WE have heard your malicious charges against the Author of the little Treatise, which you undertake to answer. Now I must minde the Reader, of a Serpen­tine subtilty, that you use, to deceive him into a belief of your foul slanders, if he be not cautelous; which is, not to set down the treatise entire, nor to take it in order as it lyes, lest the view of it, if it had been entirely set down, should clearly have cryed false on your slanders; but here and there pack some of it in your margent, in what method you please. I shall therefore take this course, to set down the first Treatise by parts entire, A case Resol­ved. that the Reader may the bet­ter judg, whether is true, my Apology, or your Calumny; and when I have set down any entire part of the case resolved, I shall indeavour to cleer what you have objected against it, in any part of your prolix Sieve.

First therefore, the Introduction into the dispute, runs thus in my printed Treatise.

NOw the bond of the Kings oath, may be taken off two wayes; either by clearing the unlawfulness of it, that it was vinculum iniquitatis, and so void the first day; For qu [...] jurat in iniquum obligatur in contrarium. And if Pre­lacy in the Church be an usurpation contrary to Christs insti­tution, then, to maintain it, is sin; and all bonds to sin, are frustrate. And truly, as Prelacy stood with us in England, ingrossing all ruledom in the Church, into the hands of a few L. Bishops, I think, it may be cleared to be an usurpation, by this one argument.

That power that dispoyls any of Christs Officers of any priviledg or duty indulged or injoyned them by the word of God; that power is an usurpation against the word of God. But this did Prelacy, as it stood in England: therefore English Prelacy, was an usurpation against the word of God.

The Major is cleer of it self. The Minor is thus proved: Presbyters are by Christs warrant, in Scripture, indued with power to rule in their own congregations, as well as preach; See 1 Tim. 3.5. & 5,17, Heb. 13.17. 1 Thess. 5.12. Now as Prelacy stood in England, the Presbyters were not onely excluded from all society of rule; but, which was more pre­judicial to the dignity and liberty of the ministery, were subjected to a lay-Chancellor; and was not here usurpation against Gods direction?

Now what saith Dr. Boughen? you say true (saith he) that the oath which is Vinculum iniquitatis is void the first day, &c. And hitherto your argument is good; and in it, he will joynissue, &c. Cap. 2. Parag. 1. See what a work [Page 7]this passage hath on the Doctor, taken together, and con­sidered when the blood was down; now all goes current; yet this is the place, for which he spit so much poyson of aspes in his Epistle to the Reader. I hope, the Reader will observe; and by appealing from the Doctor in passion, to the Doctor out of passion, see how injuriously he hath traduced me, for one that blasphemes and spits in the face of authority. Well now, upon this the Doctor will joyn issue, and will readily acknowledg, that if Prelacy in the Church be an usurpation against Christs institution, then to maintain it, is to sin, and all bonds to sin are frustrate; but yet Parag 2. He adds, he hopes I use no tricks, but by Prelacy mean Episcopacy properly so called. Doctor, I do use no tricks, a good cause needs them not; but I doubt, you will be found to use tricks presently, and that poor ones; that is, to change the state of the question: For when I implead Pre­lacy as unlawful, I implead it not absolutely; but as it then stood in England. But the Doctor proceeds, and thinks that my medium is an arrow for his bow; and makes a triple assay to hit me with it, but is unlucky in all, as will presently appear; first thus, If Supremacy in Parliament be an usurpation contrary to Christs institution, then to maintain it, is to sin; But supremacy, &c. ergo it is sin.

The major you prove, by 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man, whether it be unto the King as supream, or unto governours, as those that are sent by him. I answer, the Apostle gives no other supre­macy to the King here, then I give him Pag. 9 of my case; that is, to be the Supream Magistrate, from whom all power of execution is legally derived; and this is competible with that supremacy which I give the Parliament. Oh, but saith the Doctor, every rational man cannot but understand, that there cannot be two supreams in one Kingdome. But Master Doctor, Rational men will see a difference between a Supre­macy, and the Supremacy; that is, Supremacy absolute, and in a kind. There be more Supremacies secundum quid, in some respect, though not more in one kingdome absolutely; and [Page 8]this I shall make you confess to be my meaning, in asserting more then one supremacy in a kingdom, and to be a truth, or I shall make you deny, not Reason onely, but your own words, when I come to answer your last Chapter.

His second Argument is against Ordination by Presby­tery, but in that he begs the question, and therefore he refers us for the proof, (that Ordination by Presbyters is against Christs institution) to another place, where we shall meet with it.

Thirdly, He argues, If Episcopacy in the Church be no usurpation, but Christs institution; then to endeavour the extirpation of it, is sin. But Episcopacy is Christs institution,ergo. This he doth but propose here, and endeavours to prove hereafter, where his proofs shall be examined.

He proceeds, parag. 3. "That you, your Assembly and Parliament, have made and taken an Oath to extirpate Epis­copacy, is too notorious to be denyed.

Sir, your are the confidentest man, not onely in uncer­tainties, but falsities, that I have heard. It's neither true, that I made the Covenant; nor notorious, that I have taken it: neither is it true, that the Covenant is to extirpate Epis­copacy; but onely, (according to my argument,) Prelacy, as it then stood, that is, by Arch-Bishops, Arch-Deacons, and the rest, in your &c. Oath, as is plain by the expression of the second Article. And therefore you must prove, not onely (as you say) Episcopacy, but Episcopacy as it then stood, not to be contrary to the institution of Christ, before you can prove the Covenant in that clause to be a bond of iniquity; or exempt the Kings oath from unlawfulness in that clause, if it binde to maintain Episcopacy as it then stood.

But say you, The Order of Bishops is Christs institution. And yet ye have sworn to up with it, root and branch.

The former you endeavour to prove; and the latter you take for granted, which is very false, for there is no such ex­pression, nor hint, in the Covenant, as root and branch.

But Christ you say, was the root of Episcopacy, who is called the Bishop of our souls, from him it takes its rise. You are good at affirming, but where's your proof? Why, [Page 9] its evident in the Apostles, strictly so called, who had their orders immediately from Christ, parag. 4.

A goodly argument, as though an Apostle, and one of your Lord Bishops were birds of a feather: Whereas toto caelo differunt; An Apostle was an Officer extraordinary, im­mediately called and inspired of God, and his office to in­dure for a time, and your Bishop is an ordinary officer, called by man, who you would have to endure for ever. But to them, say you, he gave power to ordain Apostles. False and Atheological. An Apostle cannot be created but by God, and had his knowledg by inspiration from God; this is con­fest by Divines on all sides. See Bilson perp. Govern. chap. [...]. pag. 106.

But you will prove they had power to ordain Apostles, Mat. 10.8. [...], which the Greeks under­stand thus; a gift ye have received, a gift give.

But what Greeks? Will they understand things against the letter of their natural language? The English of the words to every smatterer in greek, is, freely you have recei­ved, freely give; and the meaning is plainly, that they should not make merchandize of their gift of miracles; For the whole verse runs thus, Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils; Freely you have received, free­ly give. But what is this to power to create Apostles? which speaks onely of their dispensing their gift gratis. And so the Authors in your margent, such as I can meet with, for the most part, take it; ut sit ministratio gratuita muneris gra­tuiti, that there might be a free administering of a free gift, Hil. in Matth. Can. 10.

Ergo ne quid in ministerio nostro venale sit, admonemur; Therefore we are admonisht, that nothing in our ministry be set to sale. Ego minister & Dominus abs (que) pretio hoc vobis tribui, & vos sine pretio date, ne Evangelij gratia corrumpa­tur, Hieron. in Mat. 10.8.

Now what are these to your purpose? Only Gennadius from this proves ordination should be without price; but this must be but by way of allusion. For do you, Mr Doctor, think that the Apostles had power to create Apostles, given them [Page 10]here, whilst Christ was alive? I hope your second thoughts will be wiser. That Christ renewed the Commission of the Apostles, Joh. 20.21. As my father sent me, so send I you, is granted: but that they (as you affirm) upon the strength of this commission ordained some other to be Apostles, con­ferring on them the same honor and power which they had re­ceived from Christ. Is an assertion, I know not whether fuller of boldness, or ignorance; yea, in part a very Bull. For first one part, and one of the principlest parts of their honour, was, to be called immediatly by Christ; which they could not confer on others, unless you can make Christ and the A­postles individually one, which is impossible. Besides, that there were many other honours peculiar to the Apostles themselves, not communicable to their successors: You may read in Bilsons perp. Govern. chap. 9. pag. 106.

But you say, this is evident in S. James Bishop of Jerusa­lem, Epaphroditus Bishop of Philippi, and in Apollos Bishop of Corinth. But for S. James, that he was an Apostle Scriptures witness indeed, Gal. 1.19. but that he was or­dained of the Apostles, in that Scriptures are silent; nor hath Jerome any such words, but that he was called an Apostle; illud in causa est, omnes qui dominum viderunt, & eum postea praedicassent, suisse Apostolos nominatos. He was therefore called an Apostle, because all that had seen the Lord, and af­terwards preach't him, were called Apostles, Jerom. in Gal. 1.19. But to make a man truly and properly and Apostle, was required somewhat more, scilicet, immediate inspiration and mission by Christ, as may be gathered from S. Pauls proving his Apostleship from these, Gal. 1.11, 12, 15, 16, 17. And James was an Apostle truly, and properly, yea, a chief Apostle, Gal. 2.2.9. And so he is mentioned in the Scripture, as an Apostle in Jerusalem, not a Bishop of Jerusa­lem. See Act. 15.2, 13, 23. Here Iames is contained under the name Apostle, with the rest, without any hint of prece­dency there, as Bishop. And therefore, whereas he is called Bishop of Ierusalem, sometimes by the ancients; that is to be taken but in an allusive, not a proper sense, because he ex­ercised his Apostolical function there, while others exercised [Page 11]theirs else where; and some of the Apostolical power was emulated in the Fathers times by Bishops. But a Bishop there properly he was not, for that were to degrade him: an Apostle being an office extraordinary, and so higher then the ordinary office of Bishop. And such degradation is not onely injurious. But if the resolution of the Chalcedon Counsel be true, cited by Bilson, pag. 280. To bring back a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter, is sacriledg; Then cer­tain, to bring down an Apostle to the degree of any ordina­ry Officer (as a Bishop is) cannot want guilt. "And for Apollos, if he were Bishop of Corinth: I pray you, why did not Saint Paul write to him, when he blames them for not excommunicating the incestuous person? and blame him for that neglect of discipline, and enjoyn him to see it done, and not the Church? Or why doth he say, that the censure was inflicted by many, 2 Cor. 2.6.? if Apollos were their Bishop, who alone had power of excommunication; If he be con­tained under the title of Apostle, 1 Cor. 4.9. (which Calvin approves not;) yet is he called Apostle, in a large, not strict sense, as contradistinct to other Church-officers, Ephes. 4.12. For Epaphroditus, indeed he is called, in the Epistle to the Phlliippians, Your Apostle; but that is most generally taken, as Walo Messalinus confesseth, by Greek and mo­derne Interpreters; to hint, not the name of a Church­officer, but a messenger from the Church to Saint Paul, as our last translation takes it; and the words following, imply part of his message; he that ministred to my wants. And though Walo Messalinus dissents, yet he confesseth his ex­position not to agree so well with propriety of speech. But these (you say) are confessed to be Apostoli ab ipsis Apostolis ordinati. First, this is false; for neither Calvin, nor Messali­nus, speak of their Ordination. And the very phrase, an Apostle ordained of Apostles, shews, that the title, Apostle, is taken improperly.

But Parag. 5. you say, Apostles they were at that time called, but afterwards the name Bishop was setled on them. For this you cite Theodoret. The same persons were some­times called, both Presbyters and Bishops; but those who are [Page 12]now named Bishops, were then called Apostles; but in process of time, the title of an Apostle was reserved to those that were [...], Apostles properly and truly so called. And the name of Bishop came appropriated to those who were lately called Apostles.

For answer to this, First, I observe you have given us a clear confession out of Theodoret, that Bishops and Presby­ters were all one, divers names of the same office.

Secondly, those that Theodoret affirms, that being in his time called Bishops, were formerly called Apostles, were not [...], Apostles truly, but onely called so, be­cause they had preheminence over others in his times, as the Apostles had over others in the first time of the Gospel.

Thirdly, he gives us no proof, that those that are now called Bishops, were formerly called Apostles: and his con­jecture is not infallible; Nay, is it not apparently false, that the name of Bishop came appropriated to those that were lately called Apostles, (but were not so [...]?) for was not the name of Bishop continued common to Iames, Peter, and others that were [...], Apostles truly so cal­led? Continued. I say, by the Fathers, calling them Bishops, allusively. But though the name of Bishop was given to Apostles, by the Fathers: It cannot be shewen, where those that are now called Bishops, were called Apostles, (as A­postle signifieth a Gospel officer) by the Scripture. If they were, let the Doctor produce the place, where in Scripture any ordinary officer was stiled an Apostle; which if he can­not do, Theodorets assertion, in one part, contrary to the plain expressions of the Fathers: and in the other, without ground of Scripture, cannot have much force on any unpre­judiced Reader.

The Doctors inference is observable, Hence is it, saith he, that Timothy and Titus, are called Bishops and Apostles. Bishops in the post-scripts of the Epistles which were written to them by S. Paul, but Apostles by Ignatius, Theodoret, and many others. Whence plainly it appears, that the post scripts of the Epistles, were not Saint Pauls, but some other, later then Ignatius and Theodoret: And so have no [Page 13]force to prove Timothy and Titus Bishops.

Parag. 6. You add, Bishops then they were called, &c. That is, They were so called by men, that spake of officers in the Scriptures, according to the stile of their own times, but in Scripture-sence, they were a degree above Bishops, Apostles, or Evangelists; and in that sence speaks Walo Mes­salinus, whose name you abuse.

Parag. 7. You argue, They that have the same name and office with the true Apostles, are of the same order with the true Apostles. But Bishop Timothy, and Bishop Titus, and Bishop Epaphroditus, have the same name and office with the true Apostles.

This argument you seem to glory in, but with how little reason, the Reader shall see. For whereas you say, Bishop Timothy, and Bishop Titus, and Bishop Epaphroditus, had the same name and office with the Apostles: This is manifest­ly false. First, for the name, neither have Timothy, nor Titus, the name of Bishop, or Apostle, given them by Scri­pture; and for other authors, as Ignatius and Theodoret, that call them Apostles; you must remember Theodorets di­stinction, of some that were [...], and others that were called so only allusively. The true and proper Apostles, were the twelve, and Saint Paul, and such like, that had ex­traordinary mission and inspiration.

Now in this proper sence, Timothy and Titus were not called Apostles, but by way of allusion: and to have the same name, and not in the same sence, argues nothing. For your proof from Salmatius, for Epaphroditus being called Apostle, (besides, that in giving such a sence of Phil. 2.25. he differs from many others, whose opinion is more pro­bable) he onely calls him an Apostle, allusively, not properly: and as you fail in the proof of the same name, so fail you more, in proving they had the same office; for this you prove, onely from one part of Apostolical power, Ordination, and Jurisdiction: Which they had from the Apostle Paul, in particular places; whereas the Apostolical office had power immediately from Christ, for such jurisdiction, all the world over, Matth. 28.19. And whereas, the Apostle, [Page 14]makes Apostles and Evangelists distinct offices, Ephes. 4.11. and bids Timothy do the work of an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. The Apostle shews plainly, that Timothy was in that rank. And thence it's clear, that Timothy and Titus, had not the same office with Apostles, but were in an inferiour order of Evangelists. So your argument falls to the ground.

For your close, " that Bishops, and onely Bishops, succeed the Apostles in ordination and jurisdiction: It's true of Scri­pture-Bishops; but for your Bishops, we shall not believe it, till you better prove it.

Parag. 8. You proceed, Since then Apostleship and Epis­copacy, are one and the same office; He that is the root and Author of the one, is the root and Author of the other.

But I have, in part, shewed already, (and shall more fully hereafter) that Apostleship and Episcopacy are divers offi­ces. Episcopacy, if it hath any place in Saint Pauls Cata­logue, Ephes. 4.11. being under Pastors, which is two de­grees below an Apostle: but you further infer, in cove­nanting to take away Episcopacy root and branch, you have done no less then covenanted to take away Jesus Christ.

Answ. Were Christ the ordainer of Episcopacy, as he is not, your inference is but a childish mistake; for neither doth the Covenant speak of root or branch, nor, if it did, would it follow, that Christ should be rooted up; for there is a root, properly of Propagation, and a root metaphorical of Institution, which is by appointment the original of a thing. Christ, if all were true that you say, is but a metaphoricall root, a root by Institution, whose eradication cannot be in­ferr'd, if Bishops, root and branch, be pluckt up. If a man undertake to take away all the trees in an Orchard, root and branch, will it follow, he must root up the Master that planted it too? Nothing less; so, nor in this case.

After this you fall a raving, shooting arrows, not caring where you hit, telling of Parsons and Ʋicars, sequestred by my instigation. Which is a rash, if not a wilful slander. And now I hope its clear you have done little to discharge the Kings oath of sin, or to prove the Covenant a bond of iniquitie.

But Parag. 9. You think you put a shrewd quaery, if root and branch must up, how comes it, that some branches may be preserved, as Presbyters ordained by Bishops, &c.

Still you run on in your mistake, whereas the Covenant hath no such terms as root and branch. What? a Doctor present such plain mistakes to a Prince? Nor, if there were such an expression, were there any force in your objection; for do you not know, that many of our Divines distinguish between the Church of Rome and the Papacy, which they compare to a wen on a body. So may we, between the Mi­nistery of the Church of England, and your Prelacie, which is but a high-swoln wen. Now I hope that a wen may be cut out, core and all, and yet the body be left sound, yea, more sound: so for this.

IN your third Chapter, parag. 1. You represent me say­ing that the Kings oath to maintain Episcopacy, is sin.

Where do I say so? I say, if the Kings oath be to main­tain Episcopacy, as it stood in England, then it is sin, and if you leave out this limitation, (as it stood,) you trifle and change the state of the question; and I must minde you of a true rule in dispute, Qui verba supprimit quaestionis aut im­peritus est, aut tergiversatur, qui calumniae magis studeat quàm doctrinae: He that suppresses words of the question, is either unskilful, or wrangles, and indeavours, rather to calum­niate, then teach. Which latter you plainly do; for hence you infer, that I condemn all the Kings and Queens of this Land, that have taken this oath. But first, you must prove, that they have taken the oath in this sence, to maintain Epis­copacy, as it then stood: which sure our present Soveraign, [Page 16]hath declared he did not, (and so we may judge of the rest;) for he hath offered, to reduce Episcopacie to that power which it had in ancient times, In his message from the Ile of Wight, Nov. 17. 1647. to exercise no juris­diction without its Presbytery. Whereby the King doth ma­nifest, either he is not by his oath, bound to maintain Episco­pacie, as it then stood; or else, that notwithstanding his oath, he may alter some of Episcopal jurisdiction, at the motion of his Houses. Either of which will cut your combe, especially the latter.

Secondly, you say, I condemn all those Fathers and Coun­sels, that justifie the necessity of Bishops. Thirdly, and last of all, you say I condemn the whole Church of Christ, which from her infancy hath been governed by Bishops.

Where you still leave out my limitation, as it then stood, which added, your inferences will appear most false. Since it is apparent, that both Counsels and Fathers, and ancient Churches asserted, and were governed, not by Episcopacie without, but with the joynt help of Presbyters.

Hear what Bilson saith, in his Epistle to the Reader, be­fore his perp. Govern. God forbid, I should urge any other, but such as were Pastors over their Churches, and governours of the Presbyteries under them. And again, That Elders at first did govern the Church by common advice, is no doubt at all with us; this is it which is doubted, &c. that those Elders were Lay-men, pag. 158, 159. But had our Bishops, as they then stood, any Presbyteries joyned with them? Pres­byters they had; but had they any Presbyteries, wherein the Presbyters met for acts of government, that the Bishop did govern? And therefore " your interrogations about blasphe­my, &c. are but the meer calumnies of a tergiversator, altering the state of the question.

And, as ignorant and impertinent trifling is your second parag. Wherein you talk of the abuses of particular persons, as some Princes or Parliaments. Whereas my argument runs not on the men, but the office it self, as it then stood, excluding Presbyters from part in government, which was not the act of any extravagant Bishop, but the ordinarie custome of them all: so, not the men, but the office it self, [Page 17]was in an abusive posture, in excluding Presbyterie from participation in government; which is the thing to be proved.

Which thing, you confess, I endeavour to prove by Syllo­gism, which you set down, parag. 3.

That power which despoyls any of Christs officers, of any priviledg or duty indulged, or injoyned them by the word of God, that power is an usurpation against the word; But this Prelacy did, as it stood in England. ergo, English Prelacy was an usurpation against the word of God.

Parag. 4. You think, to retort this argument on the Par­liament, to prove them, as well to be an usurpation, because they have sequestred and dispoyled many of you Presbyters, of preaching and ruling in their Congregations.

But herein I must tell you, you bewray your own, not the weakness of my argument; for my argument runs not upon any particular officers, whether justly or unjustly despoiled. But of all the officers, as they are officers; of which Episcopa­cie was guiltie, excluding all Presbyters from partnership in government. And had you had your wits about you, that can put the [dul man] upon others, this you might easily have seen, and that any in the Syllogism, notes not particulars in any office, but the kinds of officers prescribed by Christ.

But Parag. 5. You would teach me to speak, had you said (say you) that power, that wrongfully dispoyls any of Christs officers, and then you tell me, I have not learnt, it seems, to distinguish, between justly and unjustly.

But it seems, you, though a D. D. have not learnt to un­derstand plain sence: For in that sence that my words should be taken; can, I pray you, any kinde of officers be wholly dispoiled of a privileledg, or abridged in a dutie lest on record by Christ, justly? Sure then there must be some power, that can controul Christs institution, without in­justice or usurpation.

You add as wise an amplification, that Gods word and mine, are two; Gods word saith, Non est potestas, nisi a Deo, there is no power, but of God, Rom. 13.1. But you say, (say you of me) that there is a power which is an usur­pation [Page 18]against the word of God.

It seems then, you think, that there is no usurped power in the world, or Church, no not the Popes claim to both the swords. Sure, you are a learned interpreter of Scriptures, whereas its plain, the Apostle speaks onely of all kinds of lawful civil powers, not denying, but some may usurpe a power that belongs not to them, as the Pope doth; and its in question, between you and me, whether Prelacie did, or no.

You add, " I cannot distinguish between the office and the abuse. Will you then acknowledg, it was an abuse in Epis­copacie, to ingross all government? If you do, you grant the question, if not, you trifle. Do you not know, Master Doctor, that these be two things, an usurp'd power, and an u­surpation in power. If Episcopacie have no inflitution from Christ, its an usurp'd power: an office without institution, that question I wave. If there be institution for Episcopacie, yet if Presbyterie should govern with it, and be excluded, this is not an abuse of persons, but an incroachment of one office upon another. This I accuse prelacie of, as it stood; one would think, this were plain enough to a vulgar capaci­tie; yet you run on in your mistake.

And Parag. 6. Mention divers examples of par­ticular officers, and abusing their power in unjust censures, or using it in a just way. Which is meer trifling, as I shall make it appear, by your last instance about Bishops, depriving Ministers. For I question not now, the Bishops, or you, for calling Truth Heresie: nor for the abuse of power, in suspen­ding, or depriving for unjust causes; but for doing it solely, without the counsel and consent of a Presbyterie, wherein, I shall hereafter, clear to you, they usurp more, then the practise, and counsels, of former Bishops allowed them. This is the plain state of the business: and its ridiculous, to undertake the answer of a Treatise, and mistake the plain state of the question.

But Parag. 7. You come to the Minor, and thats trifling still, on the same mistake; but to seem to say something, at last you say; It is as false aspeech, to say, Prelacy dispoiles [Page 19]any, as to say, Judicatory wrongs any; Where still you be­wray your ignorance, in comparing an act to an office; but may not one Court dispoil another? Did not you, or some Prelates think, these Courts did dispoyl them of their rights heretofore, that granted Prohibitions in point of tythes, &c. and so the Civil power incroach on the Ecclesiastique? Why else, were some Judges so frown'd on by some Prelates, for such prohibitions?

Parag. 8. You come to my proof, which I set down. Presbyters are, by Christs warrant in Scripture, indued with power to rule in their Congregations, as well as preach; you adde in your own character, to as well, as much: why, you know best, others may guess. For proof I bring four Scrip­tures; the first from 1 Tim. 3.5. If any cannot rule his own house, how shall he take care for the Church of God? Here is care (saith the Doctor) to be taken for the Church, but no rule given to the Presbyter in the Church, unless you will allow as much power to rule in his Parish, as he hath in his own house: Is it so Doctor? is there none given, because none is exprest? Is there not rule in the Church implyed? Hear Theophilact, [...]: Theoph. in 1 Tim. 3.4. Again in ver. 8. [...]. for the house is but as a little Church. If therefore he know not how to rule a little and easily circumscri­bed and known Church, how shall he govern so many souls, whose mindes he cannot know?

To the same purpose, Chrysostome, [...], &c. for the Church is a certain house; but if the Rector of the Church have assistants in government, so hath the husband the wife in his house. (Now what the Rectors fellows in government are, whether lay-Elders, or no, let the Doctor inquire:) He concludes, it is far more easie to govern an house, then the Church; therefore he that cannot govern an house, &c. So you see, that place gives, by implication, government to a Presbyter: If you object what Chrysostome after hinteth, as though the things here spoken, were meant of one of your Bishops; first, you your self judge the contrary: next, it will do you no good; for he saith, the Apostle passeth from Bishops to Deacons, not men­tioning the order of Presbyters, because between a Bishop and a Presbyter, there's almost no difference; for the care of the [Page 20]Church is committed to them, to wit, Presbyters; and what he said of Bishops, belongs also to Presbyters, Bishops being only in ordination above them: Thus Chrysostome, Presby­ters then were not excluded from governing. So Theophylact gives the same reason, why Presbyters are not mentioned: Quia quae de, &c. Because what he spake of Bishops, belongs to Presbyters, for to them the office of teaching and government of the Church is committed, being only inferior in regard of election: And for what you object about Deacons, " that we allow them no rule in the Church; It's false, they have rule in their sphear, that is, in disposing the treasury, though not persons of the Church, they being not over persons, (which the Presbyter is) but the Treasurie.

The next proof is for the Doctor, happily misprinted, 1 Tim. 5.21. instead of verse 17. which I believe the Doctor could not but suspect; but he was loth to meddle with it: yet if he mean to replie, I must now minde him of it, 1 Tim. 5.17. It is thus written, Doctor; Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word and doctrine. These, you will grant, were Presbyter-Bishops; for to allow any other at Ephesus, would marr the market; and see, here is ruling distinct from teaching, ascribed to Presbyterie.

Parag. 10. You come to the third Scripture, Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your souls, &c. Here rule is given to Pres­byters: Now here the Doctor is pitifully puzled, and comes off poorly. He asks, who are these rulers here mentioned; are they Presbyters only? Again, that he speaks of Presby­ters, I deny not, but that he speaks of Presbyters onely, that I deny. Good Doctor, am I to prove that Presbyters only are rulers, or that Bishops are not the only rulers, as they were with us? If then, Presbyters be here meant, and they be rulers, the Holy Ghost ascribes power of ruling to them, which is the question; so now I have confitentem reum. And your simile, Parag. 11. " of commanders in an Army, helps me, not you; for though Captains and Lievtenants be not sole rulers, they are co-rulers in an Army, (you know) both over [Page 21]their Companies, and other Officers in a Counsel of war; So if there be Bishops in the Church, which you here beg, yet they are not to be sole Governours, as they stood with us. What you have concerning Timothy, Parag. 11.12. though I deny not the things, it will not serve your turn, sith Timo­thy was not a Bishop in your sense, but an extraordinary Officer, an Evangelist, a distinct office, Ephes. 4.11. and ascribed to Timothy, 2 Tim. 4.5. he had therefore an office, and power above a Bishop of your fancle, though afterwards from the custome in the Church, and some acts that Bishops did like his, (but not solely) he was allusively, only, if not abusively, as Walo Messalinus hath it, [...], called a Bishop. But this digression about Timothy, was but to bafflle the Reader, and to take him off the plain evidence of the former Scriptures; for the close, that such power was not in Presbyter-Bishops, par enim in parem non habet potestatem; Your rule holds, while they are single; but a company of one kinde is above one single one of the same rank; a Presbytery is above any one Presbyter, as well as a Synod of Bishops above one Bishop; and so a Presbytery may exercise power over one of their Presbyters, as well as a Synod of Bishops over one of their fellow Bishops.

You come to the fourth place, 1 Thess. 5.12. Parag. 13. We beseech you brethren, that ye know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you.

In answer to this, if the Doctor go not against his own conscience, he hath but little science. First, he saith, that a great friend of Presbytery, saith, this place is paralel to that, 1 Tim. 5.17. And so say I too: And then if it be not cited (as you know who cited Scripture) with mutilation, there will be ruledom for Elders.

The Elders that rule well, But you leave out these words, and onely take the latter; That these Presbyters are worthy of double honour, who labour in the word and doctrine. Whence you gather, ruling is nothing, but labouring in the word and doctrine. A collection, just like that, Matt. 4.6: of Christ casting himself off the pinnacle, from Psalm. 91.11. [Page 22]lamely quoted. You add, Theodoret Those that are over you in the Lord, that is, they that offer up prayers and supplicati­ons for you. These words of Theodoret, you bring cunningly, as though they onely expounded the words, that are over you. Whereas, it is all he saith, to the expression of admo­nishing; whereby its plain, Theodoret by his exposition, rather denotes the person intended there, to be the Minister, then describes his whole work. I appeal to your own con­science, whether you think, the genuine meaning of [...], be, to pray for people; but in Calvin, whom you cite afterwards, how egregious is your fraud? for though the words you cite are in him, yet they are in opening that other part of the text, for their works sake; but when he comes to that wherein government is, how plain is he to my purpose? Qui praesunt in domino. Hoc additum videtur ad notandum spirituale regimen. Which are over you in the Lord. This seems to be added, to note the spiritual government, praeesse in Domino dicuntur qui Christi nomine & mandato Ecclesiam gubernant. They are said to be over them in the Lord, who govern the Church in the name, and in the command of Christ. You abuse Calvin as much, in misciting his institutions, lib. 4.2, 3, 5, 15. where he speaks not of 1 Thess. 4.12. but of Ti­mothy and Titus, to whom in the government of the Church, he ascribed a Presidency, not a Monarchy, as his words shew. Falluntur si putant, &c. They are deceived, if they think that Timothy, or Titus did usurp a kingdom in the Church, to dispose of all things at their own arbitriment. Praefuerunt enim tan­tùm, ut bonis & salutaribus consilijs populo praeirent, non ut soli exclusis alijs omnibus agerent quod placeret. They were over others, onely that they might go before others, with good and wholesom counsels; Not, that all other being excluded, they alone might do what they pleased. So that this is spoken of those that you call Apostles, not Presbyter-Bishops.

Thus it is apparent, how ungroundedly you confine the rule of Presbyters to prayer, instruction, admonition, advise.

But you say, "this is all the rule that you can finde belong­ing to Presbyters. All that you will finde, you should have said; for you might have found it in the name, Bishop, [Page 23]which is a name of authoritie, and rule, used by Heathens; sometimes for the Rulers of Countries, and Provinces, who are called Episcopi. And why else did that Presbyter, that had the chief honour in rule, and after, by manifest usurpa­tion ingrost all, appropriate the name of [...] to himself, but that the word notes rule? And this title is given to all Presbyters, Act. 20.28. Feed the flock, over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, Over-seers. This is said of all the Presbyters, without any hint of distinction: and doth not this note government? Let me ask you a question: have you not read Bilsons perp. government of the Church of Christ? Can you finde no rule belonging there to Presby­ters? Its then, because you cannot see wood for trees. pag. 140. He notes, government, to be comprehended under the titles of Shepherd, Watchmen, Over-seers, Rulers, Guides; and these titles belong to all Presbyters: And pag. 141. The government, spoken of, 1 Cor. 12.28. He makes common to Pastors, Prophets, and Teachers: and producing that of Jerom: Communi Presbytorum consilio regebantur Ecclesiae; He adds of his own; That Elders at first did govern by com­mon advice, is no doubt at all to us. This is it which is doubted and denyed by us, that those Elders were lay-men. pag. 158.159. And after, to prove that the Presbyters were not Lay, but Ecclesiastical; he produceth Jeroms words, with approba­tion, Bishops and Presbyters, were at first all one; and what doth a Bishop, save Ordination, which a Presbyter doth not? Bishops must know, that they are greater then Presbyters, ra­ther by custom, then truth of the Lords disposition, and ought to govern the Church in common, pag. 150.

And all this, he cites out of Jerome, for his own defence: That what Jerome spake, he spake of teaching, not ruling Presbyters. But what need I add particulars? the sume of his 11 Chapter, is, not to deny, but taking it for granted, that in Primitive times there was a Presbyterie that was joyned in government with the Bishops, without which, he neither could, nor ought to do any thing, in point of cen­sure; taking, I say, this for granted, he endeavours to prove, those Presbyters, consisted onely of teaching, not lay-Elders. [Page 24]Chapter 14. Setting out the use of Presbyters, in the fourth use, he hath these words, The government of the Church, was as first so constituted, that neither the Presbyteries should do any thing without the Bishop, nor the Bishop without a Presby­tery, pag. 307. Thus far Bilson.

How clear is that of Tertullian, for the rule of Presbyters? Nam & judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu, summum (que) futuri judicij praejudicium est, siquis ita deliquerit [...]ut a commucicatione orationis & conventus, & om­nis Sancti commercij relegetur, Praesident probati quique seni­ores, honorem istum non praetio, sed testimonio adepti. Thus it is as clear as the Sun, that ruling is injoyned as a duty, and given as a priviledg to the Presbyter; of which it was di­spoiled in England by Episcopacie; and therefore, to main­tain Episcopacie in that posture, was to maintain it in usurpation, against Christs disposition, and so unlawful.

But you require, Parag. 14. one place of Scripture, that allows Presbyters to excommunicate, or absolve, of their own authority.

I answer, in all the places where they are made Church-Governours, they are inabled in a regular way to pass all Church-censures; and of those places I have produced and asserted many; as also where the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven are given to the Ministerie in general, in the Apostles: and the place above cited in Tertullian, doth it not extend to excommunication, and that censure to be pass'd by Elders? But do you shew me, on the contrary, in Scripture a Bishop, that is, an ordinary Pastor, distinct from a Presbyter, indued with sole power of rule in the Church, I will be of your mind. Your instances, of Timothy and Titus, will not serve your turn, for that they were Evangelists. Bilson confesseth, more then once, the Scripture never calls them Bishops; They are called so by the ancients, because they did those acts, that by humane custome were afterwards appropriated to Bishops, in regard of presidencie; but they did them not as Bishops, which they are not called; but as Evangelists, which they were, and were called in Scripture. For your speech in this clause, of particular mens silencing, it's impertiment; and for the [Page 25]cause, it's delivered in your railing Dialect, which I pass by, and of the same railing strain is all your 15. Parag. only you tell us "by Scriptures we are made subject to Bishops; and I have told you, and you confess, in Scripture Bishops and Presbyters are all one, only you have a vain conceit of an A­postle-Bishop; of which more anon.

Parag. 16.17. You endeavour an answer to that, that the Presbyters were subjected to lay-Chancellors, but it is only by way of retorsion; direct answers you are not furnished with, but refer us to the Doctors Commons; and yet I doubt not, but you have taken the oath with an &c. that swears to perpetuitie, more then Chancellors; but how do you retort? first, we have set many lay-Chancellors for one as the Par­liament and Committees; ridiculous! when we speak of Ecclesiastical Officers, to retort touching those that are civil. But secondly, you retort, that though we complain of one lay-Chancellor, we subject Gentry and Commonalty to many Lay-Elders, and say not (say you) that there be preaching Elders with them, lest it be return'd upon you, that the lay-Chancellor is but the Bishops Officer in such cases of Judica­ture, &c. But I will say, that they have preaching Presbyters amongst them, and more then you can say for Chancellors; yet they are to be chosen by the people in general, over whom they are to be; and though you say, the Chancellor is but the Bishops Officer; Yet it is apparent in the woful expe­rience of many Ministers, that he is such an Officer, that without, and against the Bishops minde, hath convented and suspended Ministers, which is more power then the Bishop ought to have; Episcopus sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest, auferre non potest; confest by Bilson, perpet. govern. pag. 107. where the Counsel of Hispalis 2 ca. 2. and Counsel of Afric. ca. 26. are cited; what you add about institutions by Chancellors, is nothing to me, who never yet had institution; nor hath it any sense in it, that it should be against Gods direction, to receive institution from a lay-Chancellor, as our land makes a Rectorie an inheritance, wherein the Civil Magistrate doth protect us.

You conclude, Parag. 18. That my first argument, you [Page 26]hope, is sufficiently confuted; You have done your best, it's like, yet it stands in full force and vertue; That if the Kings oath bindes him to maintain Episcopacie, as it stood in pract­ise, and as it is in your famous &c. oath; It is an engage­ment in that point to what is against Scriptures rale, and primitive practice; therefore an obligation to what is unlaw­ful, and in that point invalid. In the close, you cannot give off without calumniating, though never so irrationally. I say in answer, who ever they be, that hinder the Ministers of God from any part or dutie of their calling required of God, usurp upon them; and they that maintain them in that, maintain them in usurpation; this is a truth, without dero­gation from any authoritie; and so I close this second chapter.

I Proceed now to examine your 12. Chapter, spent most upon the Theam, whether it be incongruous to the calling of Bishops, to sit and vote in Parliament? And here you [Page 62]are very passionate; but I must first tell you, your passionate follie falls more foul on King and Parliament, then me; for I do but render the reason given by them, in effect, in the very statute. Anno 17. Car. R. An act for disabling all persons in holy Orders, to ex­ercise any tem­porall jurisdi­ction or autho­rity. The words are these; whereas Bishops and other persons in holy orders, ought not to be intangled with secular ju­risdiction (the office of the Ministery being of such great im­portance, that it will take up the whole man;) and that it is found by long experience, that their intermedling with secular jurisdictions, hath occasioned great mischief and scandall; both to Church and State. His Majestie, out of his religious care of the Church, and souls of his people, is graciously pleased, that it be enacted; And by authority of this Parliament, be it enacted, that no Arch-Bishop, &c. shall have any seat or place, suffrage, or voice, or use, or execute any power or au­thority, in the Parliament of this Realm. Now, hath my phrase done any more, then express the reason given for abo­lition in this Statute by King and Parliament? while there­fore you rave so at me, doth not all more properly light on them? I may therefore say, as sometimes Moses, who am I? Your murmurings are not against me, but against king and Parliament.

But you question, whether they were not thrust out to make way for these civill broyles? The Incendiaries knew well enough, that those messengers and makers of peace, would never have passed a vote for war.

I answer, they should be makers of peace, but have they been so indeed of late? I pray, who occasioned the war by Liturgie, illegally put upon the Scots, but Prelates? who put on the king, to raise an Army against them, more then Pre­lates? You know Bishop Bath and Wells, to excite his Cler­gy to contri­bute. who called it, Bellum Episcopale, Who put on the king to break his first pacification with the Scots, but Prelates? Then oaths were no ingagements with them, when against Prelates: But now the kings oath must be cryed up, to keep them up: but you should remember, Quic­quid fit propter deum, fit aequaliter; which hints the hypocrisie of your pretences, of renderness of an oath in this case, if you had not the same tenderness in the other case.

Then Parag. 2. You tell an Apocrypha tale, of the out­cries [Page 63]of some Clothiers, that occasioned the making of that statute, as though men would believe your traditional tale before the express words of king and Parliament, contained in the act.

Parag. 3.4. You inquire, why it is incongruous to the call­ing of Bishop, to sit and vote in the House of Peers: and raise imaginary reasons, and confute them, looking over that in the statute: That Bishops and other persons, in holy orders ought not to be intangled in secular jurisdiction; and this is ground­ed on Scripture, 2 Tim. 2. comparing v. 4. & 7. and more expresly speak the Apostles; (and you make Bishops Apostles) It is not reason we should leave the Word of God, Act. 6.2. and serve ta­bles, [...]. Beza, and the vulgar, non est aequum. See how the grounds mentioned by king and Parliament in the statute, are grounded on Scripture.

But Parag. 5. You would prove, that there could be no incongruity between their calling, and voting in the House of Peers, by Scripture: For then Melchizedeck, that was both King and Priest, had never been a type of our Saviour. It doth not follow; for he was therefore a type, to shew, that Christ should be both king and Priest, but his kingdom was not of this world; he would not intangle himself with the affairs of this life, and divide inheritances.

Again, you bring the example of Moses and Eli, who were extraordinary persons, as though God doth not things extraordinarily, that are incongruous ordinarily, as to make Deborah, and Huldah, Prophetesses. But Joash thrived so long, as he followed Jehojada the high Priest: as though a good Bishop cannot give good counsell to a king, unless he sit and vote among Peers. You tell us also, how some of our Kings prospered by their Counsels. Is it not as easie to tell you, of a Bishop that preached, my head aketh, to usher, in the dethroning of a king? to tell, you how R. 2. was undone, by the unpolitique counsell of the pious Bishop of Carlile? which shews, that usually the best Bishops, are the worst States men.

Parag. 6. You add, a wonder it is, that my faction spies this incongruity, which was never discerned by the wisest of [Page 64]our fore-fathers. See you not, how you call king and Par­liament a faction, whose sense I exprest? If I had been so rude, what out-cries should we have had of blaspheming, and spitting in the face of authority? Of the same nature are other your foolish arguings. parag. 7.8. about the writ of summons to Parliament; as though the Supremacie being in king and Parliament, they cannot change the state of the Parliament, and so of the writ. And therefore all your strange language, doth not only question the integrity of king and Parliament, in their expression, and their wisdom in making; but their power in performing; which insolency, whether it deserve words to answer, let the reader judg and this same answer will also take off your 13. parag.

What you say, parag. 9. touching the sufficiency of Bishops for this work, is not of validity to infer the conclusion, which you would have, are they more able to vote in Parliament, then the Apostles to serve tables? have they not a sphear, as Ministers, that will swallow up all their abilities? why should they then, any more then the Apostles, leave their spiritual work for secular imployments?

What you add touching David, parag. 10. that he err'd for want of the presence and advice of the Priests, and suffer­ed; but after he calls for the Priests, and acknowledgeth his error, &c. This is true, and yet withall, his fault was not in not having the Priests, at first; but not using them as he should: they drove the cart whereon it was, instead of car­rying it on their shoulders; neither is it mentioned, that they discovered the error to him, but he to them, having it, as it seems, by divine revelations on his humiliation and prayer, 1 Chron. 15.2.

But may there not be the Counsell and advice of Divines, to a Parliament, in matters of God, unless they sit and vote with Peers, in matters secular? May they not in a Convoca­tion, or Assembly, advise in matter of religion, where they shall keep the sphear of Divinitie, and meddle with nothing Heretogeneal to their calling? So your reasonings, parag. 11, 12. are too weak to infer votes with Peers.

For your statute, Parag. 14. I know not what to say to [Page 65]it, because I know not where to finde it. But do you bring this to involve this king and Parliament under a curse? and blame me for a moderate and necessary expression of vinculum ini­quitatis? Turp [...] est Doctori, &c.

What you say, Parag. 15. Of the benefit of good Bishops, as Ministers of the Gospel: I assent to it, but neither of the places speak, as having them Ministers of State. A King and Parliament may have the blessing of faithful Bishops, by their preaching and prayers; without their votes and pre­sence among Peers: yea, more then with it, for that usually makes them too great, to preach in season and out of season, as Timothy was to do, 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. But you are mista­ken, when you say, that the Priests are, in Scripture, called the horse-men of Israel, and the chariots thereof: For that was spoken of Prophets, not Priests, viz. of Elijah and Elisha.

Parag. 16. You argue Alogically, the King can have no Subsidies granted without them, because none hath yet been granted; a non esse ad non posse non valet argumentatio. As ill do you abuse the Scripture against the King and Parlia­ment, as Removers of bounds, who have rectified it, con­fining Clergie men to their own sphear, Divinity; leaving seculars to secular-men: therefore your curse causeles shall not come.

To parag. 17. I say, I delivered not ex tripode, but out of the marrow of the act it self, that the votes of Bishops in the house of Peers was taken away, as incongruous to their cal­ling; and I infer nothing else to be taken away, unless it seems good to King and Parliament; whose wisedom and conscience, I dare far better trust then yours; and you abuse your Reader, to say, I argued from the bare fact, when I argue from the fact, with its ground, to the like, on the like warrantable ground. And that the abolition of the one, is no more against the Kings oath, then the other, which you confess; yet you say flatly, 123. If the King yield to let down Episcopacy, he breaks his oath; what then do you lay to his charge, implicitly, in consenting to the abolition of their votes, but perjurie? Is this you that can calumniate [Page 66]others without cause, as spitting in the face of authoritie, and yet do this, and present it to the King himself, to read his own doom?

But you distinguish between priviledges, that are the grants of God, and such as are of the favour of Princes, such as sitting and voting with Peers.

The distinction is good, and helps to clear what I intend; that the King may alter the Prelacie in question, which is but the gift of Princes, not God. See the erudition of a Christian man, on the Sacrament of orders. And Princes may revoke their own grants: but for that jurisdiction, which you say, is a grant of God; I confess it is: but by him setled on Pastors, the highest degree of Church officers now; and those are Presbyter-Bishops; and therefore the setling of it on them in general, is but restitution, no donation of any thing new to the Presbyters, nor unjust detraction from the Bishops, who had without the grant of God, ingrost all power into their own hands.

THis passage of my Case, you attempt to answer chap. 13. and tell us, that there's a great cry against the ju­risdiction of Bishops, as inconvenient, and prejudiciall to the the Church, against unlawful immunities, Anti-evangeli­call pom, pcumbersome greatness, and forfeitures by abuse, and these, you say, are cryed out of, but none of them proved.

I answer, the very expression were so clear, of things ob­vious [Page 68]to every impartiall eye, that proof seem'd needless: and sure I am, you would disprove it, if you could, it stands you upon, which not doing, it may pass for currant: yet one quirk you have in this 1. parag. on the word, unlawfull im­munities.

You argue, if they were held by law, then not un lawfull, but legall.

I answer, legall they were, because allowed by mans law, yet unlawful, because against Gods law.

Your next quarrell, is at the expression, when the oath was framed, the Church was indued by the ignorance of the times.

But you complain parag. 2. I tell you not when this time was; but what then? do you not know, it was in times of Poperie? and do you think there was as much true light at Westminster then, as now, as you intimate in this parag.? Sure if you do, you have not only a Bishop, but (as they say) a Pope in your belly.

Parag. 3. You take notice, that I conclude, the Kings oath is invalid in these respects, & vinculum iniquitatis; then you mention 5. particulars, 4. of which you say, you have quitted already; but I have therein disproved you: and do not you think, that to exempt malefactors from trial, that fled to Churches for sanctuarie; and the Clergies exemptions from secular punishments (which multiplied many slaughters by them, as Daniel witnesseth, in his story of Henry 2. pag. 83. (and yet Becket Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, asserted this, as one of the liberties of the Church, which the king had sworn to maintain, pag. 84.) I say, did not these, and such like, think you, flow from ignorance? but it grieves you more, that I should say, the oath in this respect, is vinculum iniquitatis, and say Parag. 4. I wilfully scandalize divers Princes of blessed memory, and charge them almost as deeply as St. Peter did Simon Magus, with the bond of iniquity, Acts. 8.23. Al-most (we say in the north) saves many a l [...]e; for is affirming that Princes (for want of light, which they want­ed means for) do ingage themselves with a pious zeal, but not according to knowledg, charging them with a crime, an­swerable [Page 69]to Magus his base self-seeking hypocrisie? or so inconsistent with a state of grace? If it should, what case do you put king and Parliament in, which more then once, charge them with perjurie.

But tell me sincerely, do you not think, in times of Poperie, many unlawfull things were given to the Clergie? and that many Canonicall priviledges were unlawfull? Sure either their immunities, or the reformation of them was unlawful; had you rather condemn the reformation, then the corrupti­on, for fear of obliquely blaming the ancient Princes? Do you not hereby cast an imputation on those latter Princes, whom you are more bound to respect?

Your parag. 5. is a scornful Ironie, hinting somethings false, somethings irrational; false it is, That what immu­nities were unlawful in Bishops, We would challenge; or inherit their anti-Evangelical pomp: and as irrational is it, not to apprehend, that divers scores of Presbyters marshal­led into Presbyteries, in the several parts of a Diocess, may not more easily see, and more speedily take course to redress errors, and applie general remedies for the reclaiming of the scandalous, then one Bishop over divers hundred Congrega­tions, some of them the better part of a hundred miles from him. The Diocesses of Bishops, heretofore were called Pari­shes; and indeed at first, few of them equal to some Parishes in England, and yet then they had Presbyters. Now their Diocesses are as large as Shiers, nay, it may be contain more Shiers, and Presbyteries discarded. Is not this prejudicial to the edification of the Church? Besides, have you not heard what Queen Elizabeth used to say? That when she bad made a Bishop, she had spoyled a good Preacher? And how few of that rank imitate the Apostles diligence, or charge, for preaching, 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. Is not this a sign that the great­ness is cumbersom? Yet we denie not, that there was preach­ing under the Bishops, but I am sure there was the less for many of them; they silenc'd Preachers, prohibited preaching on Lords daies, Afternoon, &c. And there was censure of manners, but yet Visitations were but once a year, and Pre­sentations to be but twice; and might not many a man fall [Page 70]into, and perish in sin for all this? Besides that, their censures were more nimble against me for strictness, then loosness or prophaness. I believe therefore, the intelligent Reader will not be scoff'd out of his belief of what I have hinted.

Your Parag. 6. Begins, as you call it, with distempered foame, ends with appeal to last judgement, which is one main thing which hath made quiet me under Prelatical oppression, having referred my self to him that judgeth righteously.

More of your foame you cast, in your fume, Parag. 7. First, you ask " Why we are fallen from abolition, to alteration? I answer, this alteration, will prove an abolition to them, quâ Bishops, do not you fear. Next this alteration, you jeer, not sparing to abuse Scripture to adorne your sarcasms; and yet I confess, htis alteration of the jurisdiction into more hands; and of the means of Bishops, to maintain more mouthes to preach the Gospel, is the best plea I have against Bishops.

I confess it is, and you shall never prove it anti-Evange­lical, or anti-Christian: But I by it, shall blow off all your aspersions, that you lay upon me, as an enemy of the Church, and Ministery, in my plea against Bishops, whereas this one thing shews, I seek the good of both, and that rationally.

Parag. 8. You trifle again about the word altar, the va­nitie of which exception, was before shewed. After you cast about your foame, which deserves no answer, but indignati­on; but whereas you would abuse Saint Augustine, to prove me an Heretick, citing out of him, that he is an Heretick, that for any temporary commodity, and chiefly for his own glory, and preferment, doth either raise, or follow false and new opinions.

Mine answer is, that I have proved my opinions grounded on Scripture, and so neither false nor new. And for any end of mine in it, besides the peace of the land, and the edifica­tion of the Church; I leave my self to him, that tries the heart and reins.

Parag. 9. You come to examine what I said, touch­ing the legalitie of your priviledges, that if they be held by [Page 71]law, the Parliament that hath power to alter all laws, may alter those laws, and so the immunity ceaseth. You here first grant, you claim no priviledges, but what is legal: but you cavil at that which is said, that the Parliament hath power to alter all laws; nay, you affirm, it is Atheisticall to affirm that the Parliament can alter the laws of God; but all this is but trifling; for you know, by laws, I mean only humane laws of their own making, and all laws are understood by me, divisim, not conjunctim, that is, they have power to advise upon any particular law whatsoever, or whomsoever it con­cerns; and if on advisement, it seem conducible to weal­publike, to alter it, they have power to proceed to alterati­on; and so the Londoners themselves (whom here you would jeer, or provoke against me) would not (I am sure they should not) deny the Parliaments power to alter any of their immunities, that are convinc'd prejudicial to the weal­publique.

Parag. 12. To that which I say, upon the alteration of the law, the immunitie ceaseth; you in effect deny the con­clusion; for you answer not the argument convincing, but hold the Thesis: You add indeed, that an ordinance was never conceived sufficient to alter a law; but what's this to the purpose? who speaks of ordinances? my argument runs of laws.

If any think themselves absolv'd from the oath of allieg­ance, by an ordinance, let them bear their burthen; neither do I go about to absolve the King from his oath of protecti­on, (as you here calumniate me) but interpret the bond ra­tionally, which you cannot answer; and so vent your self in impertinent accusations.

But you conclude, Parag. 13. that suppose there be such a law, could it be just? &c. You are pleased to acknowledg our priviledges to be our rights, how then can they be taken from us without injury?

1. You alter the state of the question; for every injurie is not perjurie: the quaerie was, whether they could be taken away without perjurie.

2. I acknowledg them your rights, that is, such as you have [Page 72]a legal claim to, while the laws thus stand; but these your rights were of three sorts: 1. Some of your Canonicall priviledges (at least formerly) were corrupt. Such were abolish'd by Henry the 8. These were your rights, that is, you had claim to them by mans, not Gods law. 2. Some were essentiall to the callings, grounded on the Word of God. 3. Some were indulged by the Prince and State. The first sort were void to a Christian, by their anomie. The second unviolable, by the unquestionable authoritie of God, the Author of them. The third are under the Consult of Par­liaments, as other laws, which are the peoples birth-right, and they may alter both, if they see occasion: So the laws that concern the Clergie, make them neither worse nor better, then those laws that concern the Laytie, render them.

I Come now to answer your 14. Chapter, which you enti­tle, whether the lands of the Church may be forfeited by the misdemeanor of the Clergie?

But here I must minde you, and the Christian reader, that whereas there are two parts of the Clergie in England;

1. Parochiall Pastors, which stand by the ordinance of God, who appointed the ordaining of Elders in every Church;

2. Diocesan Bishops, which I have proved to be but hu­mane creatures, invented and set up, as Jerome saith, to pre­vent Schismes;

That which I have spoken of forfeitures, belongs to the [Page 74]latter, which are not Gods ordinance; though it may be, so they would keep within ancient bounds, and express an­cient worth, they might not be only tolerable, but usefull; yet if these abuse their power, and become an inconvenience, instead of curing an inconvenience; and any thing indulged to them for the honour of God, be abused, to his dishonour, in the hurt of the Churches, then they make forfeiture.

Now the Case thus stated; Your instance, Parag. 1. of Abiathars being succeeded by another, not the office abolisht, is not a pari, for that was in an office expresly Gods ordi­nance; so Episcopacie is not.

What you say, Parag. 2. about justice, out of Lactantius, who in that place distinguisheth between Jus civile, quod pro moribus ubique variatur, & vera justitia quàm unifor­mem, ac simplicem proposuit omnibus Deus. I acknowledg the truth of his speech, nor would I, nor do I maintain any thing against true justice.

But what you infer from thence, that where true ju­stice is wanting, there's no law, nor no Common-wealth, &c. It is evidently contrarie to his minde; for though this true and perfect justice, was wanting in all heathen societies, (for they had some constitutions, that swerv'd from it:) yet no man will say, there were no Common-wealths, but tyrannies, among the heathen, though they were not such compleat Common-wealths as they might have been, had they known the rule of Gods perfect justice.

Parag. 3. To that, that there's great difference between an engagement made to persons on valuable considerations, and which is made gratis to an office or societie subservient to publique good; You answer, that the setling of land upon a Corporation, is more firm, and that gift gives as good pro­priety as purchase; wherein you wilfully mistake the scope of my speech, or ignorantly; for the difference I speak of, is, in regard of the injurie in alteration; and that too, where and when there is miscarriage.

Now I hope, though I must return to a corrupt man what is his own; yet it is no injurie to deny courtesies, which are given gratis to men for their worth. Artaxerxes bestow­ed [Page 75]a great largess on the Ministers of the Sanctuarie, and he did excellently wel in it, and in the confirmation of it, (yet you simply make that expression, the Law of God and of the King, to relate to that one Decree of Darius, which you will plain­ly see, if you read Ezra 7.24, 25, 26. together:) But the question is, if the following Priests had set up themselves with that the Kings benevolence, and neglected the work of God, and had grown insolent against the Monarch; Whether it had been injurious in the succeeding Monarchs, to have re­called that gift given to good men, to make them more ser­viceable to God, and devout in their prayers for the King.

But Par. 4. You say, these lands and immunities were made to the office, and Episcopacy is a living office. But I answer, its an office that may dye, for the Diocesan-Bishop can finde his Register in Gods Book, he is later then the word written, and therefore this plea will not help him.

Parag. 5. To that, what is granted to personal worth, of present incumbents, and given to promote the usefulness of the office; You say, It is fixed till the office be found use­less and abolisht, but till then it is injustice to take it away, without which the usefulness of that office cannot be so well promoted.

I allow all this, and in as full words, pag. 4. of Case resol­ved; but I affirm, this office by its incroachments (excluding Presbyters) and Canonical priviledges, which it challengeth, is grown burthensom, instead of useful, and the incumbents for the general much degenerate, both neglecting the main of a Pastors office, preaching, and abusing their power to the hindring of it in others: And for that which you add, of the forfeitures of other Corporations, as that of Drapers, or Grocers, or the City of London it self. I believe, if the King had conquer'd, you would have been as ready as any, to have impleaded the Companies of London of forfeiture, for assisting in the War against him. And who knows not, that Corporations may, and often do forfeit and lose their Charters of priviledges, by abuse and misdemeanours? For what you say, 'of Parliaments power, Parag. 6. I would you would alwaies speak so modestly: By Parliamentarie [Page 76]power, when I speak so largely, I take it, as containing the three estates, the King the head, and the Lords and Com­mons, as the body; yet I abhor, to think of ascribing to them power, to make that which is unjust just, as I do disdain that comparison, of the witness brought by me against Episcopa­cie, to that brought against Naboth, by suborned Knights of the Posts; for the testimonies I brought, were out of the Scri­pturures of Truth.

But Parag. 7, 8, 9. We have a great out-cry made, but the best is, its a great deal of cry, and little wooll. The out-cry is at these words; If King and Parliament release the en­gagement, in the case of money, the engagement were gon in law, though not in equity. The Order would be valid in law, though in jurious. First, you question the validity of an Order of Parliament; but you should remember, I speak of an Order past by King and Parliament, and that amounts to a law, and later laws over-rule former. Then you bid men take heed of their purses, for I speak of sums of money. But this is but to make a noise, for you know my Opponent brought in the instance of money, and I did but answer a­bout it. But the greatest out-cry is at this, gon in law, not in equity, valid in law, though injurious; behold (say you) law without equity: God bless me from such law; I say so too; but the Divinity is good enough, by your leave: For were not the Statutes in Queen Maries time, laws, though injurious? And the Martyrs brought to a legal try­al, by the Statute-laws of the Land, though injurious ones? This is so plain, that no rational man can deny it; and all the shew you make to the contrary, is but from the word Jus, because, that properly signifies such a constitution as is just. But if an unequal Statute may not be called Jus, pro­perly, may it not be called Lex, or a Statute-law? your own word Your self say pag. 40. Lex non obligat sub­ditos in foro con­scientiae, nisi sit juste. The law binds not Subjects in the Court of con­science, unless it be just; But then this im­plyes, in foro humano it doth, which agrees to what I say, but that you have a minde to quarrel. pag. 94. l. 12. shews that you are not so igno­rant, as not to know it, nor so impudent as to deny it. And therefore your accusations here of Divinity without consci­ence, &c. are Sophistical and childish, or malicious; where­as, you say, I stretch my conscience, and justifie a power in the Parliament to do injury, and not onely so, but a power to make [Page 77]laws to justifie this injury; Its a most false slander: I say, there is in King and Parliament that Peerless power, that their agreement makes a law; but if they stretch this to un­just things, they abuse their power, and become injurious, and sin, yet we have no plea against them in law, that is, in foro humano, but in equity and conscience.

Parag. 10. You quarrel, in like manner, with those words. So if there be no injury, the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation, which your dulness or passion makes you not understand and so you play the ape with them. The meaning is this, The King and Houses being the su­pream power, what they ratifie, stands firm; and what they abolish, no man can claim by any constitution of the Nation; And in matters not injurious, they may lawfully put this power committed to them, into act.

Now Parag. 11. It may appear, that you well understood what I meant, in distinguishing between law & equity, in that you say, "What is according to law, true law, is lawful. Why do you say true law, but to note a distinction of laws? Some are made by lawful authoritie, and so valid in foro humano, in mans Court; yet that authoritie observes not the right rules of equitie, but abuseth power to decree unjust things, and so it is a law, but not a true law, that is, not a law for that intent that laws were ordained, to prevent injury, not decree it. I conclude therefore, that you make these rehearsals of law without equity, ad faciendum populum, against your own conscience; but the intelligent, will see and deride this beg­garly fraud.

Parag. 12. You harp upon the old string, that an office can forfeit nothing. And I grant it, of such an office that is of God, and of such priviledges as are necessarie or usefull; but neither is Episcopacie such an office, nor their large juris­diction, and great pomp, such priviledges.

Parag. 13. Runs on the same string, "touching an office instituted of God, which Episcopacie is not, though Ministrie be. And then kindly (as often formerly) grant the questi­on, that of priviledges perchance there may be a forfeiture, where they prove prejudiciall to the publike good; and so [Page 78]waves the question from that which is de jure, of right, which he hath been disputing all this while, to that which is de facto, of the fact of prejudice to the publike: in which question, how confident soever he be in the negative, I must mind him, that not he, and the Prelates, nor I, that are parties, but the King and Parliament must be Judges.

For what you say, out of the great Charter, Parag. 14. ' We grant to God, and confirm the Church of England free, &c. I answer, but the Bishops are not the Church; you do not, I hope, approve that popish language, they were then but a part, and an unsound part, being vassals to the man of sin. Yet William the Conqueror did ill, to appropriate Church­lands for covetousness, and for it might miscarry; so did they for the same cause, rob the Temples of the Heathen Deities; whence the proverbe, Aurum Tolosanum, in Aulus Gel. Noct. Attic. lib. 3. c. 9. Yet they did well, that conscientiously abolish'd both Idols and Temples. What you add, that in strictness of Reformation, Episcopacy was continued in Eng­land, as most useful for the Church. How this observation is connected, I know not: It is a suddain motion; I may also justly take occasion to give notice, that our Reformati­on hath been counted defective, for keeping up Episcopacy in its height; and not either abolishing it, or at lest bringing it within the ancient limits with a Presbytery; (which now is offered by the King.) And what other reformed Churches can the Author name, but it was part of their Reformation, to take away Diocesan Episcopacy?

Parag. 15. You express a needless grief, to hear from a Preacher of the Word, that the Bishops must lay down wealth, honour, and Mytres, or else the Crown must run an hazzard. Are you sorrie to hear a Preacher speak the truth? hath not the Crown run an hazzard in this respect, as well as others? But whereas you say, I give notice of what hath been the cause of my factious preaching, you falsly slander; for though I know no cause that I should have had to grieve, to see the Bishops stript of their greatness in a fair way; yet I have as seriously, and sincerely grieved for the hazzard of of the Crown, as your self; and have been as far from fur­thering [Page 79]it. For that you add, that few of the Bishops have gained so much by the Church as their breeding cost their pa­rents; It will be credible but to a few, except to those that know at what rates they made friends in the Court, to pro­cure them.

Parag. 16. You tell me, I might have done well to have directed this passage to the Parliament. Truly you say true, and those that know me, know I have not been backward, to press, and perswade a condescension on their parts, as well as on the Kings; and that in writing too: which on as good an occasion, as I had to print my Case, may see the light. But the Bishops have not been so innocent, as you make them; for schism, they did not prevent it, but partly made it, by cast­ing out both Ministers and people for their own inventions, that willingly, and peaceably, would have held communion in all Gods ordinances; partly occasion'd it by neglect of good Discipline, and rigorously requiring conformitie to humane ceremonies: for Heresies, they did foster them. How did the most of them connive at Papists? advance Arminians and Socinians, while they pretended against Socinianism? Blasphemie in one kinde they hinder'd not, in that they let blaspemous swearers pass without discipline, and enjoy the pri­viledges of Sacraments. Atheism they promoted, by hindring the preaching of the Gospel, which they were enemies to, for the most part, to uphold their dumb Ministerie, and for fear their idleness should be censured. They taught rebellion a­gainst the Lord, in teaching men to prophane his Sabboths: They hindred not, but occasioned blood-shed, in oppressing Scotland with illegal impositions, stirring up the King to war against them, and to break his Pacification with them, which was the egg that hath bred this cockatrice that is like to de­stroy all.

This I speak not of all, but some of them; nor out of a delight I have to rake in other mens sores; but to shew you, that Bishops grew not into such odium among the people for nothing; nor were they without miscarriages, that occasio­ned such a violence against them; and yet for my part, I grieve, that the peoples dislike of them had not acted in a [Page 80]more orderly and regular way.

Parag. 17. For Seldens distinction between the Abbot and the Abbey; it seems, he is better at relating distinctions, then practising them: And its good to observe that distin­ction, where the man is Gods instituted Officer; but that neither Abbot was, nor Diocesan Bishop is, but both hu­mane creatures.

Parag. 18. Your quarrell is at my expression, of bring­ing Bishops to moderation, which you, in a jeering way, say, is annihilation; but as wise a man, as you, may be deceived; for though that relation or title of Episcopacie, be taken a­way, wherewith man hath exalted them, yet they may re­tain that place that God hath given them, to serve him as Pastors, in some parochiall charge, as they did before their Episcopacie; which he that disdains, or thinks nothing, or that it is too low for him, I dare be bold to say, it is too good for him.

Parag. 19. For that you say, that the King suffers for the Bishops obstinacy; the more disrespective they, not to yield, that he may be enlarged, if that would do it; you know what Gregory Nazianzen (not inferior to any of them) did for peace; for what you relate here, and else-where, in an ac­cusatorie way, " of what is done to the Bishops and Clergie; I might object what hath been done to the Clergie of the other side, when under opposite power; but I have neither furthered nor approved the oppressions of neither side, but bewail them, and fear Gods judgments for them.

And therefore, in your Parag. 20. is slander out of malice or mistake, that I have preacht for the Bishops wealth, or Mytre, &c. but your opinion is at last, if others be so vio­lent to put him to it, the King and his posterity must perish, e're you will consent to part with your greatness and honour. Sure, if you count those that put the King upon this strait, his enemies, no wise man will count you (who will rather let him perish by the rigour of others, then relieve him by your con­descension) good friends: you love greatness so, that you will rather lose it with him, then release it, to contribute to his preservation.

Is this your boasted of affection and loyaltie? This shews what you pretend love to the King for; to uphold your own greatness, not his, further then it upholds yours.

Parag. 21. You conclude, that if the Bishops knew themselves guilty of the difference between the King and Parliament, God forbid but they should part with all they may, &c. And if they will remember the beginning of it in Scotland, with the occasion, they may see guilt enough, especially he that called it, Bellum Episcopale, who, it is to be feared, spake the minde of the rest. " But yet they cannot give up what is Gods, nor would I have them, but for God, and to God; for his glory, both to promote a blessed peace, and to set in its pro­per sphear Presbyter-Bishops of his own appointing, and sup­port more able of them to feed the flock of God, that may live divers years without one Sermon, for many a Diocesan Bishop.

I Come now to answer to your 15. Chapter, wherein you dispute the Case, whether it be lawfull to confer Bishops Lands on Presbyters; and first you say, the Church is like our Saviour Christ between two theeves, Independents and Presbyterians, but neither of them for our Saviour. But the best of it is, your tongue is no slander; for if preaching Christ, be being for Christ; I dare boldly affirm, that the most of either of those that dislike Episcopacie, are far more for Christ then you and your Prelates, a few only excepted; and of them, the more they be for Christ, the less violent usually for Bishops; especially for your Apostle-Bishops, which they account a fancie. After, you say, I like theft, so I and my fellow. Presbyterians may be gainers; but your [Page 83]position is false: I abhor theft as much as you do, nor do I look at the gain of my self, or Presbyterians, but of the Church of God, for I am no pluralist, whatever D. B. is; nor do I, nor many other Presbyters, expect any more means, if this should be, but that the Church may have more Presbyters apt to rule well, and labour in the word and doctrine, and be examples to the flock, we having found in experience, that scandalous livings occasion scandalous Ministers: And this we think is in the power of king and Parliament to do without theft. The revenues annext to Cathedrals, being intended for the best good of the Church.

But Parag. 2. You acknowledg I am against sacrilegi­ous alienation, but, I and Master Beza cannot prevent it. Who can help it? We have cleared our own souls: yet if the Prelates would have consented to resignation, when this case was first presented, I verily believe that dishonourable alienation had been prevented.

Parag. 3. You confess I would fain set a fair gloss upon a detestable fact. But every thing is not detestable, which you call so; that which would tend to have Christ more preacht, would be profitable to the Church, and acceptable to God. For Ordination, we have spoken before, and shewed, that Presbyters have as much power from God to ordain, as your Prelates, and are as good Bishops; onely the other, by custom, gradatim, have rob'd them. We shall have a choyce peece, when you come to examine Divine right. I shall wish the Divines to be more careful to provide patience to bear your railings, then perspicacity to discern your subtilties: For you are not like to trouble their heads with much of the latter.

Parag. 4. You say, If there be a diversion of the wainte­nance, who shall make the conveyance, and When its made, its not valid, without the proprietary, and that is God, &c. and what is separated to holy use, cannot return to common. Good, but what is given to God, may be improved to the utmost for God; and thats the aim, and would be the issue of the diversion [...]poken of, that Christ might more preach'd, even to those that have long sate in darkness, and in the sha­dow of death.

Nor is every diversion, (as you say, Parag. 5.) a turning [...]out of the right channel? But out of the former channel; and the latter may be better, and so righter, in regard of the chief intentions of the Donor. And this done, by the unquestio­nable authority of the Land, will I doubt not be approv'd by as wise, and as honest men, as you. Do not you your self, pag. 119. say, concerning Abbies and Pryories; That good and pious men have wisht that the abuses had been pruned off, and that the land had been disposed of, according to the Donors intentions? Whats that but diversion from the cor­rupt way of Abbeys and Pryoryes, to support other pious, and charitable uses?

Parag. 6, 7, 8. You tell us a story of the antiquity of endowing Churches, and the riches of them. And that the use and Dominion of Church-goods, belong'd to Bishops, and this not onely by custom, but by Canon: But withal you say, at his charge, as it were, the Presbyters and other Clerks of the Church Were fed.

Sure, you have told a good tale for your self; for by it, it appears, that the wealth wherewith the Church was endow­ed, was not given to any persons, but the Church, in which the Bishop had no propriety, but power of use, for what he him­self needed, and of disposing the rest to Presbyters, and other Clerks; which now the Bishop neglecting, and many Pari­shes in his Diocesses wanting preaching Presbyters, for want of maintenance, and many that preach'd wanting subsistance; and the Bishop, who you say, should maintain them, main­taining Princely I my self once saw the Bishop of Yorke, riding towards Lon­don, with fourty five men in his Livery. And I wondering at the number, was told by one of them, that there was above twenty left behinde, that wore their Lords Livery. State, a number of Serving-men, &c. To divert a great deal of the maintenance to preaching Presby­ters, would be a returning of it into the old channel, by your own confession.

But Parag. 9 The Bishops followed the steps of the A­postolick Church, for Act. 4. we read that the well minded, when they sold their lands, laid the prices at the Apostles feet, not the Presbyters. How could they, when there was, as yet, none ordained? But after, by the Apostles direction, there were Deacons set over this business of Church-treasures. Good, and those Deacons continued, and distributed [Page 85]Church-goods; some to the Pastor, some to the poor, some to other pious uses; but when your Prelates grew Lordly, the, like not that, and therefore by little and little they changed the Deacons office, and made themselves proprie­taries of the great revenues, and thereby great Princes; and you can abuse Scripture to confirm it, as the Papists do to ex­alt the Pope. But Paul, say you, commanded Timothy, that the Presbyters be well provided for, 1 Tim. 5.17. And to what purpose was this charge, unless he were to provide for the Presbyters of his Church? For very good purpose: as the Apostle shews you himself, 1 Tim. 4.11. These things com­mand and teach. He was to teach it, others to perform it; for though he set Presbyters on work, in some sense, yet it was not for himself, but Christ and his Church; and they who reap'd their spirituals, were to pay them temporals, 1 Cor. 9. And you dream, when you talk of Timothyes table, or allowing maintenance. Alas, he had no Palace then, he kept no Prince­like table to feed his Presbyters; these fancies will be ridi­culous to learned men, especially to Bishops, to lay the charge on them, to maintain all the Presbyters in their Diocess. Yet you say, in those times, Bishops and Presby­ters were used to live in the same house: What, all the Pres­byters in a Diocess? and in the Apostles time? Alas Sir, they were like their Master, they had no houses, but what they hired, nor no tables, but where they sojourned, as ap­pears by Divine story: With what face can you deliver such improbabilities?

But Parag. 10. You enquire, Whence the want of main­tenance for preaching Presbyters ariseth, and you answer, it is from the appropriation of tythes, at the dissolution of Abbeys. This is true in part, but not in the whole; for I believe, the greater part of Appropriations are held of Bishops, and Deans and Chapters; and if the Bishops be to maintain the Presbyters, and withhold the tythes, who is the thief now? At least, thus far, the attempt is just to restore their impropira­tions: And I must tell you this too; That there was scarce any Gentleman of any ingenuitie or affection to religion, but he made a far more considerable addition, out of his impro­priation, [Page 86]to the incumbent, then either Bishops, or Deans and Chapters; Though the one purchased them, when the other swore they came into them freely: Nay, some Gentlemen resigned their impropriations freely: I can hear of no Bishop that hath done so; though you say, they are bound to main­tain their Presbyters. You close with a jeer, but therein discover your ignorance: Impropriations were injurious, you confess; and if they be not valid in law, why do not you sup­ply the cure of some great impropriation, and recover the tythes in a legall way? if you cannot, my position is truth; and so not dissonant from the God of truth.

Parag. 11. You bring my words, that if Bishops Lands were bestowed on Presbyters: This would be, not ruine, but to rectifie the devotion of former ages, which you say, is somewhat like Cardinall Woolsey's pretence, who dissolved fourty small Monasteries of ignorant Monks, to erect two goodly Colledges for the breeding up learned, and industrious Divines; was not this to turn impediments into helps? was not this as fair a pretence as mine? yes, the very same, and I think, few godly and rationall men will disallow it: But you would prove by the event, that this was not accepted of God, because his Colledges were not brought to perfection. But vulgus res eventu metitur, its for vulgar capacities to judge of things by the event, not Doctors of Divinitie. And had Cardinall Woolsey, think you, no other sins to make God blast his design, but this pious attempt? Sure, no man that knows his story, will so judg; " but this gave occasion to pro­fuse sacriledg; but occasions are not alwaies culpable of ill e­vents, unless they becauses also, as this was not, but the cove­tousness, and igonrance, with other lusts, of ill-guided men.

Parag. 12. you enquire, what the meaning of these words is, this will turn pomp into use.

I answer not what you say; but so that wealth, which of late, served for the useless pomp of one only Princely Lord Bishop, would provide many able preachers for the use and edification of the Church.

But you proceed, and say, that the power of Bishops, which were the main impediments to schism and heresie, we [Page 87]have covenanted to root out, and have brought in all helps to irreligion and Atheism, &c. But this is but a false sugge­stion of yours; for though the power of Episcopacie (as Je­rome saith) was first erected to prevent schism; yet amongst us of late, as I have shewed, it was the great occasion of schism, & the fautor of divers heresies. That there have of late appeared more heresies and schism among us then formerly, is not because Episcopacie was pul d down, but because we were so long without Presbyterie setled, which is yet but lamely done; for where that is setled, it would far better prevent the rise and growth of heresie, then Episcopacie; as King James demonstrated to Mountague, Bishop of Bath and Wells; demanding of him, upon the occasion of Legatts Arrianism, what the reason should be, that Scotland was so free from schism and heresie, when England was far more pestered with both. The relation out of a learned Author, you may take as followeth:

When Legatt the Arrian, and Weakman, Scoti paracl. con­tra Tileri praen: from the rela­tion of a Cour­tier of good credit, lib. 1. c. 8 that affirmed him­self to be the Holy Ghost, were put to death; Mountague, Bi­shop of Bath and Wells, ask'd King James seriously, whence it was, that England did bring forth Sects, heresies, schisms, in­somuch, that many families, before we were aware, separated from us, and fled away; whereas no such thing was observed to happen in the Church of Scotland? To whom the King, as most skilfull in this cause, most wisely answered; That such was the Discipline of the Scotch Church, that it was impossible for such things to fall out amongst them: for first (saith the King) you must know, that every Church hath its Pastor al­waies resident, and vigilant in his parish; and this Pastor hath joyned with him Seniors and Deacons, which every week meet together at a set time and place, for the censure of manners, that almost the whole flock is known by face to the Pastor, and the con­ditions, disposition, and religion of everyone, is made apparent: no heresie therefore can spring up in a Parish, without notice ta­ken by the Pastor; and to prevent the rooting of any error in a Pa­stor, They have every week their Presbyteries, composed of all the Pastors in a Shrievalty, or Deanrie, in the chief City of that precinct; and this, not only to decide the more weighty que­stions [Page 88]touching manners; but also to try doctrine it self: Here do prophesie at least two; whereof the first doth only open the text and expound it: The second doth give the use, exhortation, and application: This finisht, the rest meet together, and the two speakers go aside, untill the Moderator of the Presbyterie asketh every ones opinion of the doctrine delivered. And if (to say no worse) they do but smell out any thing, either its forth­with buryed by common suffrage, or if the Presbytery be divi­ded in any question, yet at least, the whole matter is husht in silence untill the next Synod, which come twice a yeer. Hither come all the Pastors of the whole Province, accompanied with their Elders, as the state of every Church requires.

The Moderator of the precedent Synod begins with a Ser­mon; and then, either a new Moderator is chosen, or (which seldom falls out) the old is continued. The question refer'd to the Synod, is either composed, or husht up again in silence, and re­fer'd to the National Synod, held once every year. Hither come, not onely the Pastors, but the King, or his Commissio­ner, and usually some of all degrees, sufficiently furnisht with judgement and authority to compose any controversie; so Here­sie is stifled in the very birth. So you may see, that Presbyterie is a better way to keep out, or under Schisms and Heresies, in King James his judgement, grounded on experience, then Episcopacy: For what you add, That the Pulpits and Presses, are lock'd up to all Orthodox men; Is false: if to any, it is my grief: I am not to answer for others faults.

Parag. 13. You say, Its true, and not true, that by Paro­chial Pastors, the work of the Ministery is chiefly to be per­formed. True you say, it is in the Fathers sence, not in mine. But my sence, I shall prove to you, is Scripture sence: For Pastors in my sence, are such as were ordained, Act. 14.13. and Tit. 1.5. in every Church, and were by the Holy Ghost, made over-seers of them to feed them, Act. 20.28. This you confess; for these places you understand of Presbyter-Bi­shops. And I hope you will not oppose Fathers to Scrip­tures; if you do, you know who must fall, Gal. 1.8. Its true, that the place of a Bishops jurisdiction, was sometime called a Parish; But that Parish was usually not so bigg as [Page 89]some Parishes in England now; If they were, how could six Bishops be assembled to the censure of every Presbyter, as the Canon was: sure thats above the number of all the Bishops that are in one of our Provinces, which grates hard on your Diocesans, shewing, how unlike they are to ancient Bishops. ' Nor are the ordering of the Church, or ordaining of Presby­ters, without the sphear of Presbyters, by any law of God, but humane custom: No, nor are these the chief works of the Ministery; No Doctor: Preaching, and sound Doctrine are the chief acts of the Ministery, which deserve most re­ward, as you may see, 1 Tim. 5.17. and 1 Cor. 1.17. and therefore, when Saint Paul reckons up Ministers, and their Ministerial acts, governing comes behinde teaching, 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.6, 7, 8.

But Parag. 14. You think to prove, 'That your Bishops do the chief work, virtually, from an axiom in philosophy, prop­ter quod aliquid est tale, illud ipsum est magis tale. But herein you shew your self as bad a Philosopher, as Divine; for doth propter quod, note out an efficient cause, or the final cause, think you? You are therefore mistaken in your axiom, which is false, being as if you had said, Presbyters are made Preachers, propter populum, for the people: ergo. the people are more Preachers: A wise conclusion. We have a rule in­deed, quicquid efficit tale, est mag is tale. And I will grant, that they that ordain Preachers, ought to be more Preachers themselves; but that, you know, is false in experience, in most of your Bishops; therefore you should know, that such Axioms, are true onely in natural, not in voluntary causes, as the Logicians will teach you. Neither are the Bishops the total causes of Preachers: Alas, at the most, they give them but Commission to use their gifts authoritatively, which gifts they have from God, and are the fundamental cause to make them Preachers. Nor can Bishops alone ordain Presbyters; that I have proved before. And what if I should prove it now by an axiom of philosophie? Generare sibi simile, To beget his like, is the affection of a living creature; And Pres­byterie, you know, is a living office, ergo, Presbyters may or­dain Presbyters. I believe, you will sweat to give a rational [Page 90]answer to it. What you add about ordinary Courts of ju­stice, and Parliament; Sir, though I count the Parliament the supream Court, yet justice is chiefly done by inferiour Courts, because it ordinarily lies on them, and the Parliament is onely to supply and rectifie their errors.

But you proceed, and Parag. 15.16. Compare the Mini­sters to souldiers in an Army, and to Mariners in a Navy, and your Bishops are as the General, they are as the Admiral. So then, the people are no part of the Ship or Army, or else you level the Presbyters with the people, whom the Holy Ghost calls their guids set over them: Such similitudes you use to make. But every Preacher is not fit to be a Bishop: thats your judgement; but the Holy Ghost saith none should preach, except he be sent, and none should be sent, but such as are fitted to take the care and over sight of the Church, and thats the Holy Ghost's Bishop: Whatever your opinion is, see 1 Tim. 3.5. Acts 20.28. Indeed, such a Bishop as you would have, Monarchically to govern a whol Diocess of a Shier or two, cannot be made ex quolibet ligno; but neither Scriptures, nor primitive times acknowledg any such Bishop; But such a Bishop as may joyn with others in the govern­ment of a Church: a meaner man may be without prejudice, for others maturitie in judgement, may help his want of ex­perience.

What you object, Parag. 17. about the Levellers Do­ctrine is sutable to this; Is but a capritious fancie of your own; for God hath comprized all ordinarie Ministers under the same name of Pastors; and therefore man can make no difference among them, but for orders sake. Neither do I go about to level all Benefices: you know there is a difference, in a great disproportion, which may be for men of different parts.

But Parag. 18. You exclaim, because I say, there will be no danger of sacriledg in my way. And first, you say, to over­throw Episcopacy, is to overthrow the Church, and for that its not enough for you to abuse a Father, but an Apostle too; for when Saint Paul saith, we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Ephes. 2.20. Whats that, saith Beza, [Page 91]but Jesus Christ? So the Apostle, who is the best interpreter of himself, explicates it, 1 Cor. 3.9. and adds, Planè est An­ti-Christus, quî sibi tribnit quod unius Christi est: He is plainly anti-Christ, that arrogates to himself (or to any other) what is onely Christs. What think you of this? Again, those that take the Apostles to be the foundation, is it in re­spect of their persons, authoritie, or doctrine? Their doctrine, I believe Sir; and will you compare your Bishops, for do­ctrine, to the Apostles and Prophets: Who, as such, were in­fallible; Nay, do you not confess the doctrinal part of the Ministerie to belong to the Presbyter, as well as your Prelate, and to be more performed by them? and have you not made a fine proof of the fall of the Church with Bishops, out of this place?

But you add, Parag. 19. What, no danger of sacriledg in robbing Father and Mother? But you answer for me, that it is no sacriledg, because the means shall stil be setled on the Church: and thats a reason which you cannot answer: For sacriledg is an alienating of that which was justly devoted for sacred, to civil, or prophane use; therefore change, so there be a continuance of holy use, is no sacriledg: Nor shall we rob our Father; for, as you confess, holy treasure was first gi­ven to the Church in general: The Bishops had not propri­ety, but use of some, and with the rest they were to main­tain the Presbyters, which are wanting in many places, for want of maintenance. Now for those, in whom autho­rity lyes to take care for the edification of the Church: To dispose the Churches Patrimonie, so as may be best for edification of the Church, appointing it to maintain preachers, not pomp, will be counted neither sacriledg, nor theft, by rationall and good men. But you say, we rob the Church of her husband too; for though a Church have 1000 Presbyters, yet she hath but one husband: so that great Coun­sell of Calcedon; but that Counsell spake according to the corrupt customes of those times, not according to the tenure of Scriptures, who make all the Presbyters over-seers over their particular flocks, to dwell with them as men of know­ledg, and to take care for them; and that's to be in your [Page 92]sence husband, is it not? After you have made the Church a widow without a Bishop, you add, while a widow, she can bring forth nothing but a bastard brood, consider that; yes, I shall consider it, but to your shame: what if a Church continue, as often it hath, through covetousness and faction, long without a Bishop, are all the Converts, begotten by the word of truth preach'd by Prebyters, bastards? nay, what if Churches cast off Episcopacie, are all her Presbyters bastards? Do you thus gratifie the Papists, and abuse all the Ministers of our sister reformed Churches? many of which far out­strip you in all ministeriall qualification; your assertion there­fore is very considerable, to discover what a Popish spirit you are of.

For Parag. 20. Whether your conclusion will follow on the premises, or mine, I now leave to the judicious Reader. I would not have the King, for fear of the people, to do any unlawfull act: I disclaimed it in the very entrance of my Case resolved; but I only perswade to what, for ought I yet see, I have proved lawfull; and that to rescue a perishing king­dom, and prevent the hazard of his Crown; which, that it may be free, and flourishing on his head, is my daily and hear­tie prayer, as those that know me can very well witness, notwithstanding your ignorant calumniations, to the con­trarie.

I Proceed to the answer of your 16. Chapter, entituled, how far forth the King ought to protect the Church and Bishops. You begin, it is confessed to my hand, that the King is en­gaged, to his power, to protect the Bishops and their Privi­ledges, as every good King ought in right, to protect the Bi­shops and Churches under their government. It is confes­sed, that these are the expressions of the oath, as it is set down by the Reviewer; but you should conceive, that I pro­pose these two clauses, as limitations of the kings engagement, that is, 1. To his power. 2. only so far forth, as in right he ought; and I do not say, the engagement is put upon him by the Author, as you ignorantly suggest, but that these are the expressions of the oath, delivered by the Author; but he is not, in right, bound to protect their priviledges against an or­derly alteration by act of Parliament, if any appear inconve­nient to the whole body, for that is not right.

Parag. 2. You confess, the King is not bound further to ex­ercise his power in protection of Bishops, then he can do it with­out sinning. And I after prove, he cannot so protect them, as to denie a Bill in that circumstance of affairs he and the land were in, without sin; what you answer to my proof, will be seen in the sequel of this Chapter. How I have an­swered your proofs, that he cannot let fall Bishops without mischief to his people, &c. in your eighth Chapter, let the Reader judge.

In that you say, parag. 3. That the Kings interposing the power he hath, vexeth my confederacy; Is I doubt your wil­ful ignorance; for the frame of my Book might clearly e­nough hint unto you, that I, neither was of, nor liked any [Page 109]confederacie against the King.

Neither have I, as you say, parag. 4. Confest that what the King hath done, is right. Right it is indeed upon his principles: But I do not think, the King is bound in right to maintain Bishops, in statu quo, in the state wherein they were; and he is willing now to regulate them by their Pres­byters. But whatever I confess in justification of the King, is not (as you say) the justification of an enemy; unless he that pleadeth, prayeth, suffereth for the King, and his just and Kingly libertie, be his enemy, because he is against the usurping power of Bishops.

Parag. 5. If after all this, he must perforce let the Bishops fal, you and your schism have much to answer for. Still a Slanderer; its none of my schism, to force the King to let them fall; for though I prove, he may let them fall; and that it is for the advantage of the Church, that they should fall; yet I was alwaies against forcing him to it; for, I think, it is much more reason, that his conscience should be left free in its determination, then my own, or any private mans, in as much as God hath set him in so high a degree of eminencie in his Kingdoms.

But that you say, the sword was never drawn on the Kings side, to maintain Religion established: They never learn'd to fight for Religion; It is an ignorant speech, misbecoming a D. D. For what juster cause of War, or more weightie, then to maintain Religion establish'd? Its true, we may not fight to set up a Religion (which is true) against the laws and authoritie of the land where we live; that were against the direction to Christians, under Heathen Emperors, Rom. 13.1.2. But to joyn with authoritie to maintain Religi­on establish'd, (supposing it true) with the last drop of our blood, is the most glorious quarrel; and so I doubt not, but the Royal partie learned, though not from you, yet from better Divines. For your clinch about good subjects; Its frivolous; for the War costs blood on both sides, and the King loseth on both sides, for all are his subjects, and I doubt not, but he hath good Subjects on both sides, in regard of meaning, and intention, though its true, one side must [Page 110]needs be in a grand error.

Parag. 6. You confess, it is an hard case for one man to engage his life for the maintenance of anothers priviledges. But who did so? Not a man (say you) engag'd himself, but by the Kings command, which you after prove, and state the question us you please. But this is but to shuffle, and alters the state of a question, to elude the force of an Argument, which you cannot answer: That which I said, was, it was not e­qual for the King to engage, by his command, the lives of some, to maintain the priviledges of others, which I spake upon this supposition; That if the King had condescended in point of Episcopacie, the War would have been at an end, Laws restored to exercise, &c. For both City, and the Scotish Nation, would have closed with him: and for this cause alone, viz. to maintain power of Bishops, I say, it would not have been equal to have engaged the lives of o­thers; nor were they willing, as I have been informed, Nobles, nor others. It may be, the King thought condescen­tion in this, would not have set him and his people, in quiet possession of their rights; but I cannot but wish, that it had been tryed, that nothing lawful had been omitted, by which there was any hope to have saved a great deal of misery, that his Majestie, his Royal relations, and the whole Nation hath suffered.

But Par. 7. You deny them to be others priviledges, and affirm them to be the peoples, because they reap spirituals from them. But truely I must tell you, that the people reaped but little in spirituals from many of the Bishops, who seldom preached themselves, and rob'd many people of their spirituals, by si­lencing their Ministers; and though there were no Bishops in England, the people may reap spiritual things from the Clergie, as plentifully, if not more, then ever they did; as well as without them, they do in other reformed Churches. But what you add, " That in the suffering of the Clergie, all Families suffer, you substitute Clergie for Bishops. Other of the Clergie may be in better condition by the removall of Lording Bishops; but in your proof that one of the Tribe of Judah, of the most remarkable Family, turn'd Priest: [Page 111]That is so gross an oversight, that it is most unbeseeming a D. D. for its expresly said, that young man was a Levite by birth. And the argument of Micah, plainly proves him so, or else he had been in no better case with him, then with one of his own sons, whom he had consecrated, if that would have made a Priest. See Judg. 17. v. 5.13. The Levite indeed turned Priest, which was his wickedness; for a Levite was not to do the Priests office. There is indeed an ambi­guous expression, touching this Levite, v. 7. A young man of Bethlehem Judah, of the family of Judah. But if you had consulted Interpreters, you would have found them general­ly agreeing that he was a Levite, though differing in their opinions, how he was of the family of Judah. Some saying, by his Mother, some referring it to the City, to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in Zabulon, &c.

You add, parag. 8. What if Magna Charta do obliege all to stand up for the due observation of these priviledges? then we must acknowledg that we are bound to obey his Majesty commanding, &c. Still you alter the question; for the que­stion is, Whether it can be supposed equal, that the King should stand bound to engage the lives of many, for the pri­viledges of a few Lord Bishops. I hope, you think it not the meaning of Magna Charta, that every one should engage their lives for every paltrie priviledg of another. But its well you can now confess, that Magna Charta is a great and justly magnified Charter. If you and your Prelates had been of this minde formerly, and not been so deep in breaking, and countenancing the breach of it in others, by illegal im­prisonments, impositions, fines, both of Laytie and Clergie: England might have scap'd this cannensem calamitatem, this mine-threatning calamitie, under which it is readie to expire; to which the breaches of Magna Charta gave the first occasion, and the fairest colour.

Parag. 2. You make an objection touching Abbots and Priors provided for by the same Charter, yet since taken a­way by act of Parliament, which you confess. But first, you you would have us observe, how they prospered that did it. Secondly, that Master Beza and my self call it sacriledg. [Page 112]We do so, and that we judge the cause why they prosper'd not that did it, because they did it with that sinful circum­stance of devouring holy things, which shewed also their want of sinceritie in it. Thirdly, you say, that they are for it sti­led enemies of our Sovereign. But they did not hear it, they were born long after the Statute of 25. Edward 3. Fourthly, you cite the Counsel of Chalcedon, that no consecrated Mo­nastery may be turned to a secular dwelling. I answer, Counsels may erre, and so may that of Chalcedon; if the pro­fit of the house had been imployed for pious uses; I see no ground of complaint or censure. Fiftly, you say, you hope I will make a difference between our Saviours institution, and mans invention. Truely I do, and have proved Diocesan-Bi­shops to be no institution of Christ, but man, in the fore­going Discourse. And lastly, I joyn With the wishes of those pious men, and move (as you know) not a devouring but a di­version of Chathedrals maintenance; (Besides what is re­quisite to maintain needful preaching there,) to procure and encourage able Parochial Pastors (who are the undoubted Ordinance of Jesus Christ) all the Land over.

Parag. 10. You do but beat the same bush again, in ci­ting again Magna Charta. I confess, the kings engagement to maintain the Priviledges of the Clergie, so far as he is bound by right; nor is any act of the king, or the Houses without the king, valid against it; but king and Parliament joyning, they may over-rule some parts of it, and upon just ground warrantably, as appears in all experience, as in paring Episcopall Canonical priviledges, niminishing their jurisdi­ction by the high Commission annext to, and set over Bishops, &c.

Parag. 11. You enquire, Whether it be equall to engage the lives of some, to destroy the honours of others? This is impertinent to my Case, and though I count not your Bi­shops, plantations of Gods right hand, yet sith they had foot­ing by law, it hath been my grief, that force hath been used to pluck them up, for me they should have stayed for his day; who hath said, every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be plucked up; but when I have made complaint [Page 113]of this, it hath been replyed to me by many, that this was not the cause of the engagement in war, though I believe the most considerable part of the people had an eye on this; but this is on the by.

Parag. 12, 13. You take into consideration my Case, of a Captain, engaged by oath to maintain the Priviledges of Townes-men, and keep a town to his power, whether he may not, notwithstanding his oath, make his composition, (if he cannot defend it without the Townes-men, and they will not fight) without violation of his oath? I think, none will affirm it. You do not only deny it, but take the Name of God in vain, to make a jeer at it, doth that become a Divine? But let's hear your reason; because there's no town in England can have such a priviledg, as not to bear arms against the Kings enemies. Suppose it be so, I am no Lawyer; yet you know its not unusuall in cases, to suppose things that are not, so they be not impossible, as this is not; for the king may grant such an immunitie if he please, that none shall be compell'd to bear arms, and therefore it was but a shift; that error in the Case may be easily mended, and it will pinch the Do­ctor as hard as ever it did; for suppose that so many of the souldiers in the town are slain, or taken prisoners, that the Governour can defend it no longer, then I hope Mr. Doctor will yield that he may make his composition; so was it with the king, at the publishing my small Treatise; and now, not­withstanding my former fails (as he saith Parag. 14.) for want of skill in law; the difficulty is returned on the Doctor, get out how he can.

I make an Objection, that though the king cannot in such a state uphold them; yet it is in his power not to consent to their fall; this, I say, is the only exception. The Doctor saith, "its a just one, though not the only one; yet he shews no other: but then he is angry for the phrase, peremptoriness, in denying assent to the fall of Bishops, used to the King as uncivil. I am no Courtier, (I confess) and may fail in phrase; yet peremptoriness in a candid sense, is no more then reso­luteness, so I mean it: but I will strive hereafter, even in ex­pressions, to cut off occasion from them that seek occasion. [Page 114]But you say, his not consenting to the fall of Bishops, may keep him from sin. But you beg the question; for I argue by my instance, in a Governour of a town, that there is no sin in resigning upon composition; and your proof, that it is a sin to consent to abolish Episcopacie, because an ordinance of Christ, waves the bonds of the oath, and argues from the thing; the vanity of which I confuted, when I met with it, Chap. 4.

Parag. 16. You answer, though the King cannot save your Mitres, but endanger his own Crown, yet (say you) he shall avoid sin and save his soul, for without con­sent, no sin. Neither in consent is there sin in this case, as I have proved; and then a king, I hope, may do all that may be done, without sin, to save his Crown: but in the mean time, the land may see how tender you are of the king, that rather then you will consent to his signing a Bill when it may save his Crown, he shall lose it. It's a sign you love the Crown for your Mitres sake; and if there must be no Bishops, then let there be no kings neither. Rightlike him in the Tragedie, [...].

Parag. 17, 18. You examine, that I say in a naturall sence, it is in the Kings power to consent to the abrogation of Episcopacie, not in a morall sence, because he cannot now deny without sin; the distinction you acknowledg, and say, it should be the Kings care, that he incline not to sin. I say so too, he must venture all, rather then sin; and if I thought it were sin, I should chuse death, rather then per­swade him to it; but you confidently conclude, the King breaks his oath, and sins if he consent. This I deny, the oath engageth not to dissent in this case, as I have proved: yet were Episcopacie an institution of Christ, I confess also, it were sin to abolish it: but I have proved it a brat of hu­mane power; and what man sets up, you confess man may pull down.

But I prove, that the king cannot deny his assent to abro­gation of Episcopacy now, without sin, for else such confu­sion will follow, as is most repugnant to the weal of his peo­ple; this confusion we have felt: but what saith the Doctor to this, Parag. 19. Thus shall sin vary at your pleasure, sin [Page 115]it shall be now, that was none heretofore. Why Sir, is that strange, that circumstances should change the morality of actions? I am ashamed, that a D. D. of mine own mo­ther Universitie should discover such ignorance in Divinitie. Was it not a thing unlawful in the Apostles time, after the Decree, Acts 15. to eat things strangled, and bloud, where offence was taken; but cannot you without scruple, now eat a good blood-pudding, or a strangled capon? truly, if you cannot, you would get more scorn, then followers, for such a silly fancie.

But you proceed, Parag. 20. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Is there no law, for a King to tender the weal of his people? yes, sure that that requires him to be honoured as a father; and therefore, if he withholding his assent, occasion the keeping up confusion, repugnant to the weal of his people, undoubtedly there's a law broken, unless there be some superior law to check this. Oh, but Judge Jen­kins saith, its against the oath of the King and Houses, to al­ter the government for religion. But I pray you ask, the Judge whether it be against their oaths, to alter the religion, from Popery to Protestancie? and withall, whether is greater, the religion, or the external government of it? and if without perjury they alter the greater, why may they not the less? for the trouble, that the learned in law shall be put to on al­teration: If you compare it with garments rolled in blood, let the Reader judg, whether you be a prudent esteemer of matters.

But you retort, Parag. 21. If the King do consent to abrogate Episcopacie, there will follow confusion, repugnant to the weal of his people. Your reason is, that there are as many for Episcopacie (Common-Prayer is another business) as against it, though not so mutinous.

I answer, the danger of confusion is not from the num­ber or quality alone, but also from the power of opposers, which then was very great, and the adverse party weak; there­fore your retortion was feeble. I confess, the sins occasion'd by this confusion endanger temporal and eternal weal of [Page 116]people; that's it that makes me so study the healing of it.

Parag. 22. You infer, that I mean to continue these di­stractions, unless Episcapacie be abrogated▪ But you are mistaken in me; though I have no good conceit of Episco­pacie, yet I had rather it had continued, though to my bur­then and suffering, then have seen so much sin and misery by an unnatural war; but your expressions carry it, that your minde is so. Episcopacie may be held up: Scelera ipsa ne­fasque hac mercede placent. You are as much mistaken in objecting ambition, or avarice to me, as a cause of these evils: I have by Gods grace, followed the dictate of my conscience, above these twenty years, against my civill in­terest: and I hope, I shall not now become such a slave to lust, to do such a horrid thing, to serve it.

You close this Chapter, Parag. 23, 24. with paralel­ing our present times with the conspiracie of Corah; and when you can prove by Gods Law, such a difference be­tween Presbyters and Bishops, as God made between Priest and Levites, it will give a pretty colour to the business; but as long as Gods Word tells us, that Presbyters are Bi­shops and Pastors, nor hath he left any distinct orders among Pastors, you may please your self, and credulous followers, with your conceit, but shall not convict those of any guilt, that for peace-sake, move, that man would abolish that difference of order which the wit of man made, and the corruption of man hath made hurtfull. God make the Scepter of the King flourish, but as for your Episco­pall Mitres, they have been so stained by those that wear them, that well may they get power, but I believe they will never get beauty and glory in our Israel a­gain.

I Come now to your last Chapter, entituled, Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdom? But why not as wel, three? You know I make three supremacies, but two fitted your Bow better, which you had prepared to shoot your Ar­rows in, even bitter words: But I shal let you see, that as there is more vapour, so more vanitie and lightness in this, then in any other Chapter; and some of it against your own words, and I believe more of it against your own light. First, you begin to tell me, That I blame them that set up two suprema­cies, and yet cannot see the beam in my own eye, and then ca­lumniate at pleasure.

Yet all is but winde: I blame them that set up two abso­lute supremacies, that had power to make laws independant­ly one of another: onely the Clergie had the better end of the staff; for the Laytie must be subject to their laws, but they would be exempt from the Layties. This I condemned out of Marsilus Patavinus, as an enemy to quiet, because such were alwaies apt, and usually in act, clashing one against ano­ther. But the supremacies that I speak of, cannot cross one another, so no danger of disturbance. Again, Doctor, in sober sadness, do you not know a difference between a supre­macy, and the Supremacie? A D. D. cannot be so ignorant. You cannot chuse but have learned the difference between absolute summum, and summum secundùm quid. Chiefs, in some respect, may be many, chief absolutely, but one; and when I say, a Supremacie, did not that hint to you onely a Supremacie secundum quid, in some respect onely? and yet [Page 119]more expresly, when I call it the supream Court, that is, su­pream, not absolute: but in respect of judicature, there lies an appeal from all Courts to it by petition, but from it to none. Is not this a Supremacie? Nay, do not you your self ascribe as much to it, when you say, This I say, that the Parliament is Curia Capitalis, the supream Court of this Kingdom? Your own words, pag. 136. if Supream, there's supremacie, quicquid dicitur de in est in; it cannot be denominated su­pream, but there is supremacie in it, in some respect; deno­minatio fit ab inhaesione; did you not then cavil against con­science at a supremacie in the Parliament, and raise dust to darken the light?

Parag. 2. After a light quirk, misbecoming a D. D. you ask Whether this be not against the oath of supremacy, Where­in we swear, that the Kings highness is the onely supream Governour of this Land, &c? How are my positions against this oath? Do not I ascribe to the king, to be the onely Su­pream Magistrate? You that could play with summum, and supremus; Can you tell us a difference, between Magistrate, and Governour? If not, he that asserts the King the su­pream Magistrate, reacheth the sence of that oath, which maketh him supream Governour. Therefore I need fear no humane penalties against perjurie, for this; No, Doctor, I hope once, the Lord will not hold him guilty, will more make me dread perjurie, then all other penalties.

Parag. 3. you say, I clip his Majesties wings, and say that the supremum jus Dominij, which is above laws, figere, & re­figere, is not in the King, to say it is in him, is in our State a manifest error. Whats become of the oath of Supre­macy then (say you)? Safe enough say I, The King remains still supream Governour; he is said to be onely so in govern­ment, which notes execution of laws, and so doth the phrases Ecclesiastical and Civil; but (you say) in your estate it is no error. Sure Sir, in King Charles his Kingdom of England it is an error; in which assertion, I should not have been so peremptory at first, nor now, had I not received this light from his own pen, in his answer to the Parliaments 19. Pro­positions, sent to him in York-shire; where first, he tels them, [Page 120]that the experience, Col. of Remonst. and pag. 320. 321. and wisedom of their Ancestors, hath so moulded our government, out of a mixture of all the three, viz. absolute Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, as to give to this Kingdom, as far as humane providence can provide the conveniences of all three, without the inconveniences of any one, &c. And then a little after. In this Kingdom, the laws are joyntly made by a King, by an House of Peers, and by an House of Commons, chosen by the people, all having free votes and particular priviledges. The government, according to these laws, is trusted to the King, &c.

Have not I now followed my copy right? the supream power to make laws, is Aristocrati, cal in three States, free to vote, and the King the supream Magistrate to execute laws. One would think, if this would not make you blush for what is past, yet it may stop your mouth for future; and I need not say no more on this point; yet I will give a little touch to shew the vanitie of your flourishes.

Your Parag. 4. Is a meer flash, attended with the sparkles of light calumnies; For I have not made one of two, I yet leave one absolute Supaemacie, as you confess in the next parag. the Supremacie to make and unmake laws. This is nei­ther in King, nor Houses apart, but conjoyned.

Here then we are fallen back to one Supremacie. Why did you then trifle so much about two? But this (say you) is to skip from Monarchie to Aristocracie; just as his Majestie hath told you, in this government there's a mixture; its A­ristocratical in Legis lation, Monarchical for execution; and therein is the excellency of it; the one being fittest for Law-making by solidity; the other for execution by cele­ritie; and yet this D.D. jeers, as though this was never seen before, because he wanted eyes: But now comes a precious one. He believes it well appears, That supremacie over all Laws, to make or disanul them, is in the King alone, at the Pe­tition of both Houses. Ridiculum caput; for its as much as to say, its in the King alone with the help of others; a no­torious Bull. That power is in a man alone which he can execute without the concurrence of others; but this the King cannot do, without the Houses manifesting their con­sent, [Page 121]and desire by Petition. Besides, have you forgot the statute, your self quoted, pag. 85? That no Act of Par lia­ment be passed by any Sovereign of this Realm, or any other authority whatsoever, without the advice and consent of the three Estates of the Kingdom, &c. Oportet te esse memo­rem.

But you will come to Scriptures, Fathers, and moderne Authors, as Parag. 6. 'Peter ascribeth supremacie to the King, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. But that is clearly, as I have said, as Supream Magistrate, to whom others are subordinate, and this admonition must be with limitation too, where Kings are supream. You do not think that the Apostle doth level all Kings, and give them all one equal supremacie; No, the Apostle had no power, nor would not attempt, to alter the constitution of Nations. Now Grotius will tell you; some Kings are not supream. Those of Athens were under the power of the people, those of Lacedemon, under the Ephori. See Grot. de jure bel. & pac. lib. 1. cap. 2. parag. 8. The sentences out of Fathers, which you quote, parag. 6, and 7. speak of absolute Monarchs, which you ignorantly, or flatteringly, say ours is; but our King denies it, calling our government, a mixture of all the three, and a regular Monar­chie, Collect. of Declar. &c. pag. 320. 321. And that sen­tence cited by you out of Grotius will confute you; Thats the supream civil power, cujus actus alterius juri non sub­sunt. Whose acts are not subject to another mans censure; For those acts that any do by the Kings authoritie, are the Kings acts; and the Parliament hath power to disanul these acts, and punish these agents, as the King informeth, Collect. of Remonstr. pag. 321. to shew, the compleatness of our government. Our Law indeed (saith the king) can do no wrong; that is, he cannot work, but by Agents: and the law takes no notice of him in it, but of the Agents, to punish them.

But you proceed, Parag. 8. I [...]ow (say you) you relye more upon the laws of the Land then upon the Word of God. But I believe therein you speak against your conscience; what you produce, that the king is the supream Head, is no [Page 122]more then what I ascribe to him, to be supream Magistrate, and in that he is alone, and the head one; and therefore the Bull of two Supremacies, you speak of, is but a Calf of your own fancie.

What you say, Parag. 9, 10. 13. Touching the Parliament being subjects, and petitioning to him as subjects, and that Bills are not in force without him. I confess: but these onely denie that supremacie in the Parlament, which I never asserted: but do not assert the supremacy in the king, to make, or un-make laws, without them. Therefore all this is trifling.

Par. 11. You ask, What supremacie can be in that Court, that cannot lawfully Convene, till the King summonthem? There is this; The supremacie of a Court, as you confess, to be the supream Court; that is, there is no appeal from them, but appeals from all Courts to them: and you know, they can reverse decrees in Courts, which the King cannot; he can pardon, not reverse sentences. They can reverse Ver­dicts but not pardon offenders.

You add Parag. 12. The King is to regulate them for the time. I acknowledg it: this Parliament onely excepted, by a particular Statute, made in this Parliament with the Kings assent. And for the manner, The king himself saith, they are free, and have priviledges of their own. For the great Lawyers judgement, you speak of, in Richard the 2. time, That if any in Parliament proceed upon other Articles, or in other manner then is limited by the King, &c. they are to be punished as Traytors.

I wonder, you will mention it, sith that great Law­yer was flattering Tresilyan, who by such ill Counsel helpt to over-throw his Sovereign: and in a Parliament, held in the 13, year of Richard 2. was for this, by the Lords in Parliament, condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, which was presently executed on him, as our Historians shew.

Your Collections, Par. 14. were disproved before: what you say ' for the Kings regulating Courts of justice. You mistake, the Law is their rule, and that regulates them, which if they [Page 123]transgress, he may punish them: but the law they are sworn to follow, against any private instructions of his; thats clearly known.

You sum up your arguments, Parag. 15. But they are all short of your conclusion: for they conclude not against the Parliaments being a supream Court, which is all I assert, and you confess in the following page: Nay, in this page, parag. 17. and what you have, parag. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Are superfluous: For they onely concludet he King to be supream Magistrate, but exclude not the Parliament from be­ing the supream Court: you say, but yet it is the Kings Court. I deny it not; I denie him onely to be above it, in the capacitie of a Court, though it sit by his writ. There­fore all you do here, is, but lis de lana caprina, meer trifling.

And as captious a conceipt is that, that you conceive not They have power to make and alter laws at pleasure; for there is great danger in altering laws without urgent cause. Who doubts it? What need you prove it? But to make up want of proof in things to be proved? Who knows not, that wisedom and moderation in Law makers, is to regulate that power that they may put forth upon any, that they put it not forth, but upon just occasion?

Parag. 22. You infer, If the King cannot do any thing a­gainst the legal rights of others, so nor Parliaments. True; they ought not to over-rule or alter the rights of other, but for the publike good; but for that they may; you know there were many had legal rights in offices in Star-Chamber, and yet for publike good, the King condescended to a Bill of abrogation.

Parag. 23. You tell us, ' The King is above law. That is, say you, Common-law. But this is your fiction; for the King saith, he is a regular Monarch, that is regulated by laws, so in a sence, under them. The common custom of our Nati­on is, that actions may be commenced against the King at the Common-law; therefore you speak against experience, in say­ing, that the king is above the Common-law; which appears also, in that the Judges of the Common, as well as Statute-law, are sworn not to denie, or delay justice to any, for any [Page 124]Letter, or Prohibition of the king. And though his taking the Parliament into the joynt assistance of making laws, makes not them supream: yet it hinders that supremacie of laws-making from being solely in him, sith he can do nothing without them.

For Parag. 24. I would not brand you, nor delude the peo­ple, as you object; But onely seek to give a rational sence of the kings oath, which they that oppose, brand themselves. I did believe, what I expres'd in my good conceit of the pre­sent Bishops tenderness to preserve the King from hazzard; but if they be all of your minde, I see I am deceived for; let the Crown, or life of king, sink or swim, he shall have no consent from you to enlarge his conscience, to consent to a­bolish Episcopacie, for the safegard of either.

For Parag. 25. 26. I desire no more, then that the king should give every one his own, preferring the publike before any private. I confess the kings readiness to confirm Bills, such and so large, as never were the like; but yet I know, and you know, what danger the king and land hath been, and is in, for want of consent to let down Episcopacie: And in this exigent wherein we are, by the corruption of man, I humbly give my advice, to promote Peace, and prevent much of that blood, and misery, which for want of peace still con­tinues; and threatens worse to the Church (I confess) then either the want or presence of Bishops.

But your Sun must set under a Cloud, and therefore, Pa­rag. 17. you tell me, He that slayeth a Prelate, to whom he owes faith and obedience, its Treason: you amplifie, If it be Treason to kill a Prelate, then how much greater to kill Pre­lacy. Negatur Argumentum, egregie D. D. It follows not; for he that kills a Bishop, kills a man, and he hath Gods Image stampt on him. But Episcopacy, as I have shewed, is but [...], an inhumane creature; so he may be re­moved regularly, without any injury to God. Besides, you consider not that Bishop is a concrete word, including a man and Episcopacy, Concretum relativum, as the Logicians call it. But Episcopacie is an abstract: your similitude onely holds thus, as it were worse to kill the species, then one man; so [Page 125]to abolish Episcopacy, then to degrade one Bishop; If either were evil. But, in a regular way, I have shewed you, both are good; therefore, as I fear not your law, so I doubt not of Gods approbation, being conscious to my sincere intentions, for the good of King and kingdom, in it.

For your Conclusion, Parag. Ʋlt. I must minde you, that it cannot be better then the Pr [...]mises, Conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem. Therefore I may conclude, That would the abolition of Episcopacy make our peace, put an end to blood, rapine, misery: The king may with safety and appro­bation do it. But if God be not pleased to perswade his heart so far; If that moderation that he would bring them to, would satisfie others: I think, as the case stands, they may do innocently, and commendably, to close with him. Yea, I think, those, who upon a serious consideration of the over-flowing of all sin, with an high hand, shall yield first; (that some government may be setled in the Church, Laws recover their power in the Common-wealth, sin be prevented, Justice and amity revived) they will be most acceptable to God, and ought to be so with men.

Deo gloria. Finis