against a Presbyter, and the manner how. 2ly, to Ib. v. 20. Tit. 1. 13. rebuke him, if occasion require. 3ly. 1 Tim. 6. 3, 4. 5. If any Presbyter preach unsound doctrine, the Bishop is to withdraw himself from him, Beza & Piscat. in loc. that is to excommunicate him. 4ly, 2 Tim. 3. 2. &c. In the same man­ner he is to use blasphemers, disobedient and unholy persons, false ac­cusers, trucebreakers, Traitors, and the like. 5ly, Tit. 3. 10▪ The Bishop is to reject, Piscat. in loc. that is, to excommunicate, all Hereticks after the first and se­cond admonition.

13. Sir Ed. Coke in Litletop, l. 2. Sect. 136. These things the Ordinary (or Bishop) ought to do De droit, of Right (as Sir Edward Coke speaks) that is to say, he ought to do it by the Ecclesiasticall Law IN THE RIGHT OF HIS OFFICE. These censures belong not to secular Courts; they are derived from our Saviours Preistly power, aud may not be denounced by any, that is not a Preist at least. And, Ib. a Maxime it is of the Common Law, (saith that famous Lawyer) that where the right is spirituall, and the remedy therefore ONELY BY THE ECCLESIASTICALL LAW, the c [...]nusans thereof doth appertain to the Ecclesiasticall Court. But Ib. Sect. 201. A BIHOP is regu­larly THE KINGS IMMEDIATE OFFICER to the Kings Court of Justice in causes Ecclesiasticall. Therefore not a com­pany of Presbyters: no rule for that. And this is it that wrings and vexes you so sorely. For your a me is And why may not the great re­venues of the Bi­shops b [...] divided, to maintain a preaching Mini­ster [...] ▪ and their Iurisdiction also, for the better over sight and censure of man­ners? I. G. p. [...]. to share the Bishops Lands and Jurisdiction among you of the Presbyteriall faction. [Page 74] This your vast covetousnesse & ambition have of late cost the Church full deere, and have been a maine cause of these divi­sions and combustions. By these means you have made a for­cible entrie upon Nabaoths Vineyard. It were well Ahab and Je­zabel would beware in time. However, wise men consider, that every one, that steps up to the Bar is not fit to be a Judge; nor every one, that layes about him in the Pulpit, meet to be a Bishop.

14. Besides, in those Epistles this power is committed to single Governors, to Timothy alone, and to Titus alone. But Timothy and Titus were Bishops strictly and properly so called; that is, they were of an higher order then Presbyters, even of the same with the Apostles. Hence is that of S. Cyprian, Cyp ep. 27. n. 1 Ec­clesia super EPISCOPOS constituitur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae PER EOSDEM PRAEPOSITOS gubernatur. The Church is settled upon BISHOPS, and every Act of the Church is ruled BY THE SAME GOVERNORS. By Bishops, not by Presbyters. Now the word of God is, norma sui, & obliqui, the rule, whereby we must be regulated: from which if we depart, we fall foule, or runne awry. Since then the Church is settled upon Bishops, it is not safe for any King or State to displace them, lest they un­settle themselves and their posterity. They that have endea­voured to set the Church upon Presbyters, Quod non peri­ [...]ium metuere debemus, have incurred such dangers, as they wot not of. For if we beleive S. Cyprian, de [...]ffenlâ Domini, quando aliqui de Presbyteris they offend God, [...]ec Evangelii, they are unmindfull of the Gospel; [...]ec loci sui memores, they affront the perpetuall practise of the Church; sed neque su­turum Domini judicium, neque nunc sibi praepo­situm Episcopum cogitantes, quod nu [...]quam omnino sub antecessori­bus factum est, cum contemptu & contume [...]ià praepositi totum sibi vendicent? Atque utinam non they neglect the judgment to come; and prostratâ fratrum nostro­rum salute sibi omnia vindica­rent Cyrp ep. 10. endanger the souls of their brethren, whom Christ dyed for. Neither is this the opinion of S. Cyprian onely; Ig­natius speaks as much; Ignat ad Phi­ladelph p 91. [...], As many as are Christs, cleave fast to the Bishop. But these that forsake him, and hold communion [...], with the accursed, shall be cut off with them. This is Ignatius genuine reso­lution, attested by Vedel [...]us from Geneva: and if true; a most dreadfull sentence for those, that endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy.

15. As for the Priviledges of the Clergie, which you are so earnest to ruinate, I shall manifest, that they have footing in the Law of Nature, in the Law of Moses, and in the Gospel. In the [Page 75] Law of Nature. Gen. 14. 10. Abraham give tithes to the Preist of the most high God, Gen. 47 22. The Preists in Egypt had lands belonging to them, as also portions of the Kings free bountie. And the same Law of Nature taught Pharoah and Joseph Ib. & v. 26. not to alienate either the Preists lands, or other their maintenance in time of extremest famine. By the light of Nature Ezra 7. 24. A [...]taxerxes King of Perfia de­creed, that it should not be lawfull for any man to lay toll, tri­bute, or custome upon any Preist, Levite, Singer, Porter, or other Minister of the house of God. And 1 Mac. 10. 65. King Alexander sonne of Antiochus Epiphanes made Jonathan the High Preist a Duke, and Governor of a Province. Ib. v. 62. He commanded him also to be clothed in purple; and Ib v. 63. caused him to sit by, or with, his own Royall Person. Ib. v. 89. He sent also to the same High Preist a Buckle or collar of Gold, to weare; even such as were in use with the Princes of the blood. And Ib v. 63. by Proclamation he commanded that no man should molest the High Preist, or prefer complaint against him. And can it be denied, that Heb. 7. 1. Melchisedec, Preist of the most high God, was King of Salem, and made so by God himself?

16. In the Law, Ecclus 45. 20. the Lord made Aaron more honourable, and gave him an heritage. He divided unto him the first fruits of the in­crease; and to him especially he appointed bread in abundance. Exod. 28. 2. For him he ordained glorious and beautifull garments. Ecclus. 45. 7. He beau­tified Aaron with comely ornaments, and clothed him with a robe of glory. Ex. 28. 36. 37. Upon his head he set a miter, and Ecclus. [...]5. 12. a crown of pure gold upon the miter, wherein was ingraved Holinesse; And this, if I mistake not, is Philo Iud. de vitâ Mosis. that [...], which Philo tels us, was set upon the Preists head, and is the cheife ornament of the Eastern Kings. The reason, he gives for it, is this; because Ib. while the Preist is discharging his dutie he is more eminent then any person whatsoever, even then Kings. But I rather conceive, it was because at that time he represented, or prefigured the Royall Preisthood of our Saviour.

17. For the Gospel, we have prophecies, in what state and honor Preists ought to be had among Christians. Witnesse that Evangelicall Prophet, whose words are these, Es. 61 6. s [...] Soli Episcopi & Presbyteri pro­pri [...] jam vocan­tur in Ecclesiâ Sacerdotes. Aug. de civit. Dei. l. 10. c. 10. Ye shall be named THE PREISTS OF THE LORD (as they are at this day): Men shall call you the Ministers of our God. Ye shall [Page 76] eat the riches of the Gentiles, and ye shall be EXALTED WITH THEIR GLORY. This is one▪ the other shall be from that royall Psalmist; Psal. 45. 17. In stead of thy Fathers thou shalt have children, whom thou mayest make PRINCES in all Lands. Do not you go about to make the Word of God a lye, while you endeavour to dis-inherit the Clergie of these privileges and honors? But Rom. 3 4. God shall be true, he shall be justified in his sayings; and every man shall be a liar. Behold, how these prophecies were fulfilled un­der the Gospēl. When our Saviour sent forth his Apostles and Disciples to preach the Gospel, and to dispense his heavenly mysteries, he daines them with this honour, to rank them for usage with himself; S. Mat. 10 40. S. Luk. 10. 16. He that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that receiveth you, receiveth me. To intimate to all Christians, that they ought to use his messengers, as they would Christ in his own person. For whether well, or ill, he will take it as done to himself. Hence is it, that Gal. 4. 14. the Galathians received S. Paul as an Angel of God, even AS CHRIST JESUS. Yea Ib. v▪ 15. they were ready to pull out their own eyes, to do him a pleasure. And Act. 28. 27. 10. when this Apostle came to Melita, he, and those that attend­ed him, were courteously entertained, honoured they were with many honors, and enriched with gifts, by the Prince of that Island, and his people.

18. Some, it may be, may conceive, that these were but personall honors; and that they belong to them onely, whom Christ immediately ordained. But the Scripture will teach us a better lesson. For doth not our Saviour say, S. Ioh. 13. 20. He that recei­veth whomsoever I send, receiveth me? Now we know, that our Saviour sendeth not onely by himself, but by those also, to whom he hath given power to send, and ordain. Thus by S. Paul he sent Timothy and Titus: and we find Act. 14. 20. S. Barnabas with S. Paul ordaining Presbyters in all Churches, where they came. This therefore is a generall rule; 1 Tim. 5. 17. those Governors, who labour in the Word and Doctrine (whether they be ordained by Christ, or his Apostles, or any other, to whom this authoritie is duely given) are WORTHY OF DOUBLE HONOR; that is (saith Primasius) Primas. in 1 Th [...]. [...] 23 both in love, and place. Thus 2 Cor 7. 15. Titus by the Corinthians was received with fear and trembling, and memorable obedience. Theod. in loc. They honoured him (as Theodoret speaks) as their Fa­ther, [Page 77] and reverenced him as their spirituall Governor. These honors are due, not so much in respect of personall worth, as in re­gard of the office, which they bear. This appears by S. Paul; who willeth the Philippins not onely to Philip. 2. 29. receive Epaphroditus, their Apostle, or Bishop, with all gladnesse; but, [...], he chargeth them to hold SUCH, AS HE WAS, in honour and reputation. All must be thus honoured; but those most, that are most worthy.

19. Constantine, the first Emperor that ever was christen'd, had learned this lesson; Ruffin hist. l. 9. c. 10. he therefore did reverence the Bi­shops, ad imaginem quandam divinae praesentiae, as if he had some resemblance of God before his eyes. Theod. hist. l 1. c. 11. He kissed those Bishops skars, that had suffered for Christs most holy Name. Euseb. de vi [...]â Constant. Mag. l 1. c. 33. He entertain­ed divers of them at his own table: and Gelas. Cyzie. l. 1. c. 37. at their departure he bestowed upon them many & goodly gifts. Ruffin. hist. l 9. c. 10. Upon Bishops he conferr'd very many privileges, and the highest Honors he had to bestowe. He ordained, that Euseb de vitâ Constant. M. l 4. c. 27. those Canons, which were agreed upon by the Bishops, and had received his Royall appro­bation, should be of more sacred authority, then any Law or sen­tence, that should passe from his highest Judges: and that none of his Princes should dare to infringe them. To conclude, Theodoret. hist. l. 1. c. 2. he commanded the Governors of his severall Provinces to give reverence and honour to Bishops; threatning no lesse then death to such as should revile or abuse them. What reverence and esteem Bishops were of with his severall sons, though differing in Religion, the Church History manifests: for these and all other privileges were inviolably preserved to the Church, till that Apostata Julian ware the Crown. But those pious and or­thodox Emperors, that succeeded him, raised up the Church, and made good her former privileges.

20. The reason why good Princes were so carefull of the Church and Churchmen, was Euseb. de vitâ Constant M. l. 1. c. 35. because they were confident, with Great Constantine, that God gave a blessing to their af­fairs, for the Bishops sakes. And those two wise Emperors Leo and Constantine professe with Justinian, that Ius Graeco-Rom [...]tom. 2. lib. Leonis & Con­stant Tit. 3. n 8. the peace and feli­citie of their people, as well for body as soul, depend upon the harmo­nious consent of the Imperiall and Episcopall functions. Mark that. In Scripture 2 Reg. [...]. 12. &c. 13. 14. the Prophets and servants of God are called [Page 78] the charet of Israel, and the horsemen thereof; because Gen note in 2 Reg. 13. 14. by their pray­ers they did more prosper their Countrey, then by force of arms. Yea Ib. by them God blessed his people. These were the Church-priviledges; and these the opinions the most Christian Princes had of Church­men. And you cannot say, that any of these Emperors had any dependance upon the Pope, or any compliance with him. But we are fallen into those times, wherein it is accounted losse, to bestowe cost upon Christ; pietie, to rifle the Church; and good service to God, to murder his Apostles and Priests. In­deed, what ever is good and commendable, is now with the round brotherhood cried out upon as Popish. By this time, I hope, it appears, that Immunities arising from the error of the times, not the te­nure of Scrip­ture. I. G. p 4. these immunities, which belong to the Church, arise not from the errour of the times, as you suppose, but from the tenure of Scripture. That's the tenure, we hold by.

CHAP. XII. Whether to sit and vote in Parliament be incongruous to the calling of Bishops.

1. SOmething an hard theme to treat upon, and unplea­sing to the times. And yet I must say something to it, lest I seem to desert the cause, to blame our Predecessors of indiscretion, and to acknowledge that weaknesse in our Bi­shops, which the wisest of this Kingdom know to be far from them. What? Not contented to strip us of our rights, lands, and priviledges, but you must twit us with the losse of One of the pri­vileges of the Clergie was for the Bishops to sit and vote in the House of Peers. yet that is abo­lish [...] as incon­gruous to their calling I. G. p. 4. the Bishops Votes, as if they were neither fit to sit or vote, in the House of Peers? That this hath been done cannot be denied; but how justly I shall not question for the honour I bear to my Sove­raign. Yet thus much is evident to every single eye, that we have had many even and conscionable Parliaments, where­in Bishops have voted: what kinde of Parliament we have had without them, some will make bold to speak hereafter. But a word in private. Were they not thrust out, lest the King should have too many faithfull Counsellors in the House? Were they not removed, to make way for these civill broils? [Page 79] The Incendiaries knew full well, that those messengers and makers of peace would never have passed a Vote for war.

2. But what were the motives, that wrought upon His Majestie, to yeeld to have the Bishops turned out of that House, Lex terrae p. 14 wherein they had voted from the first day, that ever Parliament sate in England? And before ever there was an House of Commons, they had their Votes in the great Coun­cels of the Kingdom; as Sir Robert Cotton manifests in his Treatise, that the Soveraigns person is required in the great Councels of the State. p. 3. &c. If at any time they have been forced out of these Parliaments, or great Assemblies, it hath been with so ill successe, that with all possible speed they have been recal­led. Will you hear the motives? Surely they were the very same, that drove the King from Westminster, and London. I re­member, the Clothiers were perswaded in a mutinous man­ner to cry down the Bishops votes, because they had no market for their clothes. And now they cry out, that they want wooll to make clothes. Is not this the blessing they have gained by that hideous and senselesse out-cry?

3. But why was this privilege abolisht, as incongruous to their calling? Are Bishops unfit to advise, or assent in framing Laws? Surely they are rationall men, and learned men. By reason of their age, and offices, which they have heretofore passed tho­row, they must needs be men of much experience. And it is to be presumed so many, for so many, as conscionable, and as much for the common good, as any. And such men are most fit to prepare, and commend Laws for and to Kings. For I have learned, that Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton, l 2. Sect. 138. this is a strong argument in Law, Omne factum, si rectè factum non est, peccatum est, Nec rectè fa­ctum esse ullo modo potest, quod non à rectâ ratione proficisci­tur. Aug. de util. credendi. c. 12. Nihil, quod est contra rationem, est licitum, Nothing contrary to reason, is law­full. For REASON IS THE LIFE OF THE LAW; nay the COMMON LAW it self IS NOTHING ELSE BUT REASON. Which is to be understood of an artificiall perfe­ction of reason, gotten by ¹ long studie, ² observation, and ³ experience, and not every mans naturall reason: for, Nemo nascitur artifex, no man is born Master of his profession. Against reason there­fore it is, that men of long study, much observation, and experi­ence, should be excluded from voting in matters of such high concernment. And some men, that have scarce any of these, [Page 80] should be admitted, as if they were born wise, or gained State­experience by hawking, or hunting. 'Tis true, that Gu [...]d. Pancirol. de Magistrat▪ Municipal. c. 2. Senatore sons might be admitted to the government of the Common­wealth, before they were five and twenty yeers of age: but Ib. c. [...]. before they were twenty and five yeers compleat, they could give no suffrage among the rest of the Senators, though Senators. This was the wisdom of that thriving Roman State.

4. Now give me leave to enquire more strictly, what it is, that is incongruous to the calling of Bishops. Is it to sit in the House of Peers? or to Vate in the House of Peers? or both? That the Lords Spirituall have sate and voted with the Lords Temporall, cannot be denied. The Acts of Parliament speak it, from the first Session to this last. Let it not be thought incongruous for Bishops to sit with the best of Subjects. [...]useb. de vitâ Constant. M. l. 1. c 33 They sate at Constantines own table. Nor to be numbred among Peers. Psal. 45. 17. The prophecie saith, that they may be made Princes. Nor to vote in matters of State: since usually they are men of great Learning, of much experience, observation, and conscience. Such as fear God, honour their Soveraign, and love their Countrey with-out by ends. Such they are, and such they ought to be. And though sometimes there be a Judas among the twelve, yet is the Calling never the worse.

5. Had it been incongruous to their Calling, Melchisedech that was both King and Priest had never been a type of our Savi­our. The Law of God and Nature abhor that, which is incon­gruous. Had it been incongruous to the Priesthood, God had never made Moses and Eli Governors of his people, in temporall affairs; for Psal. [...]9 [...]. they were both Priests. Exod. 18. 14. 17. &c. Jethro, Priest of Midian, was of excellent use to Moses in State affairs. And it may not be forgotten, that 2. Reg. 12. 2. King Jehoash thrived, as long as he heark­ned to Jehoiada the High Priest. But when he sleighted the Priests counsell, he suddenly fell into the extremest miseries. 2 Chron. 24. 21. 23. &c. Our Histories will likewise tell you, how K. Henry VII. prosper'd by applying himself to the ad­vice of his Bishops, Morton, Denny, Fox, and others. And how his Son K. Henry VIII. never thrived, after he turned his ears from the counsell of his Prelates. And yet he excluded them not from Parliaments; he could not be drawn to that. Sure, [Page 81] had this been incongruous to their calling, your fellow- Ministers of London would never have granted, that two distinct offices may be formally in one and the same person; as Melchizedech was formally a King and Priest. I. D. p. 212.

6. A wonder it is, that you & your faction should spie thi [...] incongruitie, which was never discerned by the wisest of our fore-fathers. The Writ, which summons the Parliament, runs thus, Iustice Ienkins Inconven. p. 4. Rex habiturus colloquium & tractatum cum Praelatis, Mag­natibus, & Proceribus. The King intending a Conference and Trea­tie with his Prelates, and Great men, and Peers. This Writ, as some report, was framed under K. Henry III. and is continued in the same terms to this day. And yet no incongruitie discerned in it, till ye came in with your new Lights, which issue from your light brains. But now the Bishops must no more vote, no, not sit in Parliament; because you, forsooth, conceive it to be incongruous to their calling. But will any wise man take your word for a Law, or imagine it to be more authentick, then the resolutions of all our fore-fathers? You have no way to fin­ger the Bishops lands and Jurisdiction, but by turning them out of the House. This, this was it, that moved you to charge their presence in Parliament with incongruity.

7. The Lawyers tell us, that Ib. the Writ of Summons is the basis and foundation of the Parliament. And Ib. if the foundation be de­stroyed, what becomes of the Parliament? Truly it falls; saith Justice Jenkins; according to that Ib. p. 5. maxime both in Law and Reason, Sublato fundamento opus cadit, the Foundation being taken away, the work falls. If then it shall be proved, that you endea­vour to ruine the Foundation, the Writ of Summons, it must ne­cessarily follow, that you endeavour the ruine of the Parlia­ment. By the Writ the King is to have treatie with his Pre­lates. But you suffer him to have no treaty with his Prelates. Where then is the Writ? Nay, the Bishops are quite voted down root and branch. How then shall he treat in Parliament with those, that have no being? The Lord commands Exod. 25. 10. the Ark to be made of Shittim-wood: If there had been no Shittim wood, the Ark could not haue been made. If there be no Pre­lates, where's the treatie? Where the Parliament? It will not serve to slip in the Presbyters; they are not the men, they are [Page 82] not called for. Sit Ed. Coke Instit. part 4. c 1. Sect. Of what persons. These are Episcopall privileges: Mag, Charta. c. 38. all other Ec­clesiasticall persons are to be contented with those liberties and free customes, quas priùs habuerunt, which they enjoyed here­tofore.

8. The Writ summoned this Parliament, for the defence of the Church of England. Herein you have also made the Writ void; for you have destroyed the Church of England. And in destroying the Church, you have destroyed the Writ. The Com­mission is for defence; they then that destroy, what they are bound to defend, overthrow their Commission. S. Mat. 10. 12. Our Saviour sent his Apostles to preach peace; Rom. 12. 14. to blesse, and not to curse; Gal. 1. 10. to please God, and not man. If then we preach warre, and not peace; if we curse, when we ought to blesse, if we please men, and not God, we forfeit our Commission. S. Paul is plain; Ib. If we please men, we are none of Christs servants; much lesse Apostles. For Rom. 6. 16. his servants we are, whom we obey, whom we please. If then we prove S. Mat. 25. 30. faithlesse and unprofitable servants, we shall be turned out of our Masters house, even out of doores, and cast into outer darknesse. Upon these grounds I argue thus. He that overthrows the prime intention of the Writ, overthrows the Writ. But you have overthrown the prime intention of the Writ. Therefore you have overthrown the Writ. That you have overthrown the prime intention of the Writ, I prove thus. The prime intention of the Writ is for the State, and defence of the Church of England. But you have Defensionem Ecclesiae Angli­c [...]ae, that is gone. Just Ienkins Inconven. p. 5. overthrown the State and de­fence of the Church of England. You have therefore overthrown the prime intention of the Writ. The second Proposition cannot be denied, it is so palpably true. The former is Sir Edw: Cokes; his words are these. Sir Ed Coke Instit. part 4. c. 1. Sect. The mat­ters. The State and defence of the Church of Eng­land is first in intention of the Writ. And Iustice Ienkins Inconvenien p. 5. if the Writ be made void, all the processe is void; and so farewell Parliament.

9. Besides, I have learned, that Ib. p. 4. the assembly of Parliament is for three purposes. First, for weighty affairs, that concern the King. Secondly, For the defence of his Kingdome. And thirdly, for de­fence of the Church of England For the King, no question, but the Bishops are faithfull to him. We see, they have constant­ly adhered to him in these times of triall. In Gods and the Kings cause they have all suffered, and some died commen­dably, [Page 83] if not gloriously. For the defence of the Kingdome none more forward with their advice, purses, and prayers. And for the Church, who so fit, who so able to speake as Bishops? Versed they are in the divine Law; in Church history, and in the Ca­nons of the Church. They fully understand not onely the pre­sent, but the ancient state of the Church. They know, what is of the Essence of the Church; what necessary, and what convenient onely; what is liable to alteration, and what not. These things are within the verge of their profession, and most proper for them to speak to.

10. When King David first resolved to bring up the Arke of the Lord from Kiriath-jearim, into his own Citie, 1 Chron. 13. 1. he consulted with the Captains of thousands, & hundreds, & cum universis Principibus, and with all his Princes, about this businesse, Ib. v. 7. By their advice he orders, that the Arke should be carried in a new Cart; and Ʋzzah and Ahio are to drive it. But what be­comes of this consultation? 2 Sam. 67. Vzzah died be­fore the Ark, for usurping that, which did▪ not appertain to his vocation [...] for this charge was given to the Priests, Gen. Note in 1 Chron 13 10. An error was committed clean thorough, and Ʋzzah suffers for it. Though David were a marvelous holy man, and a good King, and had a company of wise, religious Councellors about him, in the removall, and ordering of the Arke, they were mistaken, because they did not advise with the Preists about it. For Mai. 2 7. the Preists lips preserve knowledge▪ & they shall inquire of the Law at his mouth. And Numb. 4 15. the Law will not have a Cart to carrie the Arke, nor Lay­men to meddle with it. David saw his mistake with sorrow; and confesseth to the Preists, that 1 Chron. 15. 13. he and his Councellors had not sought God after the due order. And why so? Ib. Quia non era­tis praesentes (so the Fathers read) because the Preists were not pre­sent, & he had not consulted with them about this sacred bu­sinesse. And hence it is, that Ib. they did illicitum quid, somthing that was unlawfull. That then a thing be not unlawfull, we must consider, not onely what is to be done; but the order and man­ner is to be considered, how it ought to be done; least failing of the due order, it prove unlawfull. Most Christians know bonum, what is good; but few are skilled in the bene, how it ought to be done; and that is it, that makes so many ruptures, so ma­ny breaches, and factions in the world, because every man will prescribe the order, and manner; which, God knows, they ttle understand.

[Page 84]11. When therfore David had once more resolved to fetch up the Arke from the house of Obed Edom, he calls for the Preists, and acknowledgeth, that 1 Chron. 15. 2. none ought to carrie the Arke of God, but they; and that Ib. v. 13. therefore the Lord had made a breach upon him and his, because the Preists had not brought it up at first. That this fault may be duly and truely mended, Ib. [...]. 12. David com­mands the Preists to sanctifie themselves, and to bring up the Arke. They did so, Ib. v. 1 [...]. they brought it up upon their shoulders, Num. 4. 15. ac­cording to their dutie. And 1 Chron. 15. 26. God helped the Levites, that bare the Arke; because it was now done in due order. It is no shame then for us, to acknowledge our error with David, and with him to amend, what is amisse. Yea this was such a warning to him, that 1 Chron. 17. 1. he would not so much as resolve to build an house for the Lord, till he had acquainted the Pro­phet Nathan with it. In matters therefore, that concern the Arke of the Covenant, the Church of the living God, it is not safe to do any thing without the Preists advice. If then the cheif and maine end of calling a Parliament be for the good of the Church, it is most necessary to have the cheif Fathers of the Preists present. But Sir Edward Coke assures me, that this is the main end of calling a Parliament. His words are these; Sir Id Coke In­ssit. part. 4. c. 1. Sect. The mat­ters. Though the State and defence of the Church of England be last named in the Writ, yet is it FIRST IN INTENTION. And what is first in in­tention is chiefly aimed at, all other things that are handled, are but as means to effect that. It is not then incongruous, but most consonant to the calling of Bishops to sit and Vote in Parliament.

12. Besides, Ib. if the honour of God, and of holy Church be first in intention, how shall the honour of God, and of the Church be pro­vided for, how defended, when the Fathers of the Church are discarded, who know best, what belongs to Gods honour; who are most able to speake in defence of the Church, & to shew how she ought to be provided for? Shall she not in their absence be layed open to the subtill foxes, and mercilesse bores to wast and distroy her? Yea Iust. Ienkins In­conven. p 5▪ by this means she is already distroyed. So pious Justice Jenkins. The incongruitie then is not to the Bi­shops calling, but to the covetousnesse of bores and foxes.

13. Another incongruity will follow upon this. Iust Ienkins In­conven. p [...]. Instit. [...]. 4▪ c 1. Sect Of what persons▪ The whole Parliament is one corporate body consisting of the HEAD AND THE [Page 85] THREE ESTATES. If one of the Estates be wanting, it can­not be called a whole, but an imperfect, a maimed Parliament. But Sir Ed. Coke Ib. the Bishops are one of the three Estates. Suppose them to be the more feeble and lesse honourable Estate, or Member, yet 1. Cor. 12. 22. 23 this very Member is necessary; and the body is but lame without it. Take heed then, that the excluding of Bishops, be not incon­gruous to the Parliament. I see not, how it can be incongruous to the Prelates to suffer wrong, since 1 S. P [...]. 2▪ 21. for this purpose they are called. But it is incongruous to the Parliament, to be without them; since without them, it is not a whole, but an imperfect Parliament. For I have read, that Lex terrae p. 14 Bishops were in all Parliaments, and voted in them, since we had any. Yea, that great Master of the Law justifies, that Sir Ed Coke In­stit. part. [...] c. 1. Sect. Of what persons. every Bishop ought ex debito justiciae of due justice to be summoned by Writ, to every Parliament, that is holden. But if they leave out the Bishops, they begin with injustice, and lay but an ill foundation for so great a Court of Justice. And where injustice beares the sway, there is little Justice to be ho­ped for. So they are incongruous in the first stone, or foundati­on of a Parliament.

14. There is a Statute, that no Act of Parliament be passed by any Soveraign of this Realm, or any other authority what soever, without the advice & assent of the three Estates of the Kingdome, viz. of the ¹ Lords spirituall, & ² temporall, & the ³ Com­mons of this Realme. And all those are solemnly cursed, by the whole Parliament, that shall at any time endeavour to alter this Act, or to make any Statute otherwise then by the consent of all these, or the Major part of them. This, as the learned in the Law report, is upon record in the Parliament Roles.

15. And what comfort, I beseech you, can his Majestie have to call a Parliament without Bishops, since he cannot assure him­self of Gods assistance without them? Beda Eccles▪ hist l. 3. c. 7. Cenwalch King of the West-Saxons was sensible, that his Province was destitute of Gods protection, while it was without a Bishop. Indeed Bafil. M. [...]p. [...]1. a good Bishop is (with Gregory, Metropolitan of Cesarea) not onely the beautie of the Church, and a fortresse to his flock, but he is the safety of his Country. It was the religious conceit of our country men here­tofore, that Rog. Hoveden. in Hen. [...]. p▪ 601. both King and Kingdome have by the Church a solid, [...] sure foundation for their subsistence. And it was the usuall say­ing [Page 86] of King Iames, Confer. at Hampt. Court p. 36. & 82. No Bishop, no King. In Scripture the Preists are called 2 Reg. 13. 14. the Charets and horsemen of Israel; because by their prayers the Country prospered more then by force of armes. And the Greek Fathers observe, that 1 Tim. 2: 1. the Bishop is therefore to pray for all, Occumen. in Ioc. because he is the Common Father of all, be they good or bad.

16. And as he can have little spirituall comfort without Bishops; so [...]4 Ed. 1 c. 1. & 14. Ed. 3. c. 1. without them he can have no temporall releife, no Subsidies granted for his own supplies, or for the defence of the Kingdome. I am sure, none have been granted him at West­minster, since the expulsion of the Bishops. Thus have you moul­ded up such a Parliament, as was never known in this Realme, since these great Councels of State were first assembled. For though the Bishops were by his Majestie summoned according to justice; yet were they afterwards turned out at the instigation of a strong & tumultuous faction; & not suffered to vote in mat­ters that concerned either Church or State. Thus ye are be­come Hos. 5. 0 like the Princes of Judah, that remove the bounds; That is as the Genevians interpret, Gen. note in Ioc. ye have turned upside down all politi­call order, and all manner of Religion. Hos. 5. 10. Therefore upon those, that have done so, the Lord will powre out his wrath like water; which will surely overwhelm them, as it did those desperate sinners in the deluge. Thus I have manifested, that it is not incongruous to the calling of Bishops to sit, and vote in Parliament; but to exclude them is incongruous to the being of a Parliament, to the weale of the King, and safety of the Kingdom.

17. And yet, as if what-you had delivered, were ex tripode, as sure as Gospel, And then why may not the re­movall of their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction be consented to, as well, if it prove inconvenient & prejudiciall to the Church. I. G. p. 4. from barring their votes, you deduce an argument for taking away their Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall. If one be abolished, why may not the other be removed? As if, be­cause my cassocke is taken from me, I must necessarily be strip­ped out of my gowne 'Tis true, if this be also done, I must bear it patiently; but my patience doth not justifie their acti­on, that do me the injurie. Neither doth the former fact ju­stifie the latter: truly no more then Davids follie with Bathshe­ba can countenance the murder of Vriah. The question is not de fact [...], but de jure, not what is done, but whether it be justly done. If the fact may justifie a right, then may we maintaine [Page 87] robbing upon Salisbury Plain; because it hath been done there more then once. A wonder it is, you had not framed your argument thus: who knows not, that the Parliament caused the Arch Bishop of Canterbury to be beheaded? And then why may they not hang the rest of the Bishops, if their lives prove inconvenient, and prejudiciall to the Church? But with Julian the Apostata, ye had rather slay the Preisthood, then the Preists.

17. Indeed The abolition of the one, is no more against the Oath then of the other. I. G. p. 4. the removall of their Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction is no more against the Oath then the abolition of their Votes. Both alike in respect of the Oath; but if we consider the severall autho­rities, from whence they are derived, we shall find a difference; because the most part of their Jurisdiction is the grant of God; but their Voting among the Peers is by the favour of Princes, grounded upon the right of Nature, and that civill interest, which every free denizon ought to have in some measure, in disposing of his own, and assenting to new Laws. But suppose Princes may revoke their own favours, can they without pe­rill to their soules, cut off that entaile, which God hath settled upon his Church? I beleeve, no. But you will onely remove it, not abolish it. And removed it may be from Dorchester to Lin­colne, from Crediton to Exiter. But the removall of Ecclesiasti­call Jurisdiction from Bishops to Presbyters, is utterly unlawfull; since without sinne we may not alter the Ordinance of God, who settled this Jurisdiction upon Bishops onely, and not upon Presbyters; as is demonstrated in the next Chapter.

CHAP. XIII. Certaine light and scandalous passages concerning Prince and Preist tenderly touched.

1. THere's a great cry in the fourth page against the Juris­diction of Bishops, [...] inconvenient and prejudiciall to the Church; against unlawfull immunities, Anti-Evangelicall Pompe, combersome greatnesse, and Forfeiture by abuse. All these are cryed out upon, but none of them proved. I shall therefore passe these [Page 88] by as a distempered foame, or pulpit froath. Yet thus much I must say, that the Immunities of the Clergie, are held by Law, or not. If by Law, then are they not unlawfull, but legall. If legall, it is presumption in you to call them unlawfull. If unlawfull, shew against what Law. We take not your word to be so au­thenticke, as if we were bound to beleeve, what ever you say.

2. Somthing answerable to this it is, that you tel us, I. G. p. 4. when this Oath was framed, the Church was indued with the ignorance of the times. But when was that time? For that we may go seek; for you relate it not. If you had, perchance we might have shewed you as wise, and as learned men in those times, as Westminster affords at this day.

3. And yet upon these imaginations you conclude, that In all which respects the Oath was invalid▪ being vinculum iniqui­tatis. I. G. p. 4. the Kings Oath is invalid, and not onely so, but that it is vin­culum iniquitatis, the bond of iniquitie. The respects, you re­lie upon, are onely these. First, that Ib. p. 1. Prelacy is an usurpation contrary to Christs institution. 2ly, that Ib. p. 3. the Clergie [...]e of themselves a distinct Province, is a branch of Popery. 3ly, that Ib. p. 4. Bishops sitting and voting in the House of Peers, is abolisht as incongruous to their calling. 4ly, that Ib. the Church was endowed with diverse unlawful immunities. And last of all, that Ib. when this Oath was framed, the Church was indewed with the ignorance of the times. The foure former have been pretily well sif [...]ed, and a non liquet is re­turned, I find them not proved. When you make good the last, I shall, with Gods blessing, return you an answer.

4. In the mean space I cannot but tell you, that you have willfully & dangerously scandalized diverse Princes or bles­sed memorie; and charged them almost as deeply, as Act. 8. 23. S. Peter did Simon Magus, with the bond of iniquitie. A binding, in in­tangling sinne. Surely those Princes if you may be credited, tooke this Coronation Oath either ignorantly, o [...] maliciously. If ignorantly, they are simple, or carelesse: If maliciously, they were neither good Kings, nor good Christians. But light forsooth, hath shined forth since those mistie daies. I fear this late light, is but a false light: for it was never spyed by any, that were not condemned Hereticks, till now of late.

5. Well, thinke men, what they please, you have lately [Page 89] discovered, that the Jurisdiction, which was inconvenient and prejudiciall in the Bishops, will prove very convenient and com­modious for the Church in preaching Presbyters. Those immu­nities, that were unlawfull in them, will be lawfull in you. That pompe, which was Anti-evangelicall, and carnall in them, must needs be spirituall and throughly sanctified to such Evangelists as yourself. That combersome greatnesse will but fit your shoul­ders; and those great promotions, will not at all be unwildy to Presbyteriall Saul, which did comber Bishop David. And I. G. p 4. those priviledges, which were disadvantagious to the Church, and hindred the growth of religion, while they were in Episcopall hands▪ will in a Classicall Assembly turn to the advantage of the Church, and further her edification. If this be not your meaning, let the world judge. For these are your words; Ib. And why may not the great revenues of the Bishops, with their sole▪ Jurisdiction in so large a circuit, be indicted and convict to be against the edificati­on of the Church; and it be found more for the glory of God; that both THE REVENUE BE DIVIDED, to maintain a preaching Ministery, and THEIR JURISDICTION also, for the better o­versight and censure of manners. You have indicted them indeed, and their revenues, as if under the Bishops there were no preach­ing Ministery, no censure of manners; as if under them there were nothing to the edification of the Church or the glory of God. Wher­as it is well known, that whilest the Bishops enjoyed their Ju­risdiction, other manner of Sermons were preached, then have been ever since.

6. You have already vaunted, that the Bishops revenues and Jurisdiction are against the edification of the Church; and I make no question, but you will justifie, that the abolishing of the three Creeds, is much to the edification of Gods people. And is not the silencing of the ten Commandments, for the better o­versight and censure of manners? Thus you have also condemned that most excellent forme of Divine Service, and vented mul­titudes of heresies; and all for the glory of God. But when these things come to try all we shall certainly see, who will be con­victed by that grand Jury, S Mat 19▪ 2 [...]. that shall sit upon twelve thrones, Judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Not onely of Israel accor­ding to the flesh, but of Israel also according to faith.

[Page 90]7. But why are you so suddenly fallen from an abolition, to an alteration? Before you professe, I. G. p. 4. That the abolition of the one, is no more against the Oath, then of the other. There you would have the Bishops Jurisdiction abolisht with their Votes. But here you will have the Jurisdiction divided, their domination altered, and all to maintain a preaching Ministery. This you call Ib. the re­movall of their Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction; in the same page. Aa­ron must lay down his Miter and holy garments, that Korah may put them on. And S. Paul must resigne his Apostolicall rod to Simon Magus, to Alexander the Copper-smith, and to the brethren in Q [...]irpo. And why so? Alas, the Apostle-Bishops Ib. do not further, but hinder the work of the Gospel; They are super­annited and decrepit; away with them by all means, and bring in the young, lustie Presbyter-Bishops, Ib. where strong holds are to be vanquisht. These are the men will do the work, or the Pulpit and Church shall ring for it. This you call Ib. a good plea to ALTER the uselesse Anti-Evangelicall pomp. Indeed ' [...]is the best you have; and make the best you can of it, it will prove but an Anti-evangelicall and Antichristian plea; if we trust Scripture.

8. Yet, that this may be done according to your designe, you allow the King thus much power, Ib. that he may, notwith­standing his Oath, consent to ALTER the Clergies immunities. No Oath shall stand in the way, so ye may gain by it. What? again fallen from the question? From abrogation to alteration? What if I should tell you, that you have altered the state of the que­stion? That abrogation is the repealing, the disanulling of a Law; and not the changing of it? But this is no error with you, whose aim is to have Episcopacy abolisht, that so the im­munities and lands thereof may be transferred upon the Pres­bytery. This is the alteration you gape after. Yes, you would so; Ib. settled you would have them upon preaching Ministers, and Ib. p. 6. upon parochiall Pastors: as if none were Preachers or Pa­stors, but you of the Presbyteriall cut. I will not say, that you are Hereticks in this and in other your new-forged doctrines, invented to subvert Monarchy and Episcopacy. But I shall tell you S. Austins opinion, and so leave you to the opinion of the world. Haereticus est, ut mea fe [...]t opi­nio, qui alicuius temporalis commo­di & maximè gloriae principatus­que sui gratiâ, falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit, vel sequi­tur. Aug deutil▪ credend. c. 1. He, in my conceit, is an heretick (saith that Father) who [Page 91] FOR ANY TEMPORALL COMMODITIE, and chiefly FOR HIS OWN GLORY AND PREFERMENT, doth either raise or follow false and new opinions. And are not pelf, ho­nour, and preferment the cause of all these fidings, and sediti­ons, in Church, and State? If these times speak it not, I am deceived. As for your opinions, it hath been sufficiently mani­fested, that they are both false and new.

9. Be your opinions what they will, their immunities and rights must down, or you will fail in a Dilemma. I. G. p. [...]. The Clergie (say you) either hold their rights and immunities by Law, or other­wise. This is not to be denied. But what follows upon this? Ib. If by Law then the Parliament, which hath power to ALTER ALL LAWS, hath power to alter such Laws as give them their im­munities: and those Laws altered, the immunitie ceaseth; and so the Kings ingagement in that particular. If not by Law, it is but an usur­pation. You say it, and we grant it. For truth it is, that we claim no rights and immunities, but what the ancient and Christian Laws of this Realm have confirmed unto us by Act of Parliament.

10. You say, that the Parliament hath power to alter all Laws. What if a man should say, that this assertion is not true? I conceive, it were no blasphemie. Indeed it is a blasphemous position to broach the contrary. None but an Atheist dares justifie, that Princeps supra legem divinam non est, positailla quippe ab eo est, qui supra ipsum est: neque supra naturalem, quae aboleri non po­test nisi cum na­turâ ipsâ. Io. Be daeus de Jure Regio c. 2. the Parliament, or any mortall Soveraigntie, hath power to alter either the Law of God, or the Law of Nature. And yet these are Laws. And who, but an enemy to his Coun­trey, and a friend to confusion, dares affirm, that the Parlia­ment hath power to alter the Monarchicall or fundamentall Laws of this Kingdom. I am sure Justice Jenkins resolves, that Lex terrae p. 29. by the Law of the Land a Parliament cannot alter any morall Law.

11. Give me leave to propose your own Argument in ter­minis, in behalf of the City of London. The Citizens of London either hold their rights and immunities by law, or otherwise. If by law, then the Parliament, which hath power to alter all Laws, hath power to alter such Laws, as give them their immunities: and those Laws altered the immunity ceaseth. If their immunitie be not by Law, it is an usurpation without just title; which upon discovery is null. How like you this, my rich Masters of London? Hath not Mr. Geree [Page 92] set you in the sleep way to ruine? But ye may, perchance, have a confidence, that the Parliament will not serve you so. Be of that minde still. The power, it seems, is in their hands: how they will use it towards you, I cannot say. How they have used it towards us, and towards our good Soveraign, ye know. And can ye look to fare better? Remember, what our Saviour saith, 8. Joh. 15. 20 The servant is no greater then his Master. If they have perse­cuted me, they will also persecute you. As they have used your Lord and King, they will use you. The courtesie ye are like to find, is that, which Ʋlysses had from Polyphemus, to be their last breakfast.

12. Well, I. G. p. 5. upon the alteration of the Law, the immunitie ceaseth, and so the Kings ingagement in that particular. An Ordi­nance of Parliament hath absolved many a subject from his Oath of Allegeance: and now we shall have a Law, to absolve the King from his Oath of protection. But I am sure no Law can absolve him from a duty inherent to his Crown. And All Kings by the Royall Office, and Oath of Co­ronation, are ob­liged to protect their Laws and Subjects. Decla­rat of the Kingd. of Scotland. p. 20 such is the duty of protecting his Subjects from oppression, and the Church from sacriledge. You cannot therefore possibly absolve him from this ingagement. Besides, it was never con­ceived, that an Ordinance was of sufficient force to alter a Law. The Kings ingagement therefore stands as yet in this particular.

13. But suppose, there were such a Law, as you-speak of, could it be just? I have learned from your London Ministers, that I. D. p. 6. [...] Law, is so called in Greek, from rendering to every per­son, what is just, meet, equall. In very deed, as the great Lawyers speak, Calv. lex Jutid. in verbo Ius. Jus, idem est, quod justum & aequum▪ The Law is no­thing else, but that which is just and right. If it be otherwise, it is not jus, but injuria, an injurie, but no right. You are pleased to acknowledge I. G. p. 2. our privileges to be our rights. How then can they be taken from us without injuri [...] And it is not lawfull, with the supreme Judge, for any Prince or Court to deal in­juriously, with the meanest, that are subject to them. Justice it is, to give to every man his own. Injustice then it must needs be, to spoil any man of that, which is his, either by the Laws of God or man. Suppose us to be in equall balance with our fel­low Subjects, and that we have no other right to our lands and privileges, but by the Laws of the Realm: what reason [Page 93] can be given, why we should not peaceably enjoy, what is ours, by the Law of the Land, as well as the rest of our fellow Subjects? We have the same right; and why not the same protection?

CHAP. XIV. Whether the Lands of the Church may be forfeited by the misdemeanour of the Clergie.

1. VVE shall have reason to work us out of our rights, and Law to turn us out of the Kings protection. But such reason and Law, as may with much ease, and more equitie be returned upon your selves. Your reason is this; be­cause Ingagements to a Societie to maintain their rights, indulged for the personall worth of present incumbents, or to promote the use­fulnesse of the of­fice: if in their matters they prove prejudici­all to the office, or the succeeding officers by their ill demeanour for­feit them, their ingagement be­comes alterable. I G p. 5. these rights were indulged to the Clergie, for the personall worth of present incumbents. If therefore their successors forfeit them by their ill demeanour, these rights may be taken from them. This is easily resolved, not so easily proved. For the truth is, these rights were not given to particular persons, but to a succession of Bishops and Priests, and other Officers for Gods service. Or rather, these lands and privileges were given to God and the Church, for the maintenance of these offices. My unworthinesse makes not the office the worse; neither can my wickednesse make a forfeiture of Gods inheritance. I may, 1 Reg 2. 27. with Abiathar, justly be deprived of my place, and the bene­fits thereof; but the place, and the rights thereof fall not into a Premunire; a good man even Ib. v. [...]5. Zadok succeeds this traitor Abi­athar, and enjoyes not onely the office, but all the profits▪ that belonged thereto. This was Solomons justice; he knew, how to distinguish between the faultie Priest, and the faultlesse office. But you are a rooter; if a twig be in fault, up with b [...]ai [...]h and root. This is your justice. But Gen. [...]8. 25 26. it is far from the ju [...] Judge of all the world, to root up the righteous with the wicked. And surely we ought to endeavour to be righteous and just, as our heavenly Father is just.

2. Have you a desire to know, what true justice is? It is that, Lactan. Instit. l. 6. c. 9. Quam uniformen ac simplicem proposuit omnibus Deus, not what [Page 94] we fancie, but what to all men God hath proposed uniform, and alike, plain and simple; such as can admit of no cavill or miscon­struction. Vbi iusticia ve ra non est, nec ius potest esse. Quod enim iure fit, iustè sit. Quod autem fi [...]imustè, nec [...]re fieri potest. Aug. de civit. Dei. l. 19. c. 21. Where this true justice is wanting, there can be no Law, no right. For that which is done by right, is done by Law. And that, which is contrary to right, is contrary to Law. Nothing can be according to Law, but what is accor­ding to justice. For justice is that, which gives lif [...] & being to a Law. And to say, that this or that is an unjust Law, is a flat contradiction: since it is jus à justicia, Law hath the Latin de­nomination from justice: See c. 13. Sect 13. and the Greek from rendering to every man, what is just▪ and meet. And the Latin word Jus signi­fies both Law and Right. An unjust Statute therfore there may be, an unjust Law there cannot be. Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 2. c. 21. N [...]n enim jura dicenda su [...]t, vel putanda, iniqua hominum constituta: for the unjust Constitutions of men, are not to be called, [...]r esteemed Laws. And they that frame unjust Decrees, are not Princes, but tyrants: neither are their Subjects, Free-men, but slaves. Neither can the State, they live in, be called a Common-wealth; since, as Scipio Africanus ob­serves, and S. Austin approves, Aug de civit. Dei l 2. c. 21. Respuplica and res populi, the Common-weal and the weal of the people, are one and the same. And then is it truly a Common-weal, Ib. Cum benè ac justè geritur, when it is fairly and justly governed, either by one King, or by a few Noblemen, or by all the people. But where the Government is un­just, there's no Common-wealth. It is S. Austins; Aug. Ib. l. 19. c. 21. Ʋbi justicia non est, non est Respublica. Take away justice, and farewell Republick. For how can that be for the generall good of all, where ju­stice is not equally distributed to all of whatsoever profession.

3. But I. G. p. 5. there's a great deal of difference (say you) betweene an ingagement made to persons, on valuable consideration, and that which is made gratis to an office or society subservient to publike good. So much difference indeed there is, that the setling of land upon a corporation is more firme then any entaile upon a familie; because persons dye, but Corporations live. If gratis make the difference in your opinion, it makes none in Law: For that land [...] as much mine, which is conferred upon me by deed of gift, as that which is conveyed to me by purchase. What dif­ference, I pray you, between lands, purchased by the society of Goldsmiths, and such as are freely given to that Company? [Page 95] Are not the later as much theirs, as the purchased lands? Are they not alike settled by the same Law, & justified alike by the same Law? And Of the later sort, is this in­gagement to the English Clergy. Ib. of this very sort is this ingagement to the Eng­lish Clergie. And never a whit the worse for that. For of this sort is that magnificent maintenance, which was settled up­on the tribe of Levi, by God himself: all given gratis. Ezra 6 8, 9. And of this sort are the ingagements made to them by Darius King of Persia. And yet Ib. v. 11. 12. whosoever shall ALTER this word, let the timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged ther­on: And for this let his house be made a dunghill. And the God, that hath caused his Name to dwell there, destroy all KINGS and people, that shall put their hand to ALTER and to destroy this house of God. Of this sort also were Ezra 7. 15, 16. the silver and gold, which were freely offered by King Artaxerxes and his Counsellers, by the Preists and people to the God of Israel, for the house of God. Of this sort also was Ib. v. 24. the relaxation of all toll, tribute, & custome to the Preists and Levites; a free gift. And yet Ib. v. 26. Whosoever will not do the LAW OF GOD AND OF THE KING, in these things, let judgement be speedily executed upon him, whether it be ¹ unto death, or ² to banishment or ³ to confiscation of goods, or ⁴ to im­prisonment. And was not this priviledge granted, for the grace and favour that Ezra 1. 8. Shesbazzar and Ezra 7. 6. Ezra found in the eyes of those Kings? Or, if you will, for their personall worth? And yet this grant is called not onely the Law of the King, but the Law of God: and delivered so to posterity by Ib. Ezra aready scribe in the Law of Moses, and the penman of God.

4. Suppose we also, that I. G. p. 5. these rights were indulged for the per­sonall worth of the present incumbents; may they therfore be alie­nated, because some succeeding officers demean themselves amisse? So say you; but you are wide of the marke. These lands and immunities were not made to any particular persons, but to the office or society; or to God for their use. What is given to a person for life, goes not to the Office, but dyes with the per­son. But what is settled upon an Office, lives with the Office. Cap. 4. 5. And I have manifested, that Episcopacy is a living Office; an Office, that must last, while Christ hath a Church on earth. Persons may forfeit their place, and the benefits arising from thence to their incumbency; but the Office, if necessary, must [Page 96] continue. Act. 1. 25. Judas by transgression fell from his Office; but the Of­fice fell not with him; no, Ib. v. 20. another, a Saint may, and must take his Bishopship, or Apostleship, and the Rights that belong thereto.

5. However then some such favours may be granted to an Office, with relation to the personall worth of the present incumbent, yet being given to promote the usefulnesse of the Office, it shall be no movable; it is fixed (as the Lawyers speak) to the free­hold, and shall abide, till the Office be found uselesse, and therefore abolisht. But till then There's no in­justice done to make a Law to overrule or alter this ingagement. I. G. p. 5. it is injustice to alter, or alie­nate those rights, without which the usefulnesse of that Office cannot be so well promoted. Injustice it is, to take that away, which you never gave, and is so usefull for the Office, let the Officers fault be what it will. It is wild work to punish the Office for the person: This is none of Gods course. o The sons [...]1 Sam. 2. 12. 22. of Eli were as bad as bad might be; God destroyeth them, but not the Office, neither yet doth he fleece it. But before I passe further, I must make this observation: The quarrell you picke with the Clergie, to rob them of their lands and privi­ledges, will suite with any society, or Corporation. If it shall please your great Masters to say, that the Drapers, or Grocers, or that great Corporation of London have so demeaned them­selves, that they have forfeited their lands and immunities, up they go; they shall be in the same state with us. They that uphold their power by the sword, do usually what they list, not what they ought. If Parliaments might utterly be abo­lished for misdemeanour and miscarriage, I presume, this Iland should never see another Parliament.

6. You speake largely There's no que­stion of power in the Parliament, to overrule it. I. G. p. 5. of the Parliaments power. It is out of my element, and I am tender to meddle with it. I know tis large in a free and full convention, when the Members con­stitutive are present: But how large, I shall leave it to the lear­ned of the Law to define. Yet this I dare say, whatever their power be, they cannot make that just, which is unjust; nor that truth, which is a lie. 1 Reg. 21. 13. 16 Ahab and Jezabel had power to over-rule the Elders and Nobles of Jezreel; and to take away both Naboths vineyard and life, without any cause at all. You will not, I hope, justifie any such power, or Act. 'Tis true; [Page 97] Naboth hath lost all at a blow; but it was by tyranny, not by Law: Because there was no equity in the sentence. And yet there were as good witnesses came against Naboth, as any ap­peare against Episcopacy.

7. But you have been at the bar of late, and have learned a Law distinction, which neither Scripture, nor Fathers, nor Schol­men ever taught you, and this it is. The ingage­ment were gone in Law, though not in equity. The order would be valid in Law, though injurious. I. G. p. 5. An ingagement may be gone in Law, though not in equity. And that an Order of Parlia­ment will be valid in Law, though injurious. How? valid in Law, though injurious? The learned in the Law deny, that an Order of Parliament is valid in Law. And some of their own creatures in their circuits have rejected some Orders from Westmin­ster, because they were contrary to Law. But you, my Masters, that have been so forward with your purses, bewar. Ib. He speaks of summs of mony, borrowed upon the publique faith, for pub­lique good: For Ib. the Parliament may ordain release of the ingage­ment. Here's divinity without equity or conscience. But it's like the rest.

8. Gone in Law (saith this conscientious Preacher), not in equity; valid in Law, though injurious. Behold Law without e­quity; a Law, and yet injurious. God blesse me from such Law, and such Divinity. I ever thought, that Law and equity had gone together, and that Law could not have stood with inju­rie: Since (as S. Austine speaks) Aug. in Psal. 145. 6. Jus & injuria contraria sunt, Law and injurie are contraries; and can no more consist then light and darknesse. And if with Tho. 2. 2 [...]. q. 57. 1. 2m. Thomas, and I. D. p. 6. the London Ministers, Jus be that, which is prescribed, or measured by Law; then either that is no Law, which prescribes, what is not right; or else injurie shall be right, because it is prescribed by Law. I hope, you are not of this mind.

9. If the Fathers were not quite out of date, I could tell you, what S. Austine saith. And yet why may not I make use of him as well as your fellow Ministers of London? Behold then the very case. Aug. in Psal. [...]45. 6. Quid si a liquis condat jus iniquum? What if any shall make an unjust Law, a Law without equity? Is not the case put right? If it be so, take his resolution. Ib. Nec jus dicen­dum est, si injustum est. If it be unjust, it is not to be named a Law. And yet with you it shall be a Law though injurious. Thus your [Page 98] case of conscience is resolved against conscience; for all injurie, if understood, is against conscience. Surely the Parliament is much beholding to you, to stretch your conscience, and their fringes so much against conscience. For you justifie a power in them to do injurie; and not onely so, but a power to make Laws, to justifie this injurie. And yet The Kings Oath is against acting or suffering a ty­rannous invasion on Laws and rights, not against a Parliamentary alt [...]ration. I. G▪ p. 2 in them this shall be no tyrannous invasion on any Societies rights, because done by a Parliament. That title is a salvo for all blemishes and injuries. No tyran­ny, no invasion, if done by a Parliament: as if they were infalli­ble, and could not erre; impeccable, and could not do amisse. Or as if God himself did alter his own Laws, that their alte­rations might be irreprovable.

10. I must confesse, the next is a very conscientious pro­position, of another die; and this it is. So if there be no injury, the King and Parlia­ment may cancel any obligation. I. G p. 5. If there be no injury, the King and Parliament may cancell any obligation. Without per­adventure they may. But what makes that So there? As ther's no question of power in the Parliament, to ordain an injurious Order, or a Law without equity: SO IF THERE BE NO INJURY &c. What So, and no otherwise? Then have they no power at all to cancell any obligation, because the Parliament hath no power to make a Law without equity. If this do not follow, let men of understanding judge. And if you have no better argument to prove, that it is lawfull for the King and Parliament to abro­gate the immunities, and to take away the lands of the Clergie, you will never be able to approve the lawfulnesse thereof.

11. What is according to Law, true Law, is lawfull; and what is lawfull, is according to Law. If lawfull, not injurious; if injurious, not lawfull, not valid in Law: since nothing is valid in Law, that is injurious. To what purpose then are those words; Ib. The abrogation will be just, as well as legall, there will be no injury done? Surely none, where Law is of force; for where Law is, there can be no injustice countenanced. But where your Law bears sway, an order may be legal, though injurious; for your words are, Ib. The order would be valid in Law, though in­jurious.

12. And as for Where there is forfeiture by mis­carriage, or the privilege indul­ged to a Ministe­ry, proves pre­iudiciall: the ab­rogation will be just. Ib. forfeiture by miscariage, the forfeiture in justice must fall upon him, that miscarries, that is, upon the person, not upon the Office; for an Office duely settled can no more make [Page 99] a forfeiture, then it can miscarrie. Such an Office is Episcopacy, which was duely settled by Christ himself. And I hope you have not so far forgotten your selfe, as to say, that an Office immediately instituted by our blessed Saviour can run into a forfeiture by miscarriage. What reason can you give, why that should suffer, that cannot erre; that never offended? This is none of Gods justice. And it is well known to the wise, that Bishops hold their lands, revenues, and immunities not as granted to their Persons, but as annexed to the office for the continuall and comfortable maintenance thereof. Our reli­gious Predecessors had learned of S. Paul, that 1 Cor. 9. 7. no man feedeth a flock, but he eateth of the milk of the flock. And that Ib. v. 11. & Rom. 15. 27. it is the du­tie of the Gentiles to minister unto them in carnall things, of whose spi­rituall things they have been made partakers. Indeed If we have sowen unto you spirituall things, is it a great thing, if we shall reap▪ your carnall things? 1 Cor. 9. 11. he makes a wonder, that any man should doubt of it; For how can the Office be maintained without means? Surely, though Act. 20 34. & 1 Thes. 2. 9. 2 Thes. 3. 8. S. Paul did sometimes worke with his own hands, that he might not be chargeable to new converts; yet he telleth the Corin­thians, that 2 Cor. 11. 8. He robbed other Churches in taking wages of them, to do the Church of Corinth service. Yea this Apostle justifies, that 1 Cor. 9. 4. he hath power to eat and drinke of their charge, and to 2 Thes. 3. 9. live upon their cost. And that 2 Cor. 12. 13. he wronged them, when he did other­wise.

13. We confesse, that The privilege indulged to a Ministery (which ought to hold nothing but for publick good) proves predudi­ciall. I. G. p. 5. the Office was provided for publick good; and that those, which are of the Office neither hold, nor ought to hold any thing but for publick good. Is the Ministery Law­full, or no? Was it settled by Christ, or no? [...]. D. p. 114. &c. Your London Ministers have concluded for the Divine right of Ministers, or Pastors, and Teachers: and I know, you subscribe to their doctrine. There may not then be any forfeiture of the Mini­stery, since the Ordinance of Christ cannot be forfeited by the mis­carriage of man; that's out of all peradventure: Of priviledges perchance there may be a forfeiture, where they prove prejudiciall to the publick good. But if and where never prove any thing, un­lesse you can justifie, that these priviledges have been prejudiciall to this Church and State.

14. Our religious predecessors began the Great Charter with Mag▪ Char. c. 1. Concessimus Deo, First of all we have granted to God, and by this our [Page 100] present Charter have confirmed for us, and for our heires for ever, that the Church of England be free; and that it have all her rights entire, and her liberties unhurt. Rog Hoveden in Hen. 2. p. 601. William the Conqueror began his raign with confirming the liberties and priviledges of the Church. And he gives this reason for it, Ib. Quia per eam & Rex & regnum, solidum habent subsistendi fundamentum; because both King and Kingdome have by the Church a solid foundation for their subsistence. Had that Prince been alwaies of the same mind, he had never defiled his hands with sacriledge, nor plunged himselfe and issue into so deepe a curse. For after he began to ransake Churches, to rifle Monasteries, and to expose holy ground to wild beasts, and Church-lands to his pleasure, he and his be­came most unfortunate. He rips up the bowels of the Church his mother; and sucks her blood: and the son of his loines rebels against him, beats him, and draws blood from him. The Conqueror turns God out of his inheritance, and his sonne Robert endeavours to do the same to him. What afterwards befell him, and all his issue, I shall not need to relate, Prefat. de non temerand. Eccles. Mr. Spelman hath lately saved me that labour; to him I remit you. In whose treatise you may briefly see the lamentable end of all that great Conquerors posterity. To this I shall adde, & wish all my countrie men to observe, that in the strictnesse of Re­formation Episcopacy was continued, as most usefull for the Church.

15. But though Episcopacy have not been prejudiciall here­tofore, it is likely now to prove so. For unlesse they degrade themselves, unlesse they will patiently I hope, they will not be so te­nacious of their wealth and honor, as to let the Crown run an hazard, rather then lay down their miters, and indanger the whole Land to be brought to no­thing, rather then themselves to moderation I G. p. 5. part with their wealth and honour, and lay down their Miters, the Crown is like to runne an hazard, and the whole Land be brought to nothing but misery. I am sorrie to read these lines from a professed Preacher of the Word of God; for so you stile your self. And yet I am glad, you deale so fairely with us, as to give us notice, what hath been the cause of your factious preaching, the Countries and Citys tumults, and this detestable and deplorable rebellion? ¹ The Bishops great wealth, ² their honour, and ³ their Miters: these three ¹ Their wealth they are already stripped of; ² Their honour lies in the du [...]; and ³ their Miters have not been seen many a faire yeer, unlesse it be upon their armes. We know no more [Page 101] what a Miter is, then a Bishop knows what great wealth is; by speculation meerly. Few of them have gained so much by the Church, as their breeding cost their parents. And yet the Clergie is the onely profession repined at.

16. You should have done well, mutatis mutandis, to have directed this passage to the Parliament with this small altera­tion. I hope, you will not be so tenacious of that wealth, and honour, you have gained in these tumultuous times, as to let the Crown run an hazard, rather then lay down this usurped power, and in­danger the whole Land to be brought to nothing, rather then your selves to moderation. O, that they would bow down their ears in time, and embrace this counsell; then might they yet heal the sores of this shaking Land; and save their own souls. But the blame and danger are layed upon those, that least deserve it; that stood in the gap, as long as possibly they could, to avert Schisme, Heresie, Blasphemie, Atheisme, Rebellion, & blood­shed. All which, since the Bishops have been stripped of their honour and power, have overspread the face of this Land.

17. Suppose, the Bishops were faulty, shall God be turned out of his possessions, because his servants are to blame? Mr. Selden can tell you of a Charter of King Edgar, which will teach you to distinguish between God and man; between Gods right, and mans fault. In Cod. Edgar [...] apud Selden. in Notis. ad Eadmer. p 159. n. 10. Inviolabilis stet Monasterei Win­ton libertas; Ersi Abbas, vel fratrum aliquis, incitante Daemo­ne, reatus quippi­am contraxerit; quia Deus, qui hanc privilegii largifluam dona­tionem locumque cum universâ Monachorum fa­miliâ, ruraque omnia sa [...]io sub­iecta coenobio possidet, nunquam rea [...]um commisit, nec ullo unquam tempore commit­tet. Sit igitur prae­ [...]ata libertas aet [...]r­n [...], quia Deus li­bertatis possessor aeternus est. Ib. Although the Abbot, or any of the Covent, through the incitement of Satan, fall into sin, let the liberty of Winchester Mona­stery stand inviolable; because GOD, who POSSESSETH the plentifull munificence of this privilege, as also the place, with the whole family of Monks, and all the lands belonging to that holy Monastery, NEVER COMMITTED SIN, neither will in future times commit any. Let therefore this LIBERTY, or privilege, be ETER­NALL, because GOD THE POSSESSOR OF THIS LI­BERTY is eternall. The same say all good men for, though the Bishop be faulty, God is not, cannot be. The possessions therefore, and rights of the Church must stand inviolable. The faults are the Bishops, the lands are Gods. Let not God suffer for the Bishops irregular behaviour. Let the Bishop be deprived of his place and profits, but not God of his lands. Act▪ 1. 20. Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter, according to the Holy Ghosts prescription, [Page 102] Let another, a good man, take his Bishoprick, that Gods service may be duely celebrated, his Name glorified, and Christs flock faithfully provided for.

18. But say we, what can be said, the Bishops are to blame, and must be brought to moderation. And how must this be done? By being brought to just nothing. For, according to your do­ctrine, Episcopy must be abrogated, and their Lands alienated. This we simple men take to be extirpation, or annihilation. But such discreet, conscionable men, as you are, know it to be but moderation. Should God return this moderation upon your heads, the Presbyteriall Government would come to, what it should be, even to nothing.

19. Well, their wealth, their honour, and their miters are in fault: and the Bishops must be corrected, for not laying down all these at this blessed Parliaments feet, to redeem the Kings Crown. Good King, he suffers for the Bishops obstinacy; and they, poore men, have parted with all, but what they may not part with, namely, their fidelitie to God and the King. Have you not alreadie dis-roabed them of their honors? Have you not plundred their houses, and seized their Lands? Have you not made them house-lesse, harbourlesse, not able to keep a servant? What would you more? But, let me tell you, your great Masters might have purchased better houses and lands at a cheaper rate. This they will be sensible of, when the accounts are cast up as well elsewhere, as at London.

20. The Bishops wealth, honor, and miters were your aim; these you have preached for, these you have fought for; what would you more? All these your Masters have, and the Crown to boot; and yet not quiet. Indeed all these thus gained will not afford a quiet conscience. That there may be some shew of legality, Take it at the worst, it is but for the King to get the Clergies consent I. G. p. 5. the King must get the CLERGIES CONSENT, and the Bishops must lay down their Miters. And then 'twill passe for currant, that these Acts were passed by their own consent, and so no wrong done. No injurie done to him, that consents. Volenti non fit inju­ria. True it is, undone they are without consent: but if they con­sent, they undo themselves, and wrong their souls. And a madnesse it were to be chronicled, if I should cut mine own throat, to save my enemie the labour. How then can I give [Page 103] away Gods inheritance to the Edomites & Ishmalites, lest per­chance they enter forcibly upon it? And yet the Bishops are much to blame, if they will not do this: if not, the Crown will run an hazard, and the whole Land be brought to ruine.

21. What is to be done in this case? Surely if the Bishops knew themselves guilty of the difference betweene the King and his subjects, God forbid, but they should be willing to part with all, they may lawfully part with; and Jonah 1. 12. be earnest with Jonah, that they might be cast into the sea, to allay this dangerous storme, if that would do it. But Ambros. orat. in Auxent. de Basil. tradend. ep. l 5. what is Gods and the Churches, they cannot give away, or alienate. No, no, saith S. Ambrose, I cannot deliver up that, which I have received to preserve, not to betray. The Lands of the Church they may take, if they please. Imperatori non dono, sed non nego. I give them not to the Emperour, but I deny them not. Tradere Bafili­cam non possum, sed pugnare non debeo. Ambros, ep. 33. I withstand him not; I use no violence. Ambros. orat. in Auxent. de Basil. tradend. What I do, is for the Emperours good; quia nec mihi ex­pediret tradere, necilli accipere; because it would be neither safe for me to give them up, nor for him to receive them. What beseemes a free Preist, I advise freely; si vult sibi esse consultum, recedat à Christi injuriâ; If he desire to prosper, let him forbear to wrong Christ. Ob­serve what belongs to the Church, is Christs, not the Bishops. If any part of it be diminished, the wrong is done to God, and not to man. Act. 5. 1. &c. Ananias layed down his possession at the Apo­stles feet; but kept back part of the price. Here was wrong done; But to whom, think you? Not to the Apostles; no: Ib. v. 4. he lyed not unto men, but unto God; he couzen'd God, and not man. This was the moderation of S. Peter, and S. Ambrose; and we may not be drawn from this moderation. Advise your great Masters to embrace so much moderation; as to wrong no man, but S. Mat. 22. 21. to give unto Caesar, what belongs to Caesar, and to God, what belongs unto God. Till then, however they may seem to prosper, they will never be secure.

CHAP. XV. Whether it be lawfull to take away the Bishops lands, and to confer them upon the Presbytery.

1. THe Church at this present, is much like her S. Luk. 23. 33. Saviour hanging between two theeves: but in so much the worse case, because neither of these are for our Saviour. One, the Independent, is wholly for stripping the Church of all set­tled maintenance: With him the Minister is to rely meerly upon the peoples benevolence. And reason good; for he is no longer a Minister, then it pleaseth that Congregation. But the other, the Presbyterian is like the chough in the fable, that would faine prank up himself with other birds feathers. I. G. p. 6. The Bishops lands and revenues must be diverted, & divided, to main­taine Parochiall Pastors; so you call them. Ib. Sacriledge you con­demne; but theft you like well of, so you and your fellow Pres­byterians may be gainers. Quocun (que) modo rem, is profitable do­ctrine; so you may have it, you care not, how you come by it, nor who smarts for it. S. Luk. 10. 30. The man of Jerusalem fel into such hands.

2. To abolish Pre­lacy, and seize the revenues of Pre­lates, to private, or civill interest, undoubtedly could neither want stain, nor guilt, Such kind of Impropriation as happened in the dayes of H. 8. was cried out of, all the Christian world over. I. G. p. 6. Prelacy must be abolisht; that's agreed upon. So far you go with your Parliament, but you are against seizing of the Prelates revenues, to private, or civill interest. That is, as I conceive, to any particular mans use, or for the service of the State; as ye call it. I am just of your mind, and resolve with you, that this kind of impropriation could want neither staine, nor guilt. Such was that in the dayes of, K. Henry the eight; which was deser­vedly cried out of, all the Christian world over. But cry out you and your Mr. Beza with your Stentorian voices, upon this Ib. detesta­ble sacriledge, your good Masters are resolved upon the questi­on, and have exposed the Bishops lands to sale. So they may have these revenues to dispose of, they will venter stain, guilt, and curse too, say what ye can.

3. I must confesse, you would faine set a faire glosse upon this detestable act. You would have Who knows not the great de­fect amongst us, of congruous maintenance for▪ Parcchiali Pastors, by whom the work of the Mi­nistery is chiefly to be performed, I. G. p. 6. those large revenues (as you are pleased to call them) to be passed over from the Fa­thers of the Church, to the sons of the Church; from the Bi­shops to Parochiall Pastors, or Presbyters. I call these parochiall Pa­stors, sons of the Church: because, though they be called Fa­thers [Page 105] in respect of their Parishioners; yet are they but sons in respect of Bishops, from whom they have their orders, and by whom, as Ministers, they are begotten. For Presbyters have not power to ordain a Deacon, much lesse to ordain a Presby­ter; as C. 4. & 5. hath been already manifested, & shall be more fully, if God give me life and leave, to examine the Divine Right of Church Government.

4. But since If those large revenues of the Prelates were di­verted [...]o supply with sufficient maintenance all the defective Pa­rishes in England, there would [...]e no danger of sacrileg [...] I. G. p. 6. these revenues must be diverted, or passed over from the Fathers to the sons, to supply them with sufficient mainte­nance, who shall make the conveiance? And when the convei­ance is drawn with all the skill that may be, it is nothing worth, till the proprietary, the true owner give his consent, and confirme it. Desire you to know, who is the true owner? Look upon God, he hath accepted them, and taken possession of them; his they are by deed of gift. The Charters usually run thus; Concessi, offero, confirmavi DEO & Ecclesiae, I grant, offer, or confirme TO GOD and the Church, such and such Lands, Mannors, or messuages. When they are thus offered, God accepts of the gift, and sets this stamp upon them, Numb. 16. 38. They offered them before the Lord, THEREFORE THEY ARE HALLOWED. And again, Levit. 27. 28. Nothing devoted, or separated from the common use, that a man shall devote unto the Lord ( whether it be man, or beast, or LAND OF HIS INHERI­TANCE) MAY BE SOLD, OR REDEEMED: every devoted thing is MOST HOLY UNTO THE LORD. When it is once seperated from common use, it may no more re­turn to common use; since (as your Geneva Note tells us) Gen. note in Levit. 27. 2 [...]. It is dedicated to the Lord WITH A CURSE To HIM, that doth turn it to his private use. And of this curse they have been sensi­ble, that have turned it to such use. Observable therefore it is, that Caiet, in Levit. 27. 28. this word, which we here translate devoted, or dedi­cated, signifi [...]s properly, destroyed, quia destructio imminet usurpan­ [...]il us illa, because destruction hangs over their heads, that usurp them. Jos. 7. 1. &c. We translate this word accuesed: and Jos. 7. 25. [...] cu [...]se fell upon Achan openly for medling with the accursed or devoted silver, and gold, and a costly garment. God made A [...]ma [...] example of his justice to all posterity, that so the dreadfull end of him and all his, might strike a terrour into [Page 106] the hearts of all covetous persons; that they medle not with that, which is dedicated to the Lord.

5. Achans fault was, that Ib. v. 11. he clancularily stole it, and dis­sembled, and put it among his own stuffe. But what you do shall be in publike, enacted by Parliament; and they shall not be sei­zed to private or civill interest. Your purpose is to have them di­verted, or settled upon your selves, and your fellow Presbyters, who are no private or civill persons. Oh, no, you are the men, by whom the work of the Ministery is cheifly performed. And yet I cannot but observe, that here is a diversion; and what is di­verted, runs not in the right channel, it is enforced another way. But I. G. p. 6. this (you say) will not be to ruine, but to rectifie the de­votion of former ages, and turn pompe into use, and impediments into helps. There needs no proofe for this, Ipse dixit, Mr. Geree hath delivered this in the Pulpit; It is enough, so it come from him, who is so well skilled in devotion, and able to rectifie former ages. But I am none of your credulous followers; my faith is not pinned to your sleeve. Indeed, to deale plainly with you, I am of another mind, and suppose, I have good reason for it.

6. That revenues were very anciently settled upon the Church, can be no new thing to them, that are skilled in Councels, Fathers, and Church History. But who were these lands settled upon? To whose trust were these committed? Euseb. hist. l. 1. c. 35. Sozom l 1. c. 8. That Constantine settled revenues upon the Bishops, is too too evident to be denyed. That the Bishops had houses and lands long before Constantines time, is manifest by the Coun­cell of Angur, Can. 15. As also by that of Euseb. hist. l. 7. c. 24. Paulus Samosatenus; whom the Emperor Aurelian ejected out of the Episcopall house, after he had been deprived of his Bishoprick of Antioch by a Councell of Bishops. Cypr ep 56. 36 60. 61. In S. Cyprians time and writings we read that the Church was endowed with means. A little higher we may go in our own country, Mat Westminst. An Dom 187. we find King Lucius in the yeer of grace 187. settling possessions upon the Church.

7. Neither were these means very small; as some conceive. Possed, de vitâ. August c 1. S. Austine was a Gentleman well desended, and had a faire estate left him. And yet he professeth, that Aug ep. 225. the possessions of his Bishoprick of Hippo, were twenty times more then the lands [Page 107] of his inheritance. And yet his was none of the richest Bishop­pricks in Africk. Such was the devotion of former áges.

8. Of these revenues the Bishops had the profits; they did Aug. ep. 224. uti frui rebus Ecclesiae (as S. Austin speaks) tanquam possessores & Domini; they were Gods trustees; and yet as possessors and Lords they disposed of the Church goods. Possid. de vitâ August. c. 23. At his See the government of the lands and oblations belonged to him; but Ib c. 24. to some of his Clergie he committed the charge both of the one and of the other. But so, that once a yeer at least, he had an account from them, as from his Stewards. Ib. c. 25. Concil. Antioch. can. 25. At his charge, as it were, the Presbyters and other Clerks of that Church were fed and clad. Indeed Cypr. ep. 38. & Concil. Chalced. can. 26. the lands and goods of the Church were so at the Bishops disposing, that the Steward might not distribute any of them, as he thought meet, but as the Bishop directed him. This was not onely by custome, but by Canon, that the * Concil. Anti. och. can. 25. Bishop have [...] power to dispose the goods of the Church upon the needie. And Concil. Ancyr. can. 15. if it happened, that any of the lands were alienated, or sold in the vacancie, it was in the succeeding Bishops power to ratifie or make void the sale.

9. Neither did the Bishops innovate any thing therein; they followed the steps of the prime and Apostolick Church; as is to be seen Apost. Can. 41. and in the Acts. There we read, that the Christians, who were so charitably minded, Act. 4. 34. 35. 37. & 5. [...]. sold their lands, or houses, and layed the prices thereof (not at the Disci­ples, not at the Presbyters, but) at the Apostles feet. After this indeed Act 6. 3. the Disciples choose out men of honest report, full of the holy Ghost, and of wisdom, that might dispose of these lega­cies to such, as were to be relieved by the Church Stock. But this they did not of their own heads, but at the Apostles dire­ctions, who reserved this power to themselves. The text ju­stifies it; Ib. Whom we may appoint over this businesse. So the Apo­stles. Hence is it, that S. Paul commanded Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, to take care, that the Presbyters be well provided for: 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Presbyters, that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, of double maintenance. And to what purpose was this charge to Timothy, unlesse he were to provide for the Presbyters of his Church? I am certain, that it is most consonant to common [Page 108] sense, Nature, and Scripture, that 2 Cor. 1 [...]. 14. parents provide for their children, and not children for the parents. And is it not rea­son, that he, who sets the Presbyters on work, should pay them their wages? But Bishop Timothy was to set them on work; 2 Tim 2. 2. Those things, that thou hast heard (or learned) of me, the same commit thou to faithfull men, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH others. And 1 Tim. 1. 3. charge them, that they teach no other doctrine then this. But if they do, what then? 1 Tim. 6. 3. 5. withdraw thy self from them. That is, eat not with them, let them not come to thy table, allow them no maintenance. What counsell the Apo­stles gave others, without question they observed themselves. But S. Paul commands, that 1 Cor. 5. 11. we eat not with open and notorious sinners; and S. John, that we 2 Joh. 10. receive not deceitfull Preachers in­to our houses. The same rule then they observed themselves. For in those times Possid. de virâ August, c. 25. the Bishop and his Presbyters did usually live in the same house, and eat at the same table. In those times the Bishops provided for the Presbyters; but our start up Presbytery will so provide, that the Bishops shall have just nothing left them to relieve their own wants; all must be for Mr. Presbyter.

10. And why so? Because there are many I. G. p. 6. defective Parishes in England, which want suffi [...]ient maintenance to supply their Pa­rochiall Pastors with. But from whence comes this defect, or want of maintenance? Surely not from the Bishops, not from their greedinesse, and wretchlesnesse: but from that detestable sacriledge ( Ib. as Beza and you call it) which was by Parliament acted and ratified under the reign of King Henry VIII. At the dissolution of Abbeys the Appropriations of Tithes were taken in­to Lay-mens hands; which heretofore were appropriated and annexed to this or that particular Religious House; Prefat. de non temerand. Eccles. Which house (according to Mr. Spelman) was the perpetuall incumbent Parson of each of those Rectories, and did duely officiate the Cure, by one of their own fraternity. Then were there few, or no defective Parishes. But upon these new Statutes the Lay Appropriatoes swept all into their own custody and possession. From hence ariseth the want of congruous mainte­nance, in too many Parishes, for him, or them, that serve those Cures. And shall Bishops smart for it, when Lay-men have done the mischief, and purse up the profits? Dat veniam corvis, vexat [Page 109] censura columbas; when the Laity offends, the Clergie suffers. Is this Justice? But so the Parliament do it, it is with you I. G p. 5. valid in Law, though injurious. But God and you are of severall minds.

11. Nay, if this be done, if Bishops lands be removed to Presbyters, I. G. p. 6. there will be no danger of sacrilege. How prove you that? Ib. This (say you) will not be to ruine, but to rectifie the devo­tion of former ages, and turn pomp into use, and impediments into helps. This is somewhat like Cardinall Wolseys pretence, who dissolved fourty small Monasteries of ignorant silly Monks, to erect two goodly Colleges, for the breeding up of learned and industrious Divines. Was not this to turn impediments into helps? Lo, he removed lazie drones, that did little but eat, and drink, and sleep; that so learned men might be provided for, who would labour in the Word and doctrine, and might be able to do Church and State good service. Was not this as fair a pretence as yours, or as any you can invent? And how was this accepted of? God, that forbids theft, will no more endure the offering gained by theft, Deut. 23. 18. then by adultery. One of his Colledges dyes in the conception; the other remains un­finished to this day: and it pities me to see her foundations under rubbish. And a misery it is to take into consideration the ruine of this man, as also of that King and Pope, who gave him licence to commit this sin. This attempt and grant opened a gap to the most profuse sacrilege, that ever Christian Nation, before that time, had been acquainted with. And yet, for ought I find, by this particular sacrilege there came no gain into any of their private purses.

12. But, I beseech you, what is the meaning of these words, this will turn pomp into use? What your intent is, per­chance I may gesse: but to take them according to the plain and literall sense, I can make no other construction of them, then this: If the Prelates revenues were diverted, to supply with suf­ficient maintenance all those Parochiall Pastors, that want congruous maintenance, this would turn pomp into use. That is; that pomp, which the Prelates made no use of, the Presbyterians would turn into use. If this be not the Grammaticall sense, I appeal to any rationall man. And their Essay in the Divine right of Church [Page 110] government, shews what their proceedings would prove. I must confesse, ye have marvellously improved the impediments, and turned them into helps. For the power and Jurisdiction of Bishops, which were the main impediments to Schisme and Heresie, you have covenanted to root up; and have brought in all the helps, that may be, to further irreligion, and Atheisme. While the Bishops had power, heresies were rarae nantes, seldom seen, and suddenly supprest, if any such crept in. But now they flowe in by shoals, and have Pulpits and Presses cloyed with them. Does not your own Mr. Edwards professe, that never was there such plenty of Sects and Heresies? As many more in truth, as ever the Church knew in former ages. Onely, as Theod. hist. l. 3. c. 11. by Julian the Apostata, both Pulpits, and Presses are locked up to the Orthodox; no coming there for them, lest per­chance they infect the Auditories with sound and Apostolike Doctrine.

13. Parochiall Pastors are most necessary men; by them the work of the Ministery is CHIEFLY to be performed. This is true, and not true. True in the Fathers sense; not in yours. Ignat. ad Rom. p. 250. Hieron. Damas. ep. 57. 58. Basil. M. ep. 292. Cypr. ep. 3 n. 6. & ep. 38. n. 3. In the Fathers sense a Pastor is a Bishop strictly so called, as by his Order he is differenced from a Presbyter; and [...] is no petty Countrey or Citie Parish; Concil. Anti­och can. 9. 19. Christ. Justellus in cod. Eccles. univer. can. 88. it is a whole Citie, with the Precincts and Countrey adjoyning, which were under the jurisdiction of the Citie, and repaired thither for justice, if differences arose. With them Paraecia was the same, that a Diocese is with us. So a Parochiall Pastor, in the ancient and Church sense, is a Diocesan Bishop: and in this sense, the work of the Ministery is CHIEFLY PERFORMED BY THE PAROCHIALL PASTOR. This Pastor indeed can perform all Ministeriall acts; divers of which are clean out of a Pres­byters power. And yet you say, that by the Parochiall Pastor, who is with you but a Presbyter, the work of the Ministery is chiefly performed. Not so, my good brother not so, not that work, without which the Church cannot possibly subsist. And that is twofold; first Tit. 1. 5. the ordering of the Church; and 2ly, ordeining of Presbyters. The chief works of the Ministery, accor­ding to St. Paul, are to ¹ regular the Church, and to ² beget those, by whom the Sacraments may be administred, and [Page 111] absolution pronounced. But these works may not, cannot be done by any, or many Presbyters. In your sense therefore this proposition is false.

14. But why cheifly? What, because Presbyters offer up the prayers and supplications of the Church? Because they are the usuall Preachers, and dispensers of the Sacraments? These indeed are the most usuall and daily offices, and very necessa­ry; but I dare not say, that by them these offices are cheifly dis­charged. What say you to that principle of reason, That, by, or for which, any thing is made so, is more so. Propter quod aliquid est tale, illud est magis tale? Especially if it be such an efficient or ministeriall cause, without which, in the ordi­nary way, there can be no such thing. But by a Bishop a Pres­byter is made a Minister of these holy duties; & in the ordina­ry way, without him he could not be a Presbyter. The Bishop then doth cheifly performe the work of the Ministery. The reason is, because illo mediante by his means, or mediation, that is done, which without him could not be done. The work of Justice is usually performed by the Justice of the severall Ben­ches. But I presume, you will not say cheifly; that you will re­serve to the Parliament; since you have sworne that to be Solemn League and Coven. n. 4. the Supreme Judicatorie of this Kingdome. And in this treatise you have concluded, that I. G. p. 9. The Parliament is the Supreme Court, by which all other Courts are to be regulated. And as all Courts are to be regulated by Parliament, so are all Presbyters to be guided by their own Bishop.

15. Cheifly, say you; onely, saith your Ordinance for Ordina­tion; wherein you make the Presbyter the onely Minister. In your Solemne League and Covenant, ye resolve and vow Sol. League & Coven. n. 2. the ex­tirpation of Arch-Bishops and Bishops. And in both ye lay the whole work upon the Presbytery; as if they were the men, that could discharge all sacred and Ministerial duties. No such matter; the contrary is manifested. Can any man imagine, that a common souldier, or an ordinary marriner, doth per­forme the cheife work in an army, or ship, because they take the greater toile to the outward eye? No, no; it is the Pilot in a Ship, the Colonel in a Regiment, the Admirall in a Navy, and the Generall in an Army, that discharge the cheife duties. With­out these there would be wise worke by Sea or Land. Ev [...]ry [Page 112] one, that can pull a gable, or manage an oare, is not fit to be a Pilot. Every man that can and dare fight, and charge p I. D. with courage, is not fit to be a Commander. But the Church is both a ship, and an armie. And I dare say, that every one, that can talke lavishly, or make a rhetoricall flourish in the Pulpit, is not fit to be a Bishop, or Governour, in the Church of Christ. And yet Tit. 1. 5. [...] for this cause left I thee in Creet, that thou shouldest set in order the things, that are wanting, & ordain Presbyters in every City. These are the duties of a Bishop; with­out which the Church will suddenly be out of frame, and crumble into nothing.

16. In a ship, or regiment, no man comes to sit at the stern, no man attempts the cheife command, the first day; if he do, both ship and regiment suffer for it. No; they are trained up in their severall professions, and by degrees they rise till they come to the highest. Thus was it in the ancient, and thus is it in the present Church. If any be suddenly raised to a Bisho­prick, it is seldom for the good of that Diocese.

17. But you and your fellow Presbyters want congruous and sufficient maintenance; down therefore must the Bishops; and their Revenues must be divided amongst such good Pastors, as you are. The Levellers doctrine right; the Nobility and Gentrey have too much, & the godly of the land to little: all therefore must be shared, that Jack and Tom may have a congrurus maintenance. If the great men of the Land will not yeeld to this, the Parliament shall be garbled, the Nobility and Gentry shall be turned aside; and then look for a new Covenant, and a fresh extirpation. Dukes descend from profane Esau; Marquesses, Earles, Vicounts, &c. are but heathenish titles, in­vented by the children of darknesse, and the children of light defie them. What? Are we not all Adams sons? Are we not brethren in Christ? Is it not fit, that we should all have share, and share like, as had the children of Israel in the land of promise? As long as the Church onely was strook at, it was well liked of; but now patience perforce, we must be leveled both in Church and State. We shall find, that there is such a sympathy between them in all Christian Common-wealths, that they stand and fall, swimme and sink together.

18. What? talke we of Levelling? That is enough to de­stroy [Page 113] the State and face of a Kingdome. But in your project there will be no danger. How? No danger? No danger, (say you) of sacriledge. No danger in the subversion of the Church? Sure­ly this must be ruine to Episcopacy, and consequently to the Church. For no Bishop, no Church. Cypr. ep. 37. n. 1. Ecclesia enim super Epis­copos constituitur; for the Church is founded and settled upon Bishops. So S. Cyprian. Think not, that we exclude Christ. Christ it is that layd the foundation, and settled the Church so. And it is not for man to unsettle it, or to lay another, a new foun­dation. For other foundation can no man lay, then that is layed by Jesus Christ. But Ephes. 2. 20. we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. And Bishops and Apostles, are of the same order; they are one and the same. Cypr. ep. 65. n. 3. Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & Praepositos Dominus elegit. So S. Cyprian, the Lord made choice of APOSTLES, THAT IS OF BISHOPS & Prelates. When therefore our Saviour founded the Church upon the Apostles, he founded it upon Bishops. Who dare then after this founda­tion? He that endeavours it, doth not build, but destroy the Church.

19. Is there no danger of sacriledge in robbing father and mother? The Bishop your father, and the Church your mother? For as in the Church you were born anew of water and the Holy Ghost; so if you be a Presbyter, as a Presbyter you have your being from a Bishop; or else you have no such being. But you return, that ye rob not the Church: for you intend, that these revenues shall be settled upon Church-men; that is, up­on Presbyters. Suppose, you rob but one, but your Father, the sacriledge is detestable. For doth not the Lord say, Prov. 28. 24. Who so robbeth his father, or mother, and saith it is no transgression; the same is the companion of a murtherer. But to make the sacriledge more odious, I shall manifest, that ye have not onely robbed your Father, but your Mother also. The Bishop your father is the hus­band to his particular Church; If then you rob him of his meanes, who will succeed in his roome, and become an hus­band to that Church? For though there be a thousand Pres­byters in a Diocese, yet, Concil. Chal­ced. can 25. if she be without a Bishop, that Church is a widow. So that great Councell of Chalcedon. Thus ye rob the Bishop of his means, & that Church of her husband. [Page 114] And wile a widow, she can bring forth but a bastard brood. Consider that.

20. Upon these motives I must tell you, that if his Majestie shall gratifie either the Parliament, or the Assembly, in the abo­lition of Episcopacy, and in sacrificing the Church-lands to your, or their sacrilegious avarice, it will be such A work, for which following generations should not need to pity the King, as put upon it by misfortune: but rise up, and call him blessed, whose many other disasters ended in so good, and so usefull a work. I. G. p 6. a work, for which following generations shall have just cause to pitie, & lament him, that so good a man should either be cheated, or enforced into so foule a sin. His children and the whole Kingdome would rue it; and the generations to come (unlesse the world turn Presbyterian) will speak of Him as of King Henry the eight: with this difference, that King Henry wilfully plunged himself into this sin, and King Charles was driven into it by an Atheisticall and bloody faction. But I am confident, his Majestie is sea­soned with better principles; he knows, it was 1 Sam. 15. 24. no excuse for Saul, to confesse, that he had sinned, because he was afraid of the people, and obeyed their voice, not Gods directions. Ib. [...]. 26. This King knew Gods Word, & rejected it; God therefore rejected him from being King, and his seed from the throne. A lamentable case, to be frighted by a multitude, out of Gods favour, and the Crowne. But I hope, you have no Saul in hand: Our good Kings Crowne you may cause to totter, but not his resoluti­on. Ye may, and have robbed him of his Prerogatives, reve­nues, and liberty: but you cannot imprison, or force his con­science, that will injoy her ancient priviledges, & freedome; and these disasters shall end in a Crowne of glory. His memo­ry shall be honoured in our Annals, and his posterity flourish in these thrones.

CHAP. XVI. How far forth the King ought to protect the Church and Bishops.

1. IT is confessed to my hand, that You see the in­gagement put upon the King, is but to his power: as every good King ought inright to protect and defend the Bishops & Chur­ches under their government. I. G p 8 the King is ingaged to his power, to protect the Bishops, and their priviledges; as every good King ought in right to protect & defend the Bishops & Churches [Page 115] under their Government. Reason requires no more; and Religion requires so much. For by that God, whom we serve, Kings are made Guardians, and Isa. 40. 22 nursing fathers to the Church; and by the same God this ingagement is put upon them. Not by man, not I answer from the expressions in the Oath it self, a [...] they are set down by the same author. I. G. p. 8. by the Author, as you seem to intimate; nor yet by the Bishops. One of the Bishops indeed, in the behalfe of his bre­thren, and the whole Clergie, humbly beseecheth his Majestie to protect and defend to them, and to the Churches committed to their charge, all Canonicall priviledges, and due Law and Justice. The King with a willing and devout heart premiseth, to be their protector, and Defender to his power, by the assistance of God. And afterwards at the Communion table, he makes a solemne Oath, upon Gods own book, to observe the Premises. This ingagement then is not put upon the King, but with a willing heart he takes it upon himselfe; acknowledging that he ought to do so, if he be a good King. Yea, (saith Sir Edward Coke) Sir Ed. Coke proem. in Mag. Chart. the King is bound and sworn to the observation and keeping of Magna Charta. His Majestie then is but intreated to do, what he is sworne and bound to do. And since sworne and bound, he may not with a safe conscience give them up to the Psal. 80. 13. wild boares of the forrest to root up the plants, or suffer the wild beasts of the field to devour this Vine, Ib. v. 25. which the Lords right hand hath planted.

2. That Such power is no further, then he can do it, without sinning against God, and being injurious to the rest of his people. I. G. p. 8. the King is bound no further to exercise his power in the protection of the Church, then he can do it without sinning against God, is most undoubtedly true: and it were not the part of a Christian to desire more. For we know, that Rom. 13. 1. 4. the King receives his power from God, which is to be used, not a­gainst, but for God. Not to protect the Church to his power, is to break his Oath, it is to desert that trust which God hath com­mitted to his charge: and is not this to sin against God? In the discharge of this dutie, he is so far from being injurious to the rest of his people, that if he should forbear it, it would prove the greatest mischeife, that can be imagined, to his people, and to their posterity, in their soules, in their estates; and a perpetu­all infamie to this Nation. I need not prove it now, it is al­ready done, Cap. 8. Sect 10. 11. &c.

3. That When he hath interposed his authority for them, and put forth all the power he hath to preserve them: he hath gone to the extent of his power, and as far as good Kings are bound in right. I. G. p. 8. his sacred Majestie hath interposed his Authority for the Bishops, & put forth all the power he hath to preserve them, is that [Page 116] which vexeth your confederacy. And yet you cannot deny, but that every good King is bound in right to do so. What we ought to do, is our bounden duty; and what we do in right, is justly done. Oh, that this had been done in the right time. Indeed he is not onely bound, but he finds it more then neces­sary to protect and preserve them; for in protecting them, he pro­tects himself, his throne, and his posterity. Alas, he was strook at thorough the Bishops sides. His wise Father descried this long since, Confer. at Hampt. Court. p. 36. No Bishop, no King. What the Father spake, his Sonne our good King hath found true by woefull experience. His Crowne hath sunke with their Miters.

4. Well, by your own confession, what our gracious King hath done, is right, and what good Kings are bound to do, to the extent of their power. Thus our good King is justified by his e­nemies, as S. Mat. 27. 4. our Saviour was by Judas. If his Majestie have endeavoured to do that, which is right, what are they, that have hindered him from doing it? Have not they done wrong? How can they excuse themselves before God or man, that have so manacled our betrayed Soveraigne, that he cannot do, what good Kings are bound in right to do? Is this to be good? Is this to be just? Then have all the Saints of God been utterly deceived.

5. If after all this he must let them fall, or support them with the blood of his good Subjects. I. G. p. 8. If after all this He must perforce let the Bishops fall; you and your Schisme have much to answer for, that have driven him to this necessity. You seem to pitie his good subjects, who with their blood have endeavoured to support Episcopacy. Their swords were not drawn to maintaine this Government, or the Religion established; they never learned to fight for Religi­on. What they did, was done in submission to his Majesties just commands, and to manifest their allegiance. But if these be good; that have indangered their lives to uphold Bishops, what are they, I beseech you, that have spent their blaod to root them out? Surely in justifying the former, Mr. Geree hath condemned the latter; and when the waspes find it, he must look to his eares:

6. I must confesse, it is an hard case for one man to And those un­willing too, to in­gage their liues for the other pri­vileges. I. G. p. 8. in­gage his life for the maintenance of other mens privileges. But who did so? Not a man ingaged himself; but the Kings com­mand, [Page 117] the Oath of Allegiance, and the Laws of the Land in­gaged every good Subject, to assist his Soveraign to the utmost. The King, according to his Oath, endeavoured to maintain the Laws of the Land, to protect the Members of both Houses driven from Parliament, to support the Bishops; and to suppresse those seditious and sacrilegious persons, which plotted and covenanted the ruine of Religion, root and branch. Though much the greatest part of the Nobility, Gen­trie, and learned in the Law, were deservedly moved to see Majestie dethroned and blasphemed; Religion spurned at, and vilified; the Fathers of the Church scandalized, and persecuted; the Laws of the Kingdom, and liberties of the Subject sleighted, and trampled on; yet not a man of these took up the Sword, till he was commanded by him, to whom the Laws of the Land, and the Word of God have commit­ted the power of the Sword. This may not be called back­wardnesse, or unwillingnesse, but pious discretion, which ever waits upon the Soveraigns call. When therefore His Majesty had set up his Standard, I may truly say, Jud. 3. 9. the governors of our Israel offered themselves WILLINGLY among the people; they did the King service to the utmost. Had there not been a back­doore to let in a forrein Nation, to divide the Kings forces; had not some of Nehem. 6. 17. 18. 19. the Nobles of Judah conspired with Tobiah, held intelligence with him, and acquainted him with Nehe­miahs secrets, there never had been so many Thanksgiving dayes, nor so much boasting, that God prospered the cause. God suffered David his own chosen servant, his anointed, and a man after his own heart, to be hunted as a Partrige upon the mountains, to be frighted from his throne, and to live like a forlorn man; and yet in his good time he restored him to his Scepter in peace, and subdued the people to him.

7. And whereas you term them others privileges, as if they concerned no man but the Clergie; I dare boldly say, they concern every man, as he is a member of this Church and Realm. 1 Cor. 9. 11. If we have sown unto you spirituall things, is it a great mat­ter if we reap your carnall things? And if we reap not your carnall things, how shall we sowe unto you spirituall things? This is wor­thy of consideration; unlesse you have layed aside all care of [Page 118] the soul. Have we some privileges, that the Laity have not? They are not ours alone; they are every mans, that enters in­to Orders. And Orders are indifferently proposed to all, of all families whatsoever, so they be sufficiently qualified. High and lowe, noble and ignoble have reaped the benefit of these privileges. I have known some of high birth in Orders; and some of good rank, that have taken Sanctuary under a Priests coat. And we read of Iud. 17. 7. a young man of the tribe of Judah, of the most remarkable family, that was glad to turn Priest, and to Ib. v. 10. serve by the yeer for ten shekels of silver, a double suit of apparell, and his victuals. If then our Calling suffer, all families suffer in it, and with it.

8. But what if the Laws of the Land, what if Magna Charta do oblige all men to stand up for the due observation of these pri­vileges? If so, then must every man readily acknowledge, that all good Subjects are bound to obey His Majestie, when he com­mands that, which the Law requires. View we then the words of that Great and justly magnified Charter, which are these. Mag. Charta c. 37. Reserving to all Arch-bishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, and all persons, as well Spirituall as Temporall, all their liberties, and free customes, which they have had in times past. And all these customes and liberties aforesaid, which we have granted to be holden within this our Realm; as much as appertaineth to us and our Heirs, we shall observe. And ALL MEN of this our Realm, as well SPIRITU­ALL AS TEMPORALL ( as much as in them is) SHALL like­wise OBSERVE THE SAME, AGAINST ALL PER­SONS. Mark that: are we not all, both spirituall and temporall, bound to maintain each others privileges, as much as in us lies?

9. I know, you will return, that Abbots and Priors are pro­vided for by the same Law; and yet they have since been ta­ken away by Act of Parliament. I confesse it: but I shall desire you to observe in the first place, how they prospered, that were the contrivers and procurers of that Act. 2ly, I cannot but take notice, that you with your Master Beza call that dis­so [...]ution I. G. p. 6. [...] detestandum sacrilegium, detestable sacrilege, and such as was cried out of all the Christian world over. It is not therefore to be drawn into president. 3ly, consider, I pray you, that 25. Ed. 3. they who did so, are stiled Enemies of our Soveraign Lord the [Page 119] King▪ and his Realm. 4ly, that great Concil. Chal­ced. can. 24. Councell of Chalcedon, con­sisting of above 600. Bishops, resolves, that no Monastery, con­secrated with the Bishops liking, may be turned to a secular dwelling. And those that suffer any such thing, are lyable to the Canonicall censures. 5ly, you will, I hope, make a diffe­rence between our Saviours institution, and mans invention. Bishops are of our Saviours own institution, but Abbots and Priors are titles and orders of mans invention. And yet Statut. de pro­visor. 25. Ed. 3. ho­spitalitie, and alms, and other works of charity, for which these fra­ternities were erected, failed much with them. How those means were imployed, I shall not enquire; but I am certain, that good and pious men have wished, that the abuses had been pruned off, and that the lands had been disposed of accor­ding to the Doners intentions. This indeed had been pietie, not sacrilege.

10. How oft have the Kings of this Realm ingaged them­selves to observe Magna Charta, and to maintain the rights and liberties of the Church? Are not these the words of the Statute, Stat. of the Clergy. 14. Ed. 3. 1 We take the Prelates and Clergie with their possessions, goods, and chattels INTO OUR SPECIALL PROTECTI­ON AND DEFENCE? The Princes of this Land have bound themselves strictly to keep this Great Charter; and have provided, that if any other shall do, or procure to be done, any thing contrary to this Charter, it is to be accounted void, as soon as procured. Take the words of the Charter. Mag. Charta. c. 37. We have granted unto them (the Spirituall and Temporal persons of this Realm) on the other part, that neither we, nor our Heirs shall pro­cure, or do any thing, whereby the liberties in this Charter shall be in­fringed, or broken. But suppose, they shall make any such grant through ignorance, wilfulnesse, or evill counsell, shall it be of force? The Law saith, no. For it follows immediately; Ib. And if any thing be procured BY ANY PERSON contrary to the premisses, it shall be holden OF NO FORCE, NE EF­FECT. You and your great contrivers, what have ye la­boured for, all this while? What have ye fought for? what have ye shed so much blood for? For wind, nothing but wind. For all the Westminster Orders and Ordinances contrary to this Charter, shall be holden of no force, ne effect. You had best then [Page 120] keepe your paper for a more necessary use.

11. And yet you tell his Majestie, that I. G. p. 8. it is not equall to in­gage the lives of some to uphold the honour of others. Is it equall then, I beseech you, to ingage the lives of some, to destroy the honour and estate of others? All this while you have been on the de­structive part, all for rooting up, what the Lords right hand hath planted, and for alienating the Lords inheritance. And that ye might effect, what ye have subtilly projected, ye have ingaged the lives of many, who were very unwilling, to uphold the honour of some at Westminster, that had overlashed, & ran them­selves upon dreadfull rocks. I would to God, the Commons of this Kingdome would lay it to heart, how That were to be cruel to many thousand, to be indulgent to a few, I. G. p. 8. cruell ye have been to many thousands to be indulgent to a few, to uphold the honour of a few. Consider, how many thousands in England and Ireland have been plundered, sequestred, imprisoned, maimed, and murdered, because they would not submit to the illegall, unjust, and irreligious decrees of the men at Westminster. A compleat Mercurius Rusticus will make after ages stand ama­zed, and their hearts bleed within them, to consider, that such a Nation as this, so blessed with peace and plentie, should be so miserably deluded, as to undoe themselves willfully, and sheath their swords into one anothers bowels, to save a Lord and five Members from tryall by Law.

12. That you may perswade us, some way or other, that the King ought to give up the Bishops, and their lands, since he hath hitherto protected them to the utmost of his power, you argue by supposition. I. G. p. 8. Suppose (say you) a King put a Commander into a City, and give him an Oath to maintaine the privi­ledges of it, and keep it for him to his power: and this Commander keeps this Towne, till he have no more strength to hold it, unlesse he force the Towns-men to armes, against the priviledge, which he hath sworne to maintaine. Well, what then? If this Governour now sur­render this Towne upon composition, doth he violate his Oath? Thus far Mr. Gerees question: what think you of it? What any man thinks, is no matter; I think, none will affirm it. I. G. p. 9. Mr. Geree thinks none will affirme it. And I think, there be many, that will affirme it; and I am one of that number. Good Lord, to see, how Mr. Geree and I differ in opinion! His is but thought without proof, but I shall give you reason for what I think, and say.

[Page 121]13. If this Casuist speake to purpose, as he ought, he speaks of a King of this Realme; and no town within this Realme hath any such priviledge, as not to bear armes against the Kings enemies; or not to keep it for his Majestie, to the utmost of their power. The reasons are these: First, Mag. Charta, c. 37. 38. these are the Kings Dominions and Countries. 2ly, These Towns and Cities are part of these Dominions. 3ly, The inhabitants and Citizens there­of are his Majesties subjects. 4ly, Sir Ed Coke in Litleton. l. 2. Sect. 139. All lands and tenements are holden either mediatly, or immediatly of the King. 5ly, This Citie or Towne is the Kings; otherwise how could he put a Comman­der into it, and give him an Oath to keep it for him? I speake of Towns within these his Majesties Dominions, which in all wri­tings are called the Kings Cities, Counties, and Towns. 6ly, It cannot be imagined, that the Kings of this Realme would grant any priviledge destructive or dangerous to their owne safety. And we must take notice, that Sir Ed Coke in Mag. Chart. c. 1. All Liberties at the first were derived from the Crown. Adde hereunto the severall Acts of Parliament, wherein Statute of Ar­mour. 7. Ed. 1. & 1. Eliz. 3. the Peers and Comminalty confesse themselves to be bound, and make faithfull promise, to aide their So­veraigne at all seasons; as also to assist and defned his, or their, rights, and titles, to the utmost of their power, and therein to spend their bodies, lands and goods, against ALL PERSONS, whatsoever. But new Lords, new Laws; and these Statutes are out of date.

14. By this time, I hope, you see, that no towns-men have any such privilege, as to refuse to bear arms in the Kings behalf. But they are bound by their allegiance, and the Laws of this Land to keep those Towns for his Majestie, & to defend them with all their might against his foes. If then the inhabitants shall be backward, the Commander ought to force them to armes: and if he do it not, he violates his Oath, and the Towns-men their fi­delity. And now you may tell your freind, that helped you to this supposition, that he is no skilfull Apprentice at Law. If then Such is the case with the King in this par­ticular. I. G. p. 9. the Kings case be such in this particular, his Highnesse may not recede from his Oath, nor do any thing contrary there­to.

15. Though this may seeme reasonable to sober men, yet I. G. p. 9. the onely objection (as you conceive) which lyeth against this, is; that though it be not in the Kings power to uphold them, yet it is in his [Page 122] power not to consent to their fall. Though this be not the onely, yet is it a just objection, or rather a resolution; which being right­ly harkned to, will preserve the King from sin in this particu­lar. For how ever you are so uncivill with his Majestie, as to call it If the King should be peremp­tory in deniall, what help would this be to them? Such peremptori­nesse in this circumstance might in danger his Crown, not save their Mitres. I. G. p. 9. peremtorinesse in him to deny assent to the fall, or abolition of Episcopacy; yet such as are learned to sobriety, know this to be Christian prudence, and true fortitude, S Mat. 10. 28. not to fear them, that can imprison him, that can rob him of this earthly Crowne, and slay his body, but to stand in aw of him, that can slay the soul, that can deprive him of his heavenly Crown, and cast him into the infernall pit. Oh, Hebr. 10. 31. 'tis a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of the living God; we are not therefore to be threatned, or frighted into sin. These things you can presse violently in the Pulpit, but now you are beside both Pulpit and text, beside modesty and truth. It is Justice, Religion, and courage, not peremtorinesse, to deny the least assent to sin. That it is sin to yeeld to, or confirme the abolition of Episcopacy, is al­ready manifested C. 4. 6. Since it is to destroy an Ordinance of Christ; which cannot be done without sin.

16. However then he may indanger his own Crown, not save their Mitres, yet he shall be sure, by denying assent, to save his own soul: for Vs (que) adeò pec­catum volunta­rium malum est, ut nullo modo sit peccatum, si non sit volunta­rium. Aug. de vera Relig c. 14. without consent no sin; and without sinne no damnation. Deut. 22 26. A woman ravished is free from fornication, be­cause she assents not, but is really enforced; and yet Ib. v. 25. he, that commits that sin upon her, must die for it. This is the Kings case right: if he yeeld not, this is a rape upon his power, no sin in his person, since no assent. Hence is it, that Idolatry and Oppression in Scripture are charged upon Kings; because their assent makes a Law. Without the Kings affirmative e­very Ordinance imposed upon the people is not Law, but Ty­ranny; since it is not legall, but arbitrary. Our brethren of Scot­land say as much. Take their words. There can be no Law made, and have the force of a Law without the King. Declaration of the Kingdom of Scotland. p. 19.

17. That Though it be in his power to deny assent to their abolition, in a naturall sense, because Voluntas nonpotest cog [...]; yet it is not in his power in a morall sense, be­cause he cannot now deny con­sent without sin. I. G. p. 9. it is in his Majesties power, or not in his power to deny assent to the abolition of Bishops, is most certainly true. But we must learn of you to distinguish between a naturall and a morall sense▪ and then we shall find both true, that he can, and [Page 123] he cannot deny consent. In a naturall sense he may, but in a morall sense he may not. In a naturall sense he may; because the will cannot be in­forced. In a morall sense it is not in his power; because he cannot now deny consent without sinne. So it is, and it is not in his power, or rather as S. Austine speaks, Aug. de Fide cont, Manish c. 9. In potestate est, quod in voluntate esse non debet: That is in our power, which ought not to be in our will; Hoc habemus in potestate, quod cum volu­mus, possumus. Aug. cont Maxi­min. l. 3. c. 14. The King then hath it in his power to yeeld, or not to yeeld; because he may do, which he pleaseth. The book of God stands by, and adviseth him to do that, which is right in the sight of God, proposing blessings if he do so; and menacing curses, if he shall do any thing contrary to Gods revealed will. And all this while it doth but instruct & perswade him to do, what he ought and may, when he will. This then being in the Kings power, he must take heed, he incline not to sin.

18. I cannot but resolve, that to forsake the naturall sense, if good, is to be unnaturall. To renounce the morall sense is a­gainst good manners, and the morall Law. If therefore both senses may be kept, we are to preserve them both safe. With confidence therefore, I speake it, that it is not onely in his power, but Far are we from taking away his Negative voice. Exact Col­lect, of Remonst, & Declarat, p. 727. it is his dutie to be Master of his negative voice, and to deny consent. If he deny consent, he does his dutie, & observes his Oath. If he yeeld assent, he breaks his oath, and failes of his dutie. And this will prove no lesse then sin. I have alrea­dy demonstrated, that Episcopacy is agreable to the word of God, and that it is the Institution of Christ himself. It is sinne therefore to abolish it, or to consent to the abolishing thereof. You neither have, nor can justifie the contrary out of holy writ, or from the ancient and Apostolike Church. And yet the Obser­vations upon the Ordinance for Ordination have been extant in Print above these three years. But you and your Assembly Rab­bines take no notice of it, because you have not what to say a­gainst it.

19. But though you have neither Scripture, Councels, nor Fathers, for the abolishing of Episcopacy, yet you have reason grounded upon policy, to worke his Miajestie to yeeld to this abolition. For (say you) he cannot now deny consent without sin. It seemes then, he might, without sin deny consent heretofore: but not now. And why not now; as well as heretofore? Because [Page 124] (say you) I. G. p. 9. if he consent not, there will evidently continue such di­straction and confusion, as is most repugnant to the weale of his people; which he is bound by the Rule of Government, and his Oath to provide for. Thus sin shall vary at your pleasure: sin it shall be now, that was none heretofore. That shall be sin in King Charles, which was vertue and piety in Queen Elizabeth, and all their religious ancesters.

20. Rom. 4. 15. Where no Law is, there is no transgression. Before then you prove it to be a sin, you must prove it to be against some Law either of God or man. Not against the Law of God; that's already proved. Not against the Law of man; since no man can sin against that Law, to which he is not subject. Declarat. of the Kingd. of Scotland. p. 19. The Laws are the Kings; he gives Laws to his subjects, not his sub­jects to him: and we know no Law of his against Bishops. In­deed the Laws of this Land are so far from the extirpation of Bishops, that Lexterrae. p. 14. the fundament all Law of this Kingdom approves of them. They then that are enemies to Bishops, are enemies to the fundamentall Law of this Kingdom. And what is fundamen­tall, is in and of the foundation. If then a Law be made to ex­tirpate Bishops, it grates upon the foundation, it is against the fundamentall Law of this Realme, & it contradicts that Law of Laws, the word of God. Besides, we are assured by that learned in the Law, Justice Jenkins Ib, p. 29. that it is against the Kings Oath, and the Oaths of the Houses, to alter the Government for Religi­on. But an alteration of this Government, must necessarily fol­low upon the abolition of Episcopacy. Yea with Bishops, not one­ly the Church and Religion will be ruined, but the very Go­vernment and Laws of the Kingdom will be so confounded, that the learned in the Law will not know, where to find Law. They must burn their old books, and begin the world upon the new model. All this will amount to no small sin; it will be to the shame of this Land; to the ruine of those two noble professions, Divinity and Law; and to the common misery of the people.

21. These reasons premised, I shall justly return your own words upon your self, in this manner. It is not in the Kings power to consent to the abolition of Episcopacy, because he cannot now yeeld consent without sin. For if he consent, there will evidently follow [Page 125] such distraction and confusion, as is most repugnant to the weal of his people; which he is bound by the Rule of Government, and his Oath to provide for. I say so, and true it is; because it is evident to every discerning eye, that there are as many, and those more considerable, that are cordially for Episcopacy and Common Prayer, as are against them. Indeed they are not so factious, so mutinous, and bloody as the other. What multitudes are there in this Kingdom, that mourn and grieve to see Religion so opprest, so trampled on, and almost breathing out her last? In truth it is palpable, that these seditious and irreligious courses have ingendred, and propagated, and will continue such distraction and confusion in Church and State, as is most re­pugnant, not onely to the present, but to the eternall wedl and salvation of his people: both which he is bound to provide for, but more especially for the later.

22. And whereas you say, Such distraction and confusion will continue, unlesse Episcopacy be abolished; if seems, you are re­solved to continue these distractions. But, God knows, and your words testifie, that it is not the calling or the office of a Bi­shop, that is offensive; it is I hope they will not be so te­nacious of their wealth and honour, as to let the Crown run an hazard, and in­danger the whole Land. I. G. p. 5, their honour, and their wealth, which you aim at; That the reve­nues be divided to maintain a preaching Mini­stery. I G. p. 4. these, with their revenues must be shared amongst you of the Presbyterian faction; and then all shall be well. Till then we must look for nothing but fire and sword. Hence it evidently appears, that neither Episcopacy, nor the Kings dissent, but your ambition and avarice have been the true cause of these distractions and combustions. Num. 16. 2. Such a sedition as this there was in the time of Moses about the Priesthood; because every man might not sacrifice, as, when, and where he plea­sed. Because Corah might not wear a Miter, and go into the most holy place, as well as Aaron. And yet who dares say, that the Priestood was the cause of those uproars?

23. That insurrection was against Moses and Aaron, against Prince and Priest: but against the Prince for the Priests sake; because the Prince would not endure, that every one should meddle with the Priests office, or strip him of his means and honour. That conspiracie was linsie-woolsie, loomed up of Clergie and Laitie. Korah, the son of Levi was the ring-leader; and Num. 16, 16. 17. 35. with him two hundreth and fiftie of his own Tribe. To [Page 126] these were joyned Ib. v 2. Dathan and Abiram, great Princes, and men of renown; such as were eminent in blood, and of the tribe of Reuben. And was not the crie the same then, that is now? Ib. v. 3. Moses and Aaron, Prince and Priest, ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; Wherfore then lift ye your selves above the congregation of the Lord? The Prince and Priest did but their duty; and yet are obbraided with pride. God raised them to their places; and they are charged to raise themselves. But Moses justly re­torts upon them, what they had falsly cast upon him; Ib. v. 7. Ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi. What? Ib. v. 9. 10. Is it not enough for you, that God hath separated you from the multitude, that he hath ta­ken you neer himself, to do the service of the Lords tabernacle, but you must have the Priests office? But you must be Ib. v. 40. offering incense, as well as the High Priest? The Priest of the second Order would needs be equall with the chief Priest, the Priest of the first Order. And is it not so now? Have we not just cause to say to you, Ye take too much upon you, ye Presbyters, ye sons of Bishops. What? Is it not enough for you, that God hath separated you from the multitude, that he hath taken you neer himself, to do the service of the Lords house, and to administer the Sacraments; but you must have the Bishops office? But you must be giving Orders, as well as the Bishop? Surely this is to assume that power to your selves, which God never committed to any Presbyter, while a Pres­byter.

24. Last of all, I cannot but observe, that when the Lord had punished these schismaticall and seditious persons, Ib. v. 42. the tumult ariseth afresh against Moses and Aaron; they cry out upon them as Ib. v. 41. murderers, as if these two had slain the people of the Lord: for thus they call that factious and damnable crue. But the Lord decided the controversie, and shewed ma­nifestly, who were His; first Ib. v. 49. by consuming the mutineers with the plague; and secondly, by causing Numb. 7 8. Aarons rod, when it seemed to be quite dead, to revive, even to bud, and blos­som, and bear fruit in the Tabernacle. Ib. v. 10. Thus the mouthes of the rebellious Children were stopped, and Gods Ordinance ju­stified. Psal. 54 7. Oh, that salvation were given unto Israel out of Sion: Oh, that the Lord would deliver his people out of Captivity. Oh, that we [Page 127] might see Aarons rod once more bud, and blossom, and bring forth Almonds. Ib. v. 8. Then should Jacob rejoyce, and Israel should be right glad.

CHAP. XVII. Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdom.

1. IN this Treatise That was to set up t [...]o Supremacies. I, G. p. 3. you blame those, that seem to set up two Supremacies; and yet you cannot see the same beam in your own eye. You are of kin, sure, to those Lamiae, those witches, that were blind at home, but quick-sighted abroad. Thou, that findest fault with another, doest the same thing. For do not you say plainly, that I. G. p. 9. there's a Supremacie in the King, and a Supremacy in the Parliament? I hope, you know your own language. Clodius accusat. It is an usuall thing for your confederacie, to charge the King and his good Subjects with that, which your selves are either guilty of, or intend to in­duce.

2. What, two Supremacies, two superlatives, at the same time, in the same Kingdom? Is this possible? What, because there is summus and supremus; because there are two superla­tives of the same word, shall we therefore have two Suprema­cies in the same Realm? Is not this flatly against the Oath of Supremacy? Wherein you, and I, and your great Patriots, have sworn, that the Kings Highnesse is the ONELY SU­PREME GOVERNOUR OF THIS REALME, and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countreys. But the King hath been so long out of your eye, that he is now out of your minde, and the Parliament shall at least be his corrivall in the Supremacy. Take heed, take heed of perjury. I can tell you of severall Acts of Parliament since the Reformation, that 3 Eliz. 9. &c. lay a penaltie of fourty pounds, upon every particular perjurie. If His Majestie had all these forfeitures, they would satisfie his debts, and make him a glorious King after all these pressures.

3. But you clip His Majesties wings, though ye make him flie; and tell us, as That the Supre­mum jus dominii, even that, which is above all laws, is in the King, which, under fa­vour, I conceive, in our State is a manifest error. I. G. p. 9. you conceive, that the Supremum jus Dominii, the supreme right of Dominion, which is above all Laws, is not in the [Page 128] King. To say it is in him, is in this, in our State a manifest error. Why, what's become of the Oath of Supremacy? Have we for­got that? Was not that provided for this State? In our State this is no error; in yours it may be; or else you are in a manifest error. Certainly the members have sworn, that the King is the ONLY SUPREME GOVERNOUR OF THIS REALM, or State. And that he is so, as well IN ALL Spirituall or Ec­clesiasticall things, or causes, as Temporall. If He be the onely Su­preme, how shall we find another Supreme, or an equall to him within his own Dominions? If He be so in all things and causes both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall, what thing or cause is there, wherein he is not the onely Supreme; or wherein he hath any other Supreme joyned to him? For certain, these particles Onely and All, are exclusive of any copartner.

4. But you will chalk out a way, whereby to elude, or avoid this Oath, and the restrictions therein. There's a supreme Parliament, as well as a supreme King. Or, a Supremacy is in the Parliament, and a Supremacy in the King. An excellent Arith­metician, he hath learned to multiply; of one, and one onely, he hath made two. Thus have they raised division out of unity: and from hence are these distractions and divisions, which are so repugnant to the weal of the people. This is one of their new lights, which is borrowed from their multiplying glasse, that makes a molehill as bigge as a mountain, and a Spider as large as a Sea-crab. But when the multiplying glasse is layed aside, the spider will be but a spider.

5. Well, let us see, how you make good this twofold Supre­macy. I. G. p. 9. The Supremacy, or the Supremum jus Dominii, that is over all Laws, figere or refigere, to make, or disanull them at pleasure, is nei­ther in the King, nor in the Houses apart, but in both conjoyned. Here then we are fallen back to one Supremacy. And this Supremacy is not the Kings onely; but it is the Parliaments, as well as his. This is to skip from Monarchy to Aristocracy. Kingdoms indure no corrivals; and Rex non parē habet in regno suo. Bract. temps. el. 3. l. 4. c. 24. Sect. 5. Kings have no Peers. But this man hath found one thing, wherein the King hath Peers; and conse­quently is not the onely supreme Governour of this Realm. Strange, how that Parliament, and all since that time have been so mistaken, as not to see their own right, but to ascribe all to [Page 129] the King; and that in a point of so high concernment. Sure­ly they wanted this young Preacher, to bring them in a new light. But I beleeve, it will appeare, that the Supremacie over all Laws to make, or disanull them, is in the King alone, at the Petition of both houses: and that those Parliaments knew full well.

6. For satisfaction in this point I shall observe, what Scrip­tures, Fathers, and some modern writers have resolved con­cerning Kings. S. Petter plainly and fully 1. S. Pet 2. 13. 14. ascribes Suprema­cy to the King. Submit your selves (saith he) to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake: Whether it be to the KING, as SU­PREME; or unto Governors, as unto them, that are sent by him. Kings are sent by God; to them therfore we submit for the Lords sake. All other civill Governours are sent by the King; to them there­fore we submit for the Kings sake, that sent them. Answerable hereunto are those passages in Tertullian, that Tertul. ad Scap. c. 2. the Emperor is homo a Deo secundus, & solo Deo minor, Tertul. Apol. c. 30. in Dei solius potestate, a quo secundus, post quem primus, the man second to God, and lesse then God onely. That he is in the power, or under the Command of God onely; from whom he is the second, and after whom he is the first. Optatus saies as much; Optat. l. 3. Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem; There is none above the Emperor, but God alone; who made him Emperor. And what the Emperor was in the Empire; the same is the King of England within his own Domini­ons. For 16. Rich. 2. 5. the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in subjection to no Realm, but IMMEDIATELY SUB­JECT TO GOD, AND TO NONE OTHER. Hence is it called 24. Hen. 8. 12. & 1. Eliz. 1. an Empire; and 1. Eliz. 1. the Imperiall Crown of this Realm.

7. The Greeke Commentators are so full for obedience to Kings, that Chrysost. The­odoret. Theo­philact. Occum. in Rom. 13. 1. they will not yeeld, that an Apostle may be freed from this subjection. This doctrine S. Paul justifies; Act. 25. 10. I stand (saith he) at Caesars Judgment seat, WHERE I OUGHT TO BE JUDGED. And after this appeal he resolves, that Ib. v. 11. no man, not the President himself, may judge him, or deliver him to be judged by any other. Nay after this the President him­self might not release him. So King Agrippa, Act. 26. 32. Had not this man appealed to Caesar, he might have been set at liberty. Are not these strong evidences of the Kings Supremacy? That learned Grotius [Page 130] gives a sure rule, whereby to know, on whom the Supremacy is settled. Hug Grot. de Jure belli l. 1 c. 3. Sect 7. That (saith he) is the Supreme civill power, cujus actus alterius juri non subsunt, whose actions are not subject to any other mans censure, or Law. But such is the King, Atnob. in Psal. 51. 4. Qui sub nullo a­lio, sed sub solo Deo agit, who lives in subjection to none, but to God one­ly. For Eccles. 8. 4. who may say unto him, what doest thou? When there­fore David had sinned, he cries out unto the Lord, Psal 51. 4. In te solum peccavi, against thee onely have I sinned, thou onely canst call me to account Hence is that resolution of all the learned of this Church, in the time of King Henry VIII. among whom were Bishop Carnmer, and Bishop Latymer, Instit. of a Christ man fol 86. The supreme and Soveraigne Prince hath none between him and God, representing the person of God, executing his office, and in this respect bear­ing his name: to whom onely he is accountable Dr. Corn Burgesse, Fire of the Sanct. p. 263. Although Princes do other­wise, then they ought to do, yet God hath assigned NO JUDGES O­VER THEM in this world, but will have the judgement of them reserved to himself. And the judgement of the great Lawyers in France is this, Rex solus, om­nium subditorū, tam Laicorum, quam Ecclesiasti­corum, in suis di­tionibus supremus est Dominus Commo fact. & Postulat [...]g. cogni p 38 Rex solus▪ THE KING ONELY IS THE SUPREME LORD of all the Subjects, aswell Lay, as Ecclesiasti­call, within his own Dominions. Arnob. in Psal. 51. 4 All other men live under judgment; & cum deliquerint, peccant Deo, peccant & legibus mundi; and when they offend, they sinne against God, and against the Laws of the Land.

8. But I know, you relye more upon the Laws of this Land, then upon the Laws of God; and upon our Lawyers, rather then the Fathers, and out best Divines. I shall therefore trans­gresse my profession. & shew you, what their opinion is. 24. Hen. 8. 12. & 1 Eliz. 1. This Realme (say the Statutes) is an Empire, whereof the KING IS THE SUPREME HEAD; and consisteth of the Spiritualty and Tempora [...]ty, OVER WHICH THE KING HATH WHOLE POWER, AND JURISDICTION. Are you of this Realm, or are you not? I [...] [...]on be, then are you either of the spiritual­ty or tempora [...]ty And if of either, then wholly under the Kings power The whole power is his; Why seek you to rob him of it? Of this Realme the King not the Parliament, is the Supreme head: One head not two. He that makes two Supremacies, makes a Bul; and he that se [...] two heads upon one body, frames a monster.

9. Indeed they are so far from having any Supremacy, that they are Subjects as well in, as out of Parliament. Sir Rob. Cotton. p 5. When King Edward the Confessor had all the Earles and Barons of the King­dome assembled in Parliament, he cals them all, his leige men My [Page 131] Lords, you that are MY LEIGE MEN. Perchance you may say, the King calls them so, but that makes them not so. You shall therefore have their own acknowledgement, in Parlia­ment, thus. 1. Eliz. 3. We your most loving, faithfull, and obedient SUB­JECTS, REPRESENTING THE THREE ESTATES OF YOUR REALME of England. Thus the whole Parliament united into one body. False therefore is that proposition, that the King is Major singulis, sed minor universis, greater then any, and lesse then all the Inhabitants of this Realme. For here the represen­tative body of the three Estates of this Kingdome, assembled in Par­liament, in their highest capacitie, acknowledge themselves to be the Queens Subjects, and her most obedient Subjects; because to her, they thus assembled, did justly owe both subjection, and obedience; which none that are supreme, can owe. And these are due to his Majestie & à singulis, & ab universis, from one, and all; from every one singly, and from all joyntly.

10. Secondly, when they are assembled in Parliament, they Petition, as well as out of Parliament. This is evident by the Acts themselves; wherein we read, that 16. Ri [...]. 2. 5. our Soveraigne Lord the King, by the assent aforesaid, and at the PRAIER OF HIS COMMONS. The same words are repeated 2 Hen. 5. c. 6 & 9. And in Queen Elizabeths time, the Parliament humble them­selves in this manner, 1. Eliz. 1. That it MAY PLEASE YOUR HIGHNESSE▪ that it may be enacted, &c. I might come down lower, but I shall satisfie my selfe with Sir Edward Cokes re­port, Sir Ed Coke in­stit. l 4. c 1. Sect. The severall forms who assures us, that in ancient times all Acts of Parliament were IN FORME OF PETITIONS. Mr. Geree himselfe acknowledgeth, they should be so now. I. G. p. 8. The King (saith he) may passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy, when HIS HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT think it convenient, and PETITION FOR IT. Either then the Houses have no Supremacy, o [...] else they humble themselves too low, when they Petition His Ma­jestie. But this Supremacy of Parliament is one of the new lights, that were lately wafted into this Land in a Scottish Cook­boate.

11. Thirdly, what Supremacy can there be in those, that may not lawfully convene, or consult, till the King summon them; and must dissolve and depart, when the King command▪ The [Page 132] Writ it self runs thus, Rot. Clausa. An. 59. Hen. 3. prelatis & Magnatibus nostris, QUOS VOCARI FECIMUS. To the Prelates. and our Nobles. WHOM WE HAVE CAUSED TO BE CALLED. And Sir Rob Cotton, p. 3, Sir Robert Cotton, out of Elie Register, tels us that Parliaments were assem­bled at first as now, Edicto Principis (not at their own, but) at the Kings pleasure. And Sir Edward Coke assures me, that Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton, l 2 Sect. 164. None can begin, continue, or dissolve the Parliament, but BY THE KINGS AUTHORITY. And let me tell you, that if his Majestie shall withdraw himself from Parliament, it is not for your great Masters to inforce him to return, but to Sir Rob. Cotton p. 8. pray his presence, and to inform his Majestie, that if he forbear his presence among them fourty dayes, that then by an ancient Statute, they may return abs (que) domigerio Regis, to their severall homes. This is all they ought, or may do.

12. Fourthly, whereas, according to your words, I. G. p. 9. the Parliament is to regulate all other Courts; the Court of Parlia­ment is to be regulated by the King. For the time, that is alrea­dy manifested, to be at his Majesties pleasure. And for the mat­ter, that is prescribed, and limited by the King; Rot. claus. An. 59. Hen. 3. super praemis­sis tractare, to consult and advise upon such things, as the King nominates, and prescribes. And if credit may be given to Iohn Speede, he tells us, that Speed in Ric. 2, c. 13. n. 102. the great Lawyers Judgments, in King Richard II. time, concerning orderly proceedings in Parlia­ments, run thus. That after the cause of such assembly is by the Kings Commandement there declared, such Articles, as by the King are li­mited for the Lords and Commons to proceed in, are first to be handled. But IF ANY SHOULD PROCEED VPON OTHER ARTICLES, AND REFVSE TO PROCEED VPON THOSE LIMITED BY THE KING, till the King had first answered their Proposals, contrary to the Kings Command; such doing herein contrary to the rule of the King, ARE TO BE PUNISHED ASTRAITORS. And he cites the Law books for what he saies. Truly I am the rather induced to beleeve, what Speed delivers, because Sir Edward Coke gives us the reason, why, and how far forth, the King relies upon his Parliaments. Sir Ed. Coke In sti [...]l 4 c. [...]. Sect How Parliaments succeed. The King (saith he) in all his weighty affairs used the advice of his Lords and Commons; so great a trust and confidence he had in them. Al­waies provided, that both the Lords and Commons keep them within [Page 133] the Circle of the Law and Custom of the Parliament. The reason, why the King useth their advice, is because he hath a great trust and confidence in them. But alwaies provided that they keepe them­selves within the Circle of the Law, and Custome of Parliament. But how if they deceive the Kings trust, and abuse his confidence? How if they break the Lawfull Circle, and transgresse the Cu­stoms of Parliament? How then? What Speede hath recorded, I have shewn you. But what the King may do in this case, I shall leave to the Masters of the Law to determine.

13. Last of all, the King regulates their consultations. For in his breast it is, whether their Bills shall become Laws, or no. Observe; though the advice and assent be theirs, yet the power of Ordaining, Establishing, and Enacting, is in the Soveraigne. The Statute books shall be my witnesses. 12. Ed. 4. 3. & 2. Men. 5. 6. 9▪ THE KING by the advice, assent, and authority aforesaid, HATH ORDEINED AND ESTABLISHED. And again, 13 Eliz. 2▪ & 27. Eliz 17. BE IT ENACTED BY THE QUEENS MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTIE, with the assent of the Lords Spirituall, and Temporall, and the Com­mons, &c. Hence is it, that they are called The Kings Laws. And Sir Fd. Coke in Litleton, l. 2. Sect. 140. the King is called the head of the Law; because from him it is derived; from him the Law receives both life and force. Praesumitur Rex habere om­nia jurain scrinio pectoris sui. Ib. His breast is the Shrine, or deske, wherein all the Laws are sto­red up, and preserved. If any man make question of this, pre­sent experience will satisfie him. For do not the Houses at this day Petition His Majestie, to make that a Law which they have voted? Take their own words in that high Message sent to Holdenby house in March last. We the Lords and Com­mons, assembled in the Parliament of England, &c. Do humbly pre­sent unto your Majestie the humble desires and Propositions, agreed upon by the Parliaments of both Kingdoms respectively. Vnto which WE DO PRAY YOUR MAJESTIES ASSENT. And that they, and all such Bills, as shall be tendered to your Majestie in pursu­ance of them, or any of them, may be ESTABLISHED AND EN­ACTED FOR STATUTES AND ACTS OF PARLI­AMENT, by your Majesties Royall assent. Which words, though very high, do manifest, that there is neither Majesty, nor Su­premacy, nor power in this, or any other Parliament, to make, or repeale Laws. It is at the Kings pleasure to establish and enact [Page 134] them for Laws and Statutes, or not. This our neighbour Scot­land sees, and confesseth that Regall power and authority is chief­ly IN MAKING AND ENACTING LAWS. Declarat. of the Kingd. of Scotland. p. 18.

14. From hence it appears, first, that there is no Supremacy in the Parliament, without the King. Secondly; That the Supre­mum jus Dominii, the supreme right of Dominion, which is over laws, to establish or disanull them, is in the King alone. For a Bill not established, is of no force, it is no Law. 3ly, that I. G. p. 9. the King is the supreme Magistrate (as you are pleased to call Him) from whom all power of execution of Laws is legally derived. And 4ly, if the power of execution be derived from the King, much more is the power to regulate. For he, that gives them power by his Com­mission, to put the Laws in execution, he gives them rules in the same Commission, whereby they must be guided; and sets them bounds, which they may not passe. If they transgresse either, the King hath a legall power to revoke their Commis­sions, and to dispose of them, to whom, and when, he pleaseth. Hence is it, that all Courts, and the Judges of those Courts, are called the Kings Courts, and the Kings Ministers of Justice. And when we are summoned to appear in any Court of Justice, the Processe runs Coram Domino Rege, before our Lord the King: because the Kings person and power is there represented. And though His Majestie be over-born, and against all Law and reason kept from his Courts of Justice, yet in all Writs you are fain to abuse his Name; though he be no way accessary to these lawlesse, and illegall proceedings. How these Courts have been regulated, since His Majesties forced departure, this Kingdom is very sensible, and laments to consider it; God amend it.

15. Upon these grounds I argue thus. They, that are Sub­jects; they, that are suppliants; they, that owe obedience to an higher; they, that cannot lawfully convene, or consult, till they be called by another; they, that must dissolve their meeting at anothers command; they, that are to be regulated by another; they, that can onely advise, perswade, entreat, but not enact a Law, have no Supremacy. But the whole Parlia­ment sever'd from the King, are Subjects, are suppliants; they [Page 135] owe obedience to an higher; they cannot lawfully convene, or consult, till they be called by His Majestie; at his command, they are to dissolve their meeting; by him they are to be re­gulated; and The Houses of Parliament with­out the King cannot enact any Laws. Declarat▪ of the Kingd. of Scotland p 19. without him they cannot enact a Law. The Major is evident, to every intelligent eye. The Minor is de­monstrated, Sect. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. I must therefore up­on these premises necessarily conclude, that the Parliament, in that sense you take it, hath no Supremacy.

16. That nothing may be wanting, I shall give you the re­solution of our Sages at Law, concerning the Kings unsepa­rable and incommunicable Supremacy; that so all mouthes may be stopped. Bractons resolution is this, Bract. temps. H. 3. l. 4. c. 24. Sect. 1. Rex habet pote­statem & jurisdictionem super omnes, qui inregno suo sunt. The King hath power and jurisdiction over all, within his own Kingdom. Plow­den saith as much; [...]lowd▪ 234. 242. The King hath the SOLE GOVERN­MENT of his Subjects. Here is no man, no Societie of men ex­empted; all under the King, and solely under the King. Where then is the Parliaments Supremacy? Not in this kingdom; it must be looked for some where else.

17. Secondly, Bract ib. Ea, quae sunt Jurisdictionis & pacis ad nullum pertinent nisi ad regiam dignitatem: Those things, which concerne Jurisdiction and Peace, belong to none but onely to the Royall dignity. Ib. The same he affirmes of restraint, and punishment. These then belong not to the Parliament; since that cannot chalenge Roy­all dignity. Where then is their Supreme power? All power al­most consists in Jurisdiction, ordering of Peace, and punishing offenders. And all these are flowers of the Crown. Yea, Lex. terrae: p. 4. the power of the Militia, of eoyning of mony, of making Leagues with for­reigne Princes; the power of pardoning, of making of Officers, &c. All Kings had them, the said Powers have no beginning. If then all these and many more are peculiar to Soveraignty, what is left for the Parliament? Why surely if you will, to be the Kings Supreme or chief Councell, and his capitall Court. This they are; and this is an high honour to them being rightly used.

18. Thirdly, Bract. temps. H. 3. l. 4. c. 24. Sect. 5. Omnis sub Rege, & ipse sub nullo; Every one is under the King; but the king is under none, but God onely. The Su­premacy then must needs be in the king; who is superior to all but the God of heaven. And over the Supreme there can be no [Page 136] earthly superior. To admit a comparative above the superlative in the same kinde, is a solecisme not onely in Grammar, but in reason, and Religion. Yet, though no superior, there may per­chance be an equall to this supreme. There may so; but not within his own Dominions. Ib. Rex enim non habet parem in regno suo; 3 Ed. 3. 19. The King (saith the Statute) hath no Peer in his Land. And if Justice Jenkins may be heard, he tels us, that Lex terrae p. 7. the Houses in Parliament confesse, the King to be above the representative Body of the Realm. They are not therefore his equals; and so have no Supremacy. When I can be perswaded, that any, or all the Members of the Body are equall to the Head, then I shall be apt to beleeve, that there may be two Supremacies in a King­dom. But I am confident, that Nee regna so­cium ferre nec tedae queunt. a wife may as safely admit of two husbands, as a Kingdom of two Supremes. For Sir Ed Coke Re­ports, part. 2. Magd. College Case. the king is Sponsus Regni, that Husband, who by a Ring is espoused to this Realm at his Coronation. But a Ring is superstitious, and husbands are grown out of date. The onely thing in request is liberty, to take or leave what and whom we please.

19. But I. G. p. 9. the Parliament is the supreme Court, by which all other Courts are to be regulated: what say we to that? This I say, that the Parliament is Sir Rob. Cotton. p 1. Curia capitalis, the supreme Court of this King­dom: and yet his Court it is, whose Courts the rest are. It is therefore called Ib. Curia Regis, and Sir Ed Coke in Litleton, l 2. Sect. 164. Magnum Concilium Regis, The kings Court, the kings great Councell: yea and the kings Par­liament. Sir Rob. Cotton justifies it from the Parliament Rowles. Sir Rob. Cotton p. 8. Henry IV. began his first Parliament. Novemb. 1. Ib. p. 9. The King began his second Parliament Jan. 20. And of Henry VII. thus: Ib p. 11. It is no doubt, but he would have been found as frequent in HIS GREAT COUNCELL OF PARLIAMENT, as he was in the Starre-Chamber. And this very Parliament, how oft have they called themselves, The kings great Councell? They are so, and they are no more. But why am I so carefull to heap up instances? Your self call it. His, the Kings, Parliament, p. 2. and His Houses of Parliament, p. 8.

20. If then in your sense, we take the Houses without the King, there is no Supremacy in them, either severally, or joynt­ly: since they are but Subjects, and the representative body of Subjects. And under this consideration they cannot regu­late [Page 137] other Courts, unlesse the king give them power to do so. But take the Houses with the king, and then it is most true, that there is a Supremacy in the Parliament; and that it hath power to regulate all other Courts. But this Supremacy it hath by, and from the king; and from no other. We therefore professe with that learned Mr of the Law, that Sir Ed Coke in Litleton, l. 2. Sect. 164. the Parliament is the HIGHEST, AND MOST HONORABLE AND ABSO­LUTE COURT of Justice of England, CONSISTING OF THE KING, the Lords of Parliament, and the Commons. The Lords are here divided into two sorts, viz. SPIRITUALL AND TEMPORALL. When such an Assembly meets, and each House and the Members thereof keep themselves within their proper limits, I dare be bold to say, that this Court is assem­bled as it ought, Sir Rob. Cotton p, 3. for provision for support of the State in men and money; and well ordering of the Church and Common-wealth; and determining of such causes, which ordinary Courts nesciebant judicare, were not skilfull to determine. Ib. These are the causes of such As­semblies.

21. But truly, when they are thus assembled, I do not con­ceive, that they have power to The Supremum jus dominis, that is over all Laws, to make or disanull them at pleasure, is neither in the King, nor in the Houses aparti but in both conjoyn­ed. I. G. p. 9. make or disanull all Laws at plea­sure; but upon just and necessary occasion. For there is great danger in altering Laws without urgent cause. Innovation in government makes an alteration in State: & sudden alterati­ons are not for the safety either of bodies naturall, or bodies politicke. Observe, what the mirror of his time K. Iames speaks: In his Procla­mation before the Book of Common Prayer. We are not ignorant of the inconveniences, that do arise in Govern­ment, by admitting Innovasion in things once settled by mature deli­beration: And Illud explora­tissimum est, leges patrias aut muta­re, aut ad earum obsequium sese non accommoda▪ re, negotium sem­per cum periculo fuisse conjuncti [...] ­simum. Smith, de Repub. Anglo­rum l. 1. c. 5. how necessary it is to use constancy in the upholding of the publik determinations of State. For that such is the unquietnesse and unstedfastnesse of some dispositions affecting every yeer new formes of things, as if they should be followed in their unconstancy, WOULD MAKE ALL ACTIONS OF STATE RIDICULOUS and contemptible. Whereas the STEDFAST MAINTAINING OF THINGS BY GOOD ADVICE ESTABLISHED, IS THE WEALE OF ALL COMMON-WEALTHS. There is often danger, seldom pleasure in the change of Laws. Truly since the Laws-have been neglected, and varietie of Ordinances have supplied their roome, Psal. 80. 5. 6. We have been fed with the bread of tears, [Page 138] we have had plentiousnesse of tears to drinke. We are become a very striffe unto our neighbours; and our enemies laugh us to scorne.

22. That the King in Parliament doth usually make or alter Laws, as the necessity of the times, and common good of his Subjects require, is no rare thing. Yet this ought to be done with much care and deliberation; that so nothing be enacted, which may be justly greivous or destructive to his leige people. Sithence, according to your determination, I. G. p. 9. He cannot lawful­ly make any ingagement to any, against the Laws, and LEGALL RIGHTS of others. Your reason is because, Ib. that were not Ce­dere jure suo, sed alieno, a parting with his own, but with other mens rights. The same reason will hold against the Parliament. Suppose we should grant, what we may not, that the King and Parliament are equals; it follows necessarily, that whatsoe­ver is unlawfull for one, is unlawfull for any other of the same ranke and power. If then it be not lawfull for the King, neither is it Lawfull for his great Councell, to take away the legall rights of others against Law. And therefore not the legall Rights of Bi­shops, Deanes and Chapters, or any other of the Clergie. For by the Laws of the Land, we have as firme an interest, and as true a freehold in those possessions, wherein to we are admitted, or inducted, as any other of his Majesties subjects have in theirs. Boast not of your power; Potentia sequi debet [...]u [...]ti [...]m, no [...] praeire Aug­de Trin l. [...]. c. 13. power must attend upon Justice, not go before it, nor over-rule it. I [...] Justice take place, it is a judici­all, a just power; but if power over sway Justice, the Govern­ment proves tyrannicall.

23. As for the power of making Laws, we must know, that The forms or Acts of parlia­ment sometimes beein with Con­cessimus, or Sta­tuit Rex And of latter times Laws and Statutes be­gin, as Deinz en­acted by the King, &c Declarat. of the Kingd of Scot and, p. 19. by the Common Law, which is guided by the light of nature, and the word of God, that power is acknowledged to be in the King. Who is leg [...]us superior, as Nat Brev. tit. Pro [...]ection fol 28 Fitz harbert speaks, above the Law. But the Soveraignes of this Realme to reitifie the tender care they have of their peoples welfare, and the desire they have to injoy their love, have so far condescended in the Sta­ture Law, that they will not henceforth do so without the ad­vice & assent of the Houses. This is not to give them a Supre­macie, but to admit them to advice. This is the way to win the most refractary, to submit to those Laws, whereto they have given consent either in person, or by proxy. Besides, P [...]u [...]imum [...]acit ad populum cor­rigendum multo­rum in unâ re sen­tentia atque con­sensus. Hieron. in Gal. 1. 2. what [Page 139] is concluded on with good advice, by Common consent, and hath the opprobation of diverse wise, learned, and religious persons, gives better satisfaction to all in generall, then what is done by one alone, be it never so well done. And yet to this day the power of ordeining, establishing and enacting Laws, is reser­ved wholly to the Crowne. Most of these Statute Laws are as so many Royall legacies bequeathed to this Nation, by the se­verall Soveraignes and Fathers of this Countrey. Sir Ed: Coke in Mag Chart. c. 1. Not a Li­berty or priviledge, Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton, l. 2. Sect. 139. not any Land or tenement, but is originally derived from the Crowne. Such hath been the goodnesse and bounty of our Princes to us their unworthy subjects. All we have, is from them: and now we take all from them. Is this gratitude? We serve God and the King alike; we are resol­ved to seize upon all, that is called sacred. And I have learned, that not onely Notit▪ Imperii Orient. c. 159. the Kings house, but Lex terrae. p. 5. his very lands are called in Law Patrimonium sacrum, the holy Patrimony. Is not this that sacra fames, that sacred hunger, which is so greedy of all that is called sacred?

24. Brand not us, poore Clergie-men, with foule and fai­ned aspersions; delude not the People with false & forged sug­gestions. This Oath to the Clergy, can­not ingage him against the legall privileges of the people, or Parlia­ment I. G. p. 9. Whose legall priviledges, or rights have we invaded, or sought after? When did we ever desire, or perswade his Majestie, to do the least injurie to people, or Parliament? Your own conscience clears us in the generall. And your own pro­fession is, that I. G p. 5. 6. you cannot but have a better conceit of the major part of the Clergie, at this time, that they will not be so tenacious of their wealth and honour, as t [...] let the Crowne run an hazard. If then we will, and have parted with that, which is justly ours, ra­ther then in the least manner we would prejudice the king, or wrong our own consciences; certainly we cannot perswade the king Ib. p. 9. to make any ingagement to us, against the Laws, and legall rights of others. If any particular person have offended in this kind, we make no Apologie for him: upon just proofe let him have a legall censure. This Kingdom cannot but take notice, that we have been so far from incroaching upon others, that we have parted with u [...] own rights, though not with Gods. We have deserted all we had, to preserve a good conscience. This is truly cedere jure suo, to part with our own, that we may not [Page 140] faile that trust, which is committed to us. We justifie Gods right, and lose our own.

25. We confesse, that I. G. p. 9. the king is bound to maintain the legall priviledges of people and Parliament; but not so, as to destroy Gods rights, or the priviledges of his Ministers. That be farre from him. Rom. 137. Suum cui (que), the true Princely justice is, to be just to God and man; to give God what is his, and impartially to his subjects, what is theirs, as also what truly belongs to them in their severall places and professions. His Majestie knows full well, that the liberties of the Subject, the priviledges of Parlia­ment, and rights of the Clergie, have long consisted and prospered together. Take away the Vine, and the Elme will beare no fruit; take away the Elme, and the Vine will fall to the ground, and be trod to durt.

26. That One of which is to be ready, by confirming need­full Bills to re­lieve thē against whatsoever grie­vance they suffer from any. I. G. p. 10. the King hath been alwaies ready to confirme need­full (not wanton, not malicious, not destructive) Bills, cannot be denyed by any of his impartiall & conscionable subjects. The quarrell raised against him is, because he will not suffer Gods inheritance, and the Churches patrimony to be devoured; because he will not endure Gods service, and all Religion to be trampled on; because he end eavours to releive his poore people the Clergie, against whatsoever greivance they suffer, or threatned to be enforced upon them. The same favour he alwaies hath, and is at this time forward to afford to all his good people, and loyall subjects. Yea, even to those, that are neither good, nor loyall.

27. But before I take my leave of your Case of Conscience, I shall resolve you, what a pious designe you have ventered on, and what a rock you have run your self upon. You will, I hope like the better of it, because it comes from that Law, you most delight in. The Statute saith, 25 Ed. 3. 2. when a man secular or Religious slayeth his Prelate; to whom he OWETH FAITH AND OBE­DIENCE, it is Treason. If then it be Treason to slay the Prelate, what sin is it to murder Prelacy? certainly by how much the sin is greater to destroy the species, all mankind, then one par­ticular man; by so much is the Treason more heinous more a­bominable to kill Episcopacy, then any one Bishop whatsoever. And yet this you have endeavoured to the utmost of your [Page 141] power. For this I shall leave you to the Law, and to those, 1. S. [...]et. 2. 14. whom the King shall send for the punishment of evill doers. Pray we therefore for the safety of our Soveraigne, and that he may with speed be restored to his throne; for these times have made us sensible with Rabbi Chanina, that Apud Jo. Coch in Notis ad Maccoth c. 1. n. 31. were it not for fear of him, alter alterum vivus devoraret, one would devoure another quicke.

28. Thus I think the Case is suffi­ciently cleared, that notwithstan­ding the Kings Oath to the Cler­gie at his Coro­nation, he may consent to the extirpation of Prelaey out of the Church of England. I. G. p. 10 Thus I think, by this time, I may safely conclude, that it is sufficiently cleared, that neither as a king, nor as a Christian, may his Majestie in Justice, or conscience, ingage himselfe, or yeeld consent either to the extirpation of Episcopacy out of this Church of England, or to the abrogation of the just priviledges of his Clergie, or to the alienation of their Lands. Since by your con­fession, Ib. p. 9. he cannot lawfully make any ingagement to any, against the Laws and legall rights of others. And the King is so just; that he will never do, what he cannot lawfully do.

Observe the plagues of such men, as are never touched with the mi­series of others. They commonly fall under the same judgment, which others unpittied have tasted before. D. Corn. Burges. Fire of the Sanct. p. 50. 51.