ΣΙΝΙΟΠΠΑΓΙΑ, THE Sifters Sieve broken. OR, A REPLY To Doctor Boughen's sifting my Case of Conscience touching the King's Coronation Oath.  


WHEREIN IS cleared,  
That Bishops are not Jure Divino.  
That their sole Government, without the help of Presbyters, is an usurpation, and an innovation.  
That the King's Oath at Coronation, is not to be extended to preserve Bishops, with the ruin of Himself and Kingdom.    
Secundùm honorum vocabula, quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major. Aug. Ep. 19  
Communi Presbyterorum consilio regebantur Ecclesiae: Hieron. in Tit. 1.  
Let the Peace of God rule, and sway in your hearts; to the which also, ye are called in one body, Col. 3.15.  
By John Geree, M. A. and Pastor of St. Faiths under Paul's, in London.  
LONDON, Printed for Christopher Meredith, at the sign of the Crane in Paul's Churchyard, 1648.   

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL Sir Francis Nethersole, of Nethersole, Knight: Grace and Peace.  
Much Honoured Sir,  
THough the great respect, which you have been pleased to vouchsafeme, might be engagement sufficient to this Scholastical gratitude; Yet the suitableness of the subject, added much to my inclination, in this way, to let the world know, that I am in the number of those, who are grateful honourers of your Learning, and Godliness. The Book I present to you, is Polemical; But the intention of my contention is Irenical. As it is Polemical, your learning renders you able to judge of it. As it is Irenical, your piety (which bears the old stamp) will incline you to embrace it; for all that know you throughly, will give you testimony, to be a lover of peace, as it is a thing commanded of God, not as it is popular, and pleasing to men; And that you have been a persuader of it; not for private, but public interest; not because it is easy, but holy; having had as deep a sense, as any, of the sad sufferings of your dear Country, in her honour, strength, wealth, and Religion, by the present unnatural War.  
Sir, In this Paper-Combat, I have met with such an Adversary, as makes me need, not only candour, but succour; yet not against his subtleties, but calumnies; Neither this, to those that know me, but to strangers: for his personal criminations, are such gross mistakes, that they will render him ridiculous, to all that understand my judgement and carriage in these present distractions. But yet they may make me odious, where I am unknown; as I am to most of those of quality, whom this Reply should satisfy. Sir, If your name and testimony, free my person from prejudice with such, that they may ponder the Argument in an equal balance, I have enough; for I never desire more from any Reader, than what the weight of unprejudiced Reason inclines him to give. Controversies are of themselves troublesome; especially when they come to Replies, and Rejoinders. Therefore, that I may not add to your trouble, with a long Epistle, praying for an increase of your graces, and blessing on yourself, yours, and all your good endeavours, especially those, for an happy Peace; I take leave, and remain  
Sir, From my Study in Ivy-Lane, Sept. 18. 1648. Yours to serve you in the Lord Jesus, John Geree.   

The Preface to the Reader.  

PARAG. I. Detecting the false unjust, and uncharitable dealing of Doctor Boughen, in his Sifting my Case of Conscience Resolved. Whereby it may appear, whose Sieve he used 
a civiov Graecè cribrum est apud Hesychium & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cribrare apud eundem. Cam. Myroth. Evang. in luc. 22.31.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cribrari to Sift this Resolution.  
Christian Reader,  
I HERE Present unto thee a Reply to an Answer made to a Book of mine, by a man I know not; and it seems I am not known to him. For in it, he chargeth me not only with error in judgement, which is incident to man, Humanum est errare: But also imputes to me pravity of intention, both to King and Kingdom, which is Diabolicum, the Character of those, whom Satan possesses, filling their hearts with such corrupt affections. Now to manifest my innocency, and (at the best) the Doctor's great mistake in these accusations, I know no better way, then that which Paul took, in a case of malicious accusation before Festus, and King Agrippa, Acts 26. verse 4. To lay open what my manner of carriage hath been, in this present National difference; all the irregularities whereof, on one side my Opponent lays throughout his Book to my charge. Thou mayest therefore understand; That in these late unnatural distempers of our Church and Nation, I have been a zealous Studier of Peace, and an hearty mourner, not only for the sins, but the hard and irregular sufferings of either party. And have been conscientiously tender of that duty, wherein, either by the Word of God, or the legal oaths of this Nation, I stood engaged to my Sovereign. Hence have I, both suffered for him, and with him. And in my sympathy, I was pierced the deeper, because I could not but look upon his sufferings, as reflecting scandal on our Religion, and Nation. Neither knew I how to excuse those, whom I was bound in conscience, in so great a degree, to love, and honour in their places (as well as his Majesty;) that not to be able to clear them, was (I truly profess) as David's sword in my bones. 
Psalm. 42.10.  This made me restless in my spirit, while there was any thing (within my sphere) for me to do, whereby any, the least, probability appeared to further accommodation. For I stood in dread of a prolonged Civil War, not only because it would hazard the Honour, and Weal of King and Parliament, in whose Union and mutual safety, was involved the Glory, Strength, and Liberty of this Nation; But also, because I foresaw what sluices it would set wide open to all excess of riot. And the further the War proceeded, the more was I confirmed in my sad prognostics of it; For it seemed evident, that though the pretences for War were specious, viz. Truth, and Purity: Either of which, is more precious than Peace; yet unless, by some happy accommodation, War were shortened, we were in great danger to be no small losers, both in Truth and Holiness. Hereupon I drew up a Treatise of accommodation, pressing it with Arguments, by mutual condescension. Which so far had the approbation of some peaceable men of quality, that had not some cross accidents prevented, it may be, it might have seen the light.  
While my thoughts were still busied about peace, we had intelligence, where I lived, that the King, sending from Oxford to the Parliament, for a Treaty for Accommodation; had by the Earl of Essex, the Lord General, a short answer returned, with a Copy of the National Covenant enclosed in it. The English whereof was interpreted to be, that unless the Covenant were taken, no accommodation could be expected; thereupon I took a serious view of the Covenant, to see what was in it, that might cause unanswerable scruple. The result of my thoughts was, that except the second Article about Episcopacy, (mutatis mutandis, those things being altered, that upon Accommodation must have admitted alteration) there was nothing, that might greatly scruple, a mind moderate and peaceable. And for that second Article, considering the government of the Church by Bishops, was never determined by our Church to be Jure Divino; And that we acknowledge, as Sisters, those Churches that have admitted Presbytery; And sigh what is Humane, is, upon good and weighty motives, alterable; And what more weighty motive can be to induce a Prince, to consent to alter what is alterable, then to preserve three flourishing Churches and Kingdoms, from blood and ashes? The only difficulty, I apprehended, in reference to his Majesty, in that Article (supposing him to be of the same judgement, with this most learned Father, touching Episcopacy, in his Basilicon Doron) rested in his oath at Coronation; which I had read urged strongly, but modestly, in an Anonymus Book, written on the Royal side about this War; and afterward pressed with more violence, in a Treatise against the Covenant.  
On these Books, therefore I resolved to make an assay, whether what was objected in that particular, were solveable. And on this occasion was the Case Resolved first compiled. Which having finished, I communicated to one of the King's Chaplains (as learned, rational, and sincerely affected to his Majesty, as Doctor Boughen, though not so froward) who agreed with me in desiring, and endeavouring accommodation. He presented it to a Counsellor of State, (a lover of peace, and in good esteem with his Majesty;) What use he made of it, I know not. But mine own Copy lay dead in my hands, till the King went from Oxford into the Scots Army; By whom being brought to Newcastle, his Majesty had divers disputes with Master Hinderson about this very subject; which occasioned me to review my notes, and show them to a learned friend, who judging them not contemptible, told the Scots Ministers of the Assembly, of such a Tract that he had seen; whereupon they earnestly desired it, either in Print, or in Writing. On this occasion, after some months, if not years, it saw the light. And some Copies being given to the Scots Commissioners, they presented one to the King, who read it, and (if my Intelligencer fail me not) though he received not satisfaction by it, yet his censure of it, did neither discover passion, nor contempt, but the contrary.  
But Quorsum haec? That the Reader may know, with what an innocent, and upright heart, my Case of Conscience Resolved was composed. The main intention of it being nothing, but a good accommodation, for the honour and safety of Sovereign, and Country. That thereby, not only the uncharitableness, but the impertinency; falseness, and injustice, may appear, of those bitter calumnies, that are every where scattered in the Answerers' Treatise, like Ulcers in an unsound Body, of which his two Epistles are not free, which come first to receive Animadversions.   

PARAG. II. ANIMADVERSIONS on Doctor Boughen's two Epistles, clearing the Author of the Case Resolved, from imputations of slighting Authority, and retorting them on the Accuser.  
DOctor Boughen dedicates his Book to the King, and gives his reason, because, It is a Justification of his Coronation-oath, of his Crown and Dignity; And the fairest Flower of it, Spreamacy.  
Touching the Oath, we shall consider in the body of the Book itself. But what speaks he of defending the King's Crown and dignity? As though that were endangered, by the Case Resolved. Whereas the occasion and intention of that Treatise, was, (as the Introduction expresseth, and the matter evidenceth) to prevent that great hazard of both, which since they have undergone. And was written by one, as well affected to his Majesty's Crown and dignity, and, I doubt, more sincerely then D. B. is. Nor hath he more need to defend the King's Supreamacy, from any danger that it was in by my Book; For I doubt not, but (when I come to the last Chapter of his Book, wherein the point of Supreamacy is handled) to make it evident, that I have detracted nothing of that supremacy, which the King doth challenge; Nor, what I had not warrant for, from his Majesties own Pen; No, nor, but what this Answerer himself is forced to relinquish, while, and where he makes a Mimic show of opposition.  
There is one passage more in this Epistle, which I cannot pass by. Where he hath spoken of one, That during the Eclipse of Heaven, durst acknowledge our Saviour's Kingdom, etc. He interrogates (with reference to the King) and shall I be ashamed to do the like? Give me leave Sir, to answer your question. No wise men will think you need be ashamed of Dedicating a book to his Majesty, though under an Eclipse. But they may doubt, whether you may not be ashamed of making a question of it. 2. And more, whether you may not be ashamed of representing the Author, you answer, as an enemy to the King's Crown and Dignity; when the Treatise itself bespeaks him quite the contrary. 3. But most of all, whether you may not be ashamed of dedicating a Book, better stored with railing then reason, to so rational a Prince.  
In his Epistle to the Reader, he tells him, How being moved by a Friend, to consider of my Case of Conscience, etc. he was willing to undeceive his seduced Countrymen; and so yielded to his request, and found the Treatise small, but dangerous. It aims at the ruin, both of Church and Kingdom. It persuades the King, that his oath at Coronation, is a wicked oath, and that he ought to break it; yea, he affirms it to be vinculum iniquitatis, the bond of iniquity. No sooner read I this, (saith the Doctor) but my heart was hot within me; and while I was musing on this, 
Psalm. 39.4.  and the like Blasphemies, the fire kindled within me, and at the last, I spoke with my tongue; Why should this Shimei blaspheme my Lord the King? etc.  
Bloody words; but the Prudent Reader will remember, Si satis sit accusari, quis erit●innocens? If accusation be sufficient proof of a crime, who shall be innocent? And I doubt not, but, by a fair Apology, to stop the mouth of this Slanderer; 
2 Sam. 16.4.6, 7, 8.  and prove him to play Ziba's, while I clear myself from acting Shimei's part. For first, whereas he saith, that ‛ this Treatise aims at the ruin, both of the Church and Kingdom. This is most notoriously false; the scope of it being expressed in the very entrance of it, to be the preservation of both, by Union and Accommodation. For want of which, how both have been hazarded, is evident to every prudent observer of things. Again, for that he saith, That I tell the " King, that his Coronation-oath is a wicked oath, yea, affirm it to be, vinculum iniquitatis, the bond of iniquity: This is, in part, false, in part uncharitable, and crafty wresting words, to draw blood out of them; For there is no such expression in all my Book, as that the King's oath at Coronation, is a wicked oath. And though I use the term, vinculum iniquitatis, yet by the expressions annexed, if he had set them down, there would have appeared no such vileness in it, as he interprets it; the words are thus; [The bond of the King's oath, may be taken off two ways, either by clearing the unlawfulness of it, that it was vinculum iniquitatis, and so void the first day, etc.] Now here the Reader may observe, that vinculum iniquitatis, was used by me, only to note the unlawfulness of the oath in that particular; and it's an usual phrase, to note the unlawfulness of the matter in any oath; yet I did not English it, because it might seem harsher in our Language. Besides, I did not assert, that the King's oath was unlawful in that point, unless it did engage him to maintain Episcopacy, as than it stood, which the King hath declared it did not, in that he hath offered their regulation by Presbyters. How false then is the Doctor in this also, in positively affirming, that I make the king's oath, vinculum iniquitatis? When I do it, only upon a supposition, which the king denies; yea, and which I did imagine the king might deny; and so declined that way of invalidating the bond of the king's oath, as appears plainly in my Treatise. But whether that argument that I brought, did prove it unlawful, to swear to maintain the Bishops in the power they then executed, will appear, when I come to discover the sillyness of the Doctor's Answer. And if the oath be proved in that sense unlawful, than I hope tits no offence, but necessary in dispute, so to call it; unless we be to flatter Superiors in what ever they do; and so not honour, but Idolise them, and lay snares for their feet.  
But with musing on these, and other blasphemies, fire was kindled in the Doctor. What were these other blasphemies? Those he names not, nor are we ever like to know. But that the fire was kindled, is evident by the fruits of it; but such a fire, that I doubt not, but that the Reader will judge, that he might for it, more pertinently have cited James 3.6. then Psalm. 39.4.  
After, to present me more odious, he citys a place out of Doctor Burgess' fire of the Sanctuary, touching imprecations, and Seditious raylings against the Rulers of the people, and rude, bitter, unseemly speeches uttered against them. Also out of Master Wards Sermon before the Commons, about suffering vile men to blaspheme, and spit in the face of authority. And affirms, all this Master Geree hath done undeservedly. Hath he used imprecations, or bitter rail against the Prince? Hath he used rude, bitter, unseemly speeches against him? Hath he blasphemed, or spit in the face of Authority? Convince all these, or any of these; and you shall find him ready to repent, and ask God, and his Prince forgiveness. But if he hath not done all, no, nor any of these, then is Doctor Boughen a malicious Slanderer; and whose agent he is, in these accusations, he may easily see, if he be pleased to view, Joh. 8.44. and Revel. 12.10. But hath not Doctor Boughen in truth done that to the Parliament, which he falsely accuseth me to have done against the Prince? And is not the Parliament an Assembly of Gods, Psalm 82.1? And nearest in honour and Authority to the king? Nay, hath not he done worse to the king, than any thing that he lays to my charge? For is not perjury worse, then through incogitancy to swear to some thing that seems good, but is not lawful? (which is all that can be objected to me to have said in reference to the King.) And doth not Doctor Boughen (while he saith, to abolish Episcopacy is no more against the king's oath, then to take away their Votes in the House of Peers, pag. 87. and that he cannot consent to abolish Episcopacy without perjury, pag. 123. charge the king with perjury, in consenting to a Bill, for taking away the Bishop's privilege, of Sitting and Voting in the House of Peers? Then let him consider, who is nearer Simon Magus, and who hath more need to pray forgiveness in this particular. As touching Simon Magus; I am sure I never proffered money for any Ecclesiastical Gifts, nor Live, and so am free from Simony. And to clear me from being a Magician, I Printed a Book against judicial Astrology at the same time with the Treatise, which the Doctor would Answer; which hath nettled Lily, and Booker, (no great friends to the king) near as much, as my Case Resolved, did Doctor Boughen.  
He closeth with two things. First, He that answers a" Book, is bound to confute all, but what he approves. This I deny, unless he mean all that is pertinent and weighty: For impertinent triflings and rail (of which the Doctor's Book hath too much) deserve no answer, nor the waste of Paper. The other is, The guides he wisheth the Reader to" be led by in judging, viz. Reason, Scriptures and Authority. And therein, I fully close with him, so far as Authority, the third, is guided by the two former, Scriptures and Reason: And so far only it deserves respect. And thus far for his Epistles.   

Reader observe, that in this Treatise, D. B. stands for Doctor Boughen, And D. D. for Doctor in Divinity.    

The Contents of the several Chapters.  

CHAP. I. ANimadversions on Doctor Boughen's first chapter, wherein he plays with the Introduction to the dispute; and herein is discovered his subtlety in the whole, and ridiculous trifling in this part of his book. Page 1.  
Chap. 2. Wherein is cleared, that the National Covenant is not to abolish Episcopacy, root, and branch: Nor is Episcopucie of Christ's institution: in answer to Doctor Boughen's second chapter. pag. 6.  
Chap. 3. Wherein it is cleared, That Prelacy, as it stood in England, was an usurpation on the office of Presbyters: In answer to Doctor Boughen's third Chapter. p. 15.  
Chap. 4. Parag. 1. Wherein it is cleared, That Episcopacy is not to be upheld by our Protestation, and that there may be ordination without it, in answer to Doctor Boughen's fourth Chapter. p. 20.  
Chap. 4. Parag. 2. Wherein is showed, That the National Covenant doth not engage to uphold Episcopacy: In answer to Doctor Boughen's fifth Chapter. p. 31.  
Chap. 4. Par. 3. Wherein for a full answer, to what Doctor Boughen hath said to prove Episcopacy Christ's institution: This Question is resolved, Whether a Bishop (now usually so called) be by the Ordinance of Christ, a distinct officer from him that is usually called a Presbyter The one a successor of the Apostles, endued with power of Ordination, and other jurisdiction: The other, the successor of the Presbyters, ordained by Timothy, and Titus: Endued with power of administering Word and Sacraments. p. 36.  
Chap. 4. Parag. 4. Wherein is showed, the impertinency of Doctor Boughen's sixth Chapter against perjury. p. 50.  
CHAP. V PARAG. I. Showing, That the Clergies rights are as alterable by King and Parliament, as the Laities; In answer to Doctor Boughen 's tenth Chapter. p. 53.  
CHAP. V PARAG. II. Wherein is showed, That the distinction, that is between Clergy, and Laiety, and their privileges in this Kingdom, hinders not, but the privileges of the one are alterable by King and Parliament, as well as of the other, in answer to Doctor Boughen's eleventh Chapter. p. 57  
CHAP. VI Answering Doctor Boughen's Exclamation, for the removal of Bishops out of the House of Peers. p. 61.  
CHAP. VII. Showing, that the Monarchical jurisdiction, and great revenues of the Bishops may be divided to the advantage of the Church: in answer to Doctor Boughens thirteenth Chapter. p. 67.  
CHAP. VIII. Showing, that abuses are a forfeiture of some privileges: in answer to Doctor Boughens fourteenth Chapter. p. 73.  
CHAP. IX. Wherein is showed, that the converting of Bishop's Lands, to maintain preaching Ministers, would not be Sacrilege, but a good work: in answer to Doctor Boughens fifteenth Chapter. p. 82.  
CHAP. X. PARAG. I. Wherein is showed, what is the true intention of the King's oath, for the maintenance of Episcopacy: in answer to Doctor Boughens 7. Chapter. p. 24.  
CHAP. X. PARAAG. II. Showing, the right sense of the King's Coronation oath; that what he undertakes for the Bishops, must not be conceived, to cross what he hath promised to the people: in Answer to Dr. Boughens eighth Chapter. p. 98.  
CHAP. X. PARAG. III. Showing, that the Clergy are equally under the Parliament, as well as the Laity: in Answer to Dr Boughens ninth chapter. p. 103.  
CHAP. XI. Showing, that the King is not bound to protect the Bishop's Honours with the lives of his good subjects: in Answer to Doctor Boughens 16. chapter. p. 108.  
CHAP. XII. Wherein it is cleared, that though the King be the Supreme Magistrate, yet that supreamacy which is over all Laws, is in this Kingdom, not in the King alone, but in the King and Parliament: in answer to Doctor Boughens seventeenth Chapter. p. 118.   

Imprimatur,  
JA. CRANFORD. August. 21. 1648.    

CHAP. I. Containing ANIMADVERSIONS on Doctor BOUGHENS first Chapter, wherein he plays with the Introductions to the dispute; and herein is discovered his subtlety in the whole, and ridiculous trifling in this part of the Book.  
WE have heard your malicious charges against the Author of the little Treatise, which you undertake to answer. Now I must mind the Reader, of a Serpentine subtlety, 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 lies, lest the view of it, if it had been entirely set down, should clearly have cried false on your slanders; but here and there pack some of it in your margin, 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 judge, whether is true, my Apology, or your Calumny; and when I have set down any entire part of the case resolved, I shall endeavour to clear 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.  

Case Resolved.  
Whether the King, (considering his oath at Coronation to protect the clergy, and their privileges) can saluâ conscientiâ consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy? Aff.  
When I consider, first, that there is no hope of the Kings or kingdom's safety, without an union between our King and Parliament. Secondly, that such an union is tantùm non impossibile, unless the King condescend in point of episcopacy: Thirdly; for the King to condescend renitente conscientiâ, though it might gratify us, it would be sinful in him; and so he should forfeit inward, to procure outward peace; and be represented to himself, in the glass of conscience: to adventure the heavenly, to retain an earthly crown. Fourthly, the oath taken at the King's Coronation hath been pressed by some learned pens, with that probability, that may stumble a right intelligent Reader; neither have they, that I know, received any satisfactory answer in print. Now I conceive, it may be a work worth some pains, to resolve this case, and clear those objections, that, while they stand unanswered, cast an ill reflection, both upon the King, in condescending to abrogate Episcopacy, and the Parliament, in pressing him to it.  
This is the introduction; wherein the Reader may see the scope of the Book, to be safety, and union of the King and Parliament; and not the ruin of the King, and Kingdom, as Dr. Boughen unjustly suggested in his Epistle to the Reader. Again, the grounds of undertaking the resolution, are so weighty, and the candour towards Antagonists, in giving them due testimony, so clear, that one would think it a fit object for envy, than carping; but Dr. Boughen can find a knot in a bulrush; and therefore, because in the title it is said, that in the Book it is cleared, that the King may without impeachment; to his Coronation oath abrogate Episcopacy, the Dr. saith, 
Doctor Boughen pag. 1. chap. 1. par. 1.  I full magisterially determine before the case be so much as proposed. Is this the fashion, first to resolve, and then to propose the case? This may be the course of Heretics, not of Catholics. But you are resolved to maintain, that a Christian may swear, and forswear, without the least prejudice to his soul. Thus the Dr. wherein he hath given a specimen in the porch, what stuff we are like to meet with in the building; and gives me just cause to bewail my unhappiness, that having at first to deal with learned, and rational men, am now fallen into the hands of a passionate trifler: for doth not every intelligent man know, that though titles of Books be first set, yet they are last made, and usually last printed, and contain in them the Sum of the Book? wherein, I doubt not, he will find, not a magisterial, but so rational a decision, that he will, in answering it, haerere in luto, before I have done with him: For the accusation wherewith he closeth his paragraph, being groundless railing, I know where it will reflect shame, with the impartial Reader, and therefore it needs no other answer, but a peremptory denial; nothing being more abhorrent from my soul, or the scope of this Treatise, then either to maintain swearing, or forswearing." But parag. 2. He affirms my practice is accordingly, because those of my persuasion have taken up arms against their Sovereign, and hold the Parliament subordinate to no power under heaven. But here, his assertions are not only impertinent to the case, but known to be false, by those that know me; but then he comes in with a second scornful expression, that I have taken the oath of a canonical obedience; and yet endeavour the abrogation of Episcopacy. But how knows he, that I have taken the oath of canonical obedience? sure I am, having never had institution, nor induction, it was never proffered me: but because he (it seems) hath been so ready to swear, all must be in that bond: but what if I had taken the oath? I know no engagement to inhibit me to seek the abrogation of Episcopacy, from the oath, sigh I was never forbidden by the Diocesan, to seek it; nay I can assure him, that Dr. 
Bishop of Gloucester.  Smith, who imposed hands on me, and in whose diocese, while he lived, I exercised my Ministry, was of Ieromes mind, that a Bishop was an humane creature, as he expressed himself in conference to a friend of mine, and so not unalterable. For his 3 Parag. Touching Smectimnuus making a Bishop and an Elder all one, a and thence his wonder, how they endure my proposition, being he knows that Author speaks of Bishop and Presbyter in a Scripture-sense (which anon will cut his comb;) and I speak of a Diocesan Bishop, as now he stands; as he confesseth Parag. 4. That his quirk about Smectimnuus, and the Masters of the Assembly, is ridiculous trifling, fit for a boy disputing in Parvis, to lengthen out an argument, then for a D.D. writing a book, in a case of moment.  
But now to the motives, which he saith I produce for the abrogation of Episcopacy, he should have said for writing this case about it. For the first, no hope of the Kings and kingdoms safety, without union between the King and our Parliament, he doth not deny it, but yet he divides them seditiously: Our King, and your Parliament. I acknowledge him as my King, pray and act for him in my sphere, as my Sovereign: the King hath written to them as his Parliament, yet the Dr. divides them, though he cannot deny, no safety without union: For his petitions made in Scriptures phrase, they are from him, as his heart is which I leave to God; and in a good sense say, Amen. For the Second ground, there is no probable means of union, without the King's condescension in point of Episcopacy. This, parag. 6. and 7. he denies not, but adds some things out of his own distempered mind, viz. unless he lay down his lands etc. Which he cannot prove, though I am truly sorry, that he hath any colour to set them off as credible to any. For the third, If the King should do it renitente conscientia, it would be sinful, etc. To this Parag. 8. he saith, that I perceive, and in a manner confess, that this he must do; for you say, it would be sinful to himself. Thus you persuade our Sovereign into sin, etc. Was there ever a more false, or irrational passage dropped from a D.D. pen? do I say it absolutely, when I only say, if he should condescend, renitente conscientia? or do I persuade to sin, when I show such inconveniences of sin, as cannot be balanced? But by way of amplification, we have another piece of Divinity, worthy such a D. D. Every reluctance of conscience makes not a grant sinful, but when my conscience checks me on just grounds. Is this catholic doctrine? I am sure, it is not orthodox; for it is point-blank to Saint Paul, speaking of those that act against conscience, for want of light in indifferent things; and so not on just grounds. Rom. 14.17. compared with verse. 25. The kingdom of God is not in meat, and drink; But he that doubteth, is damned if he eateth, because he eateth it not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. For the last, that the Coronation oath is pressed by learned pens, etc. " he first takes notice of my confession, Parag. 9 Wherein he might observe my candour to my Antagonists, and therein read my intentions, that, not out of distaste to persons, but out of love to peace, and with a quiet and well affected heart, to those I oppose, I wrote the resolution of this case; but the Doctor's bloodshot eye, can see none of this. He hath not so much ingenuity as the Heathen, virtus in host. No, he was resolved to carry on his Book with rail and scoffs; and I am resolved, neither to envy, nor to imitate him; being well assured that such dealing will prejudice both the work and Author, with any pious and prudent Reader. Next he trifles about an expression touching the King's condescension, (I beseech you, do you dream? who told you, that his Majesty had condescended to this impious and anti-christian demand? saith he.) Whereas he knows, the context of my words evidence them to be spoken hypothetically, not catogorically. But we must give him leave to catch at shows, that wants real exceptions. For his other expressions, " That desire of abrogation of Episcopacy, is impious and anti-christian; This will appear but froth, unless he can make his Diocesan Lord Bishop an Ordinance of God, which will now come to trial.    

CHAP. II. Wherein it is cleared, that the Covenant is not to abolish Episcopacy, root and branch, nor is Episcopacy of Christ's institution, in answer to Dr. B. Second Chapter.  
Case of Conscience Resolved  
NOw the bond of the King's oath, may be taken off two ways; 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 Christ's institution, then, to maintain it, is sin; and all bonds to sin, are frustrate. And truly, as Prelacy stood with us in England, engrossing 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 Christ's Officers of any privilege or duty indulged or enjoined 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 clear of itself. The Minor is thus proved: Presbyters are by Christ's warrant, in Scripture, endued 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 only excluded from all society of rule; but, which was more prejudicial to the dignity and liberty of the ministry, were subjected to a lay-Chancellor; and was not here usurpation against God's direction?  
Now what saith Dr. Boughen? you say true (saith he) that the oath which is Vinculum iniquitatis is void the first day, etc. And hitherto your argument is good; and in it, he will joynissue, etc. Cap. 2. Parag. 1. See what a work this passage hath on the Doctor, taken together, and considered when the blood was down; now all goes current; yet this is the place, for which he spit so much poison of asps 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 join issue, and will readily acknowledge, that if Prelacy in the Church be an usurpation against Christ's 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 Christ's institution, then to maintain it, is to sin; But supremacy, etc. ergo it is sin.  
The major you prove, by 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, whether it be unto the King as supreme, or unto governor's, as those that are sent by him. I answer, the Apostle gives no other supremacy to the King here, than I give him Pag. 9 of my case; that is, to be the Supreme Magistrate, from whom all power of execution is legally derived; and this is compatible 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 Kingdom. 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 kingdom absolutely; and this I shall make you confess to be my meaning, in asserting more than one supremacy in a kingdom, and to be a truth, or I shall make you deny, not Reason only, 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 Christ's institution) to another place, where we shall meet with it.  
Thirdly, He argues, If Episcopacy in the Church be no usurpation, but Christ's institution; then to endeavour the extirpation of it, is sin. But Episcopacy is Christ's 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 denied.  
Sir, your are the confidentest man, not only 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 only, (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 only (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 King's oath from unlawfulness in that clause, if it bind to maintain Episcopacy as it then stood.  
But say you, The Order of Bishops is Christ's institution. And yet ye have sworn to up with it, root and branch.  
The former you endeavour to prove; and the latter you take for granted, which is very false, for there is no such expression, nor hint, in the Covenant, as root and branch.  
But Christ you say, was the root of Episcopacy, who is called the Bishop of our souls, from him it takes its rise. You are good at affirming, but where's your proof? Why, its evident in the Apostles, strictly so called, who had their orders immediately from Christ, parag. 4.  
A goodly argument, as though an Apostle, and one of your Lord Bishops were birds of a feather: Whereas toto caelo differunt; An Apostle was an Officer extraordinary, immediately called and inspired of God, and his office to endure 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 knowledge by inspiration from God; this is confessed 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 merchandise 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 only of their dispensing their gift gratis. And so the Authors in your margin, 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 admonished, that nothing in our ministry be set to sale. Ego minister & Dominus absque pretio hoc vobis tribui, & vos sine pretio date, ne Evangelij gratia corrumpatur, Hieron. in Mat. 10.8.  
Now what are these to your purpose? Only Gennadius from this proves ordination should be without price; but this must be but by way of allusion. For do you, Mr Doctor, think that the Apostles had power to create Apostles, given them here, whilst Christ was alive? I hope your second thoughts will be wiser. That Christ renewed the Commission of the Apostles, Joh. 20.21. As my father sent me, so send I you, is granted: but that they (as you affirm) upon the strength of this commission ordained some other to be Apostles, conferring on them the same honour 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 immediately 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 bilson's perp. Govern. chap. 9 pag. 106.  
But you say, this is evident in S. James Bishop of Jerusalem, Epaphroditus Bishop of Philippi, and in Apollo's 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 preached 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. Paul's 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 james 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 jerusalem, sometimes by the ancients; that is to be taken but in an allusive, not a proper sense, because he exercised his Apostolical function there, while others exercised theirs else where; and some of the Apostolical power was emulated in the Father's 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 than the ordinary office of Bishop. And such degradation is not only 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 sacrilege; Then certain, to bring down an Apostle to the degree of any ordinary Officer (as a Bishop is) cannot want guilt. " And for Apollo's, 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 enjoin 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 Apollo's 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 modern Interpreters; to hint, not the name of a Church-officer, but a messenger from the Church to Saint Paul, as our last translation takes it; and the words following, imply part of his message; he that ministered 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, shows, 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 settled on them. For this you cite Theodoret. The same persons were sometimes called, both Presbyters and Bishops; but those who are now named Bishops, were then called Apostles; but in process of time, the title of an Apostle was reserved to those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostles properly and truly so called. And the name of Bishop came appropriated to those who were lately called Apostles.  
For answer to this, First, I observe you have given us a clear confession out of Theodoret, that Bishops and Presbyters were all one, divers names of the same office.  
Secondly, those that Theodoret affirms, that being in his time called Bishops, were formerly called Apostles, were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostles truly, but only called so, because they had pre-eminence 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 james, 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 shown, 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 styled an Apostle; which if he cannot do, Theodoret's 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 Doctor's inference is observable, Hence is it, saith he, that Timothy and Titus, are called Bishops and Apostles. Bishops in the postscripts 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 Paul's, but some other, later than Ignatius and Theodoret: And so have no force to prove Timothy and Titus Bishops.  
Parag. 6. You add, Bishops than they were called, etc. That is, They were so called by men, that spoke 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 sense 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 Theodoret's 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 sense, Timothy and Titus were not called Apostles, but by way of allusion: and to have the same name, and not in the same sense, argues nothing. For your proof from Salmatius, for Epaphroditus being called Apostle, (besides, that in giving such a sense of Phil. 2.25. he differs from many others, whose opinion is more probable) he only 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, only 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, makes Apostles and Evangelists distinct offices, Ephes. 4.11. and bids Timothy do the work of an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. The Apostle shows 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 inferior order of Evangelists. So your argument falls to the ground.  
For your close," that Bishops, and only 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 than 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, shown already, (and shall more fully hereafter) that Apostleship and Episcopacy are divers offices. Episcopacy, if it hath any place in Saint Paul's 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 than 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 metaphorical root, a root by Institution, whose eradication cannot be inferred, if Bishops, root and branch, be plucked 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 Vicars, sequestered 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 King's oath of sin, or to prove the Covenant a bond of iniquity.  
But Parag. 9 You think you put a shrewd query, if root and branch must up, how comes it, that some branches may be preserved, as Presbyters ordained by Bishops, etc.  
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 Ministry of the Church of England, and your Prelacy, which is but a high-swollen 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.   

CHAP. III. Wherein it is cleared, that Prelacy, as it stood in England, was an usurpation on the office of Presbyters, in answer to Doctor Boughens third Chapter.  
IN your third Chapter, parag. 1. You represent me saying that the King's oath to maintain Episcopacy, is sin.  
Where do I say so? I say, if the King's oath be to maintain Episcopacy, as it stood in England, than 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 mind 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 endeavours, 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 sense, to maintain Episcopacy, as it then stood: which sure our present Sovereign, hath declared he did not, (and so we may judge of the rest;) for he hath offered, to reduce Episcopacy to that power which it had in ancient times, 
In his message from the I'll of Wight, Nou. 17. 1647.  to exercise no jurisdiction without its Presbytery. Whereby the King doth manifest, either he is not by his oath, bound to maintain Episcopacy, 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 comb, especially the latter.  
Secondly, you say, I condemn all those Fathers and Counsels, that justify 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 Episcopacy without, but with the joint help of Presbyters.  
Hear what Bilson saith, in his Epistle to the Reader, before his perp. Govern. God forbidden, I should urge any other, but such as were Pastors over their Churches, and governor's 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, etc. that those Elders were Laymen, pag. 158, 159. But had our Bishops, as they then stood, any Presbyteries joined 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, etc. are but the mere 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 itself, as it then stood, excluding Presbyters from part in government, which was not the act of any extravagant Bishop, but the ordinary custom of them all: so, not the men, but the office itself, was in an abusive posture, in excluding Presbytery 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 Christ's officers, of any privilege or duty indulged, or enjoined 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 sequestered and despoiled 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 Episcopacy was guilty, excluding all Presbyters from partnership in government. And had you had your wits about you, that can put the [dull 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 Christ's officers, and then you tell me, I have not learned, it seems, to distinguish, between justly and unjustly.  
But it seems, you, though a D. D. have not learned to understand plain sense: For in that sense that my words should be taken; can, I pray you, any kind of officers be wholly despoiled of a privileledg, or abridged in a duty lest on record by Christ, justly? Sure then there must be some power, that can control Christ's institution, without injustice or usurpation.  
You add as wise an amplification, that God's word and mine, are two; God's word saith, Non est potestas, nisi a Deo, there is no power, but of God, Rom. 13.1. But you say, (say you of me) that there is a power which is an usurpation against the word of God.  
It seems then, you think, that there is no usurped power in the world, or Church, no not the Pope's claim to both the swords. Sure, you are a learned interpreter of Scriptures, whereas its plain, the Apostle speaks only of all kinds of lawful civil powers, not denying, but some may usurp a power that belongs not to them, as the Pope doth; and it's in question, between you and me, whether Prelacy did, or no.  
You add," I cannot distinguish between the office and the abuse. Will you then acknowledge, it was an abuse in Episcopacy, to engross 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 usurped power, and an usurpation in power. If Episcopacy have no inflitution from Christ, it's an usurped power: an office without institution, that question I wave. If there be institution for Episcopacy, yet if Presbytery should govern with it, and be excluded, this is not an abuse of persons, but an encroachment of one office upon another. This I accuse prelacy of, as it stood; one would think, this were plain enough to a vulgar capacity; 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 mere 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 Heresy: 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 Presbytery, wherein, I shall hereafter, clear to you, they usurp more, than the practice, and counsels, of former Bishops allowed them. This is the plain state of the business: and its ridiculous, to undertake the answer of a Treatise, and mistake the plain state of the question.  
But Parag. 7. You come to the Minor, and that's trifling still, on the same mistake; but to seem to say something, at last you say; It is as false aspeech, to say, Prelacy dispoiles any, as to say, Judicatory wrongs any; Where still you bewray your ignorance, in comparing an act to an office; but may not one Court dispoil another? Did not you, or some Prelates think, these Courts did despoil them of their rights heretofore, that granted Prohibitions in point of tithes, etc. and so the Civil power encroach on the Ecclesiastic? Why else, were some Judges so frowned on by some Prelates, for such prohibitions?  
Parag. 8. You come to my proof, which I set down. Presbyters are, by Christ's warrant in Scripture, endued with power to rule in their Congregations, as well as preach; you add in your own character, to as well, as much: why, you know best, others may guests. 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 expressed? Is there not rule in the Church employed? Hear Theophilact, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Theoph. in 1 Tim. 3.4. Again in ver. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for the house is but as a little Church. If therefore he know not how to rule a little and easily circumscribed and known Church, how shall he govern so many souls, whose minds he cannot know?  
To the same purpose, chrysostom, 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  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 easy to govern an house, than the Church; therefore he that cannot govern an house, etc. So you see, that place gives, by implication, government to a Presbyter: If you object what chrysostom after hinteth, as though the things here spoken, were meant of one of your Bishops; first, you yourself judge the contrary: next, it will do you no good; for he saith, the Apostle passeth from Bishops to Deacons, not mentioning the order of Presbyters, because between a Bishop and a Presbyter, there's almost no difference; for the care of the Church is committed to them, to wit, Presbyters; and what he said of Bishops, belongs also to Presbyters, Bishops being only in ordination above them: Thus chrysostom, Presbyters than were not excluded from governing. So Theophylact gives the same reason, why Presbyters are not mentioned: Quia quae de, etc. Because what he spoke 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 sphere, that is, in disposing the treasury, though not persons of the Church, they being not over persons, (which the Presbyter is) but the Treasury.  
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 loath to meddle with it: yet if he mean to reply, I must now mind 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 mar the market; and see, here is ruling distinct from teaching, ascribed to Presbytery.  
Parag. 10. You come to the third Scripture, Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, etc. Here rule is given to Presbyters: Now here the Doctor is pitifully puzzled, 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 only, 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 Lieutenants be not sole rulers, they are co-rulers in an Army, (you know) both over their Companies, and other Officers in a Counsel of war; So if there be Bishops in the Church, which you here beg, yet they are not to be sole Governors, 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, sigh 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 custom 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 kind 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 parallel 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 only take the latter; That these Presbyters are worthy of double honour, who labour in the word and doctrine. Whence you gather, ruling is nothing, but labouring in the word and doctrine. A collection, just like that, Matt. 4.6: of Christ casting himself off the pinnacle, from Psalm. 91.11. lamely quoted. You add, Theodoret Those that are over you in the Lord, that is, they that offer up prayers and supplications for you. These words of Theodoret, you bring cunningly, as though they only 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 show. Falluntur si putant, etc. 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 arbitrament. Praefuerunt enim tantùm, ut bonis & salutaribus consilijs populo praeirent, non ut soli exclusis alijs omnibus agerent quod placeret. They were over others, only that they might go before others, with good and wholesome 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 find belonging to Presbyters. All that you will find, you should have said; for you might have found it in the name, Bishop, which is a name of authority, 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 engrossed 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, Overseers. 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 bilson's perp. government of the Church of Christ? Can you find no rule belonging there to Presbyters? It's then, because you cannot see wood for trees. pag. 140. He notes, government, to be comprehended under the titles of Shepherd, watchmans, Overseers, 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 denied 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? Bishop's must know, that they are greater than Presbyters, rather by custom, than truth of the Lords disposition, and aught to govern the Church in common, pag. 150.  
And all this, he citys out of Jerome, for his own defence: That what Jerome spoke, he spoke of teaching, not ruling Presbyters. But what need I add particulars? the sum of his 11 Chapter, is, not to deny, but taking it for granted, that in Primitive times there was a Presbytery that was joined in government with the Bishops, without which, he neither could, nor aught to do any thing, in point of censure; taking, I say, this for granted, he endeavours to prove, those Presbyters, consisted only of teaching, not lay-Elders. Chapter 14. Setting out the use of Presbyters, in the fourth use, he hath these words, The government of the Church, was as first so constituted, that neither the Presbyteries should do any thing without the Bishop, nor the Bishop without a Presbytery, pag. 307. Thus far Bilson.  
How clear is that of Tertullian, for the rule of Presbyters? Name & judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu, summumque futuri judicij praejudicium est, siquis ita deliquerit ●ut a commucicatione orationis & conventus, & omnis Sancti commercij relegetur, President probati quique seniores, honorem istum non praetio, sed testimonio adepti. Thus it is as clear as the Sun, that ruling is enjoined as a duty, and given as a privilege to the Presbyter; of which it was despoiled in England by Episcopacy; and therefore, to maintain Episcopacy in that posture, was to maintain it in usurpation, against Christ's 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-governors, they are enabled in a regular way to pass all Church-censures; and of those places I have produced and asserted many; as also where the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given to the Ministry in general, in the Apostles: and the place above cited in Tertullian, doth it not extend to excommunication, and that censure to be passed by Elders? But do you show me, on the contrary, in Scripture a Bishop, that is, an ordinary Pastor, distinct from a Presbyter, endued 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 than once, the Scripture never calls them Bishops; They are called so by the ancients, because they did those acts, that by humane custom were afterwards appropriated to Bishops, in regard of presidency; 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 men's silencing, it's impertiment; and for the cause, it's delivered in your railing Dialect, which I pass by, and of the same railing strain is all your 15. Parag. only you tell us " by Scriptures we are made subject to Bishops; and I have told you, and you confess, in Scripture Bishops and Presbyters are all one, only you have a vain conceit of an Apostle-Bishop; of which more anon.  
Parag. 16.17. You endeavour an answer to that, that the Presbyters were subjected to lay-Chancellors, but it is only by way of retorsion; direct answers you are not furnished with, but refer us to the Doctor's Commons; and yet I doubt not, but you have taken the oath with an etc. that swears to perpetuity, more than 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 returned upon you, that the lay-Chancellor is but the Bishop's Officer in such cases of Judicature, etc. But I will say, that they have preaching Presbyters amongst them, and more than 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 Bishop's Officer; Yet it is apparent in the woeful experience of many Ministers, that he is such an Officer, that without, and against the Bishop's mind, hath convented and suspended Ministers, which is more power than the Bishop ought to have; Episcopus sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest, auferre non potest; confessed 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 God's direction, to receive institution from a lay-Chancellor, as our land makes a rectory an inheritance, wherein the Civil Magistrate doth protect us.  
You conclude, Parag. 18. That my first argument, you hope, is sufficiently confuted; You have done your best, it's like, yet it stands in full force and virtue; That if the King's oath binds him to maintain Episcopacy, as it stood in practice, and as it is in your famous etc. oath; It is an engagement in that point to what is against Scriptures rail, 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 duty 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 authority; and so I close this second chapter.   


CHAP. IU. PARAG. I. Wherein it is cleared, that Episcopacy is not to be upheld by our Protestation, and that there may be ordination without it, in answer to Doctor Boughen 's fourth chapter.  
Case of Conscience Resolved  
BUt though this way of invalidating the King's oath be most satisfactory to some; yet to those that are not convinced of the unlawfulness of Episcopacy, it will not hold; and so it would cast the resolution of this doubt, about the oath, upon another question, touching the unlawfulness of Episcopacy, which is a larger field. I shall therefore endeavour to show, that though for argument sake, it be granted that Episcopacy be lawful, yet notwithstanding that his oath, the King without impeachment may, in this circumstance, consent to abrogate Episcopacy.  
To answer this passage, you descend cap. 4. but there begin with such notorious trifling, as I never saw in a man pretending to learning.  
For Parag. 1. You infer, if Episcopacy be lawful, than the King's oath is not vinculum iniquitatis; egregiam laudem, etc. who knows not, that on that supposition the oath is lawful? You add, but mine own conscience began to check me for this, because I say it is only satisfactory to some. You are mistaken sir; The reason why I disputed the oath on a second bottom, was, because though I thought you, and men of your affection, might interpret the King's oath to maintain Episcopacy, in that usurping height wherein it stood, that by his oath you might keep up your own absurd etc. oath; yet I perceived that his Majesty, and other impartial Judges, might interpret Episcopacy in a more moderate way, as it is now come to pass (his Majesty, offering to bring Episcopacy to that tenor, that they shall do nothing without their Presbyters;) and with such moderation many count it lawful, nay few count it unlawful; therefore I disputed the case under the second notion; though Episcopacy were lawful (understanding, as you may perceive by the scope, lawful only, not necessary) yet the King might consent by Bill to abrogate it.  
After having spent parag. 2. in impertinent slander, according to your custom, parag. 3. You ridiculously descant upon two phrases satisfactory, and not hold; though being applied to divers persons, your own conscience tells you, there's no incongruity in them. And then you tell what pity it is that I have to deal with learned, and rational men, and not with Ignoramus, and his Dulman: Sir, to ease your passion, I have to deal with both. In my first attempt with the first, which I ingeniously acknowledge; in this second with the latter, which I have in part, and shall more clearly evince, and that in the next Paragraph; For I having said, that the King, without impeachment of his oath, might in this circumstance consent to abrogation of Episcopacy: You ask, what I mean by circumstance, whether the King's oath, or Episcopacy; and run on in a childish descant, unworthy of paper; when any but a Dulman may see plainly enough, what I mean by (in this circumstance) that is, according to the grounds of the question in the former page. In this state of the nation, that no hope of safety without union between King and Parliament; no hope of union without abrogation of Episcopacy; for the Houses had abrogated it, and the sword was in their hands.  
Next, Parag. 5. You confess! the King may abrogate what is lawful. I thank you Doctor; you have given me the question; for if the King may abrogate what is lawful, than the reason why the King cannot consent to abrogate Episcopacy, is not his oath (in your judgement,) but because it is an ordinance of God, and more than lawful. Well; now let us try it there; prove Episcopacy to be the ordinance of Christ, I will yield you the cause.  
This you say, Parag. 6. " You have proved already, cap. 2.6.7.8. And I there have showed the weakness and sophistry of your proofs, and shall do it more hereafter.  
But you proceed, Parag. 7. That Episcopacy is the only order to which Christ hath given power to ordain Presbyters, and Deacons, etc. What you deliver here, is apparently false; for first, Christ gave power immediately to Apostles to do it, and the Apostles to the Evangelists; this power they exercised in Ecclesiis constituendis, in constituting Churches. And these extraordinary officers dying, and their extraordinary offices ceasing, as almost all confess, what parts of their office were of perpetual use; as praying, preaching, administering Sacraments, and the use of the keys, were left to those ordinary Officers, Pastors and Teachers, Eph. 4.11. And under them are comprised all ordinary teaching Ministers, without any distinction from God: the distinction that followed after, was but humane for order, and to avoid accidental inconveniences; as Ambrose and Jerome witness most plainly, and unanswerably, unless men set themselves nodum in foirpo quaerere; let the reader view the places in Bilson, where he brings them (to prove the Presbyteries were of preaching, not of lay-Elders) against lay-elders, and let his view be impartial, and I doubt not, but he will approve what I assert.  
You proceed, no Bishop, no Priest; no Priest, no Lords Supper. Now indeed, you reason like a Catholic, but a Roman Catholic; for just so, Bellarmine, and others of that leaven, argue against Protestant Churches, to un-Church them; with whom, though you may join; yet all those, that according to their profession, are true Protestants, and embrace other reformed Churches as dear sisters, will not thank you, but disdain you, and your assertions, that do obliquely un-Church the most of them. And that which our Divines answer to them, shall stand good, maugre your teen, and skill. For they holding and proving, that a Bishop and Presbyter, differ not by God's law, but humane; And knowing, that Presbyters are the Pastors meant, Ephes. 4.11. And that those Pastors are the successors of the Apostles, to exercise all perpetual acts of ministry, whereof ordination being one, they must needs, by divine law, be invested with it. The Bishop, you plead for, was but primus Presbyter, a chief Presbyter, elected to guide and govern the Presbytery, in acts of government. For all antiquity acknowledgeth the Presbytery did govern with him, and ordain with him.  
Now if the Presbyters elect one to be Precedent, though not for life; why shall not their act be as valid, as if the presidency were for longer continuance? Sure, while learned Bilson gathers from the Presbyterians grant, of a Precedent in the Prebyterie, by Divine law, or light of nature, though not the same man perpetually, that their Presidens differ not materially from those Bishops that the Fathers speak of, to make good his cause against them: We may also infer, if the difference be so little, as he acknowledgeth, (as indeed it is not much) then may we sure infer, that if the Ordination of the one be complete, the Ordination of the other, cannot be effentially defective.  
Augustine is impertinently cited by you, Sine nostro officio est plebi certa pernities. Without our, (without the Episcopal office) there is certain ruin to the people.  
For though Augustine were a Bishop, and wrote to a Bishop, (as you say) yet by that, without our office, he plainly means the office of the Ministry in general, not of Episcopacy: For he makes it lawful to flee, in that Epistle, as Paul did, when there be others to look to the Church; Fugiant (saith he) ubi ab alijs, (qui non ita requiruntur,) non deseratur Ecclesia, sed praebeant cibaria consenvis suis, qui aliter vivere non possunt. Let them flee, where the Church is not forsaken of others, that have not such an eye upon them, but they will minister spiripual food to their fellow servants, which otherwise cannot live. Now what were those others? not Bishops, for there were not many of them in one City, or Country; but Presbyters.  
But now you will prove it, by the Protestation and Covenant. First, by the Protestation, You have vowed in the presence of Almighty God, to maintain the true reformed Protestant Religion, expressed in Doctrine of the Church of England.  
Add, I pray you, against all Popery, and Popish innovations. And you must remember again presently, upon the framing of the protestation, there was an Explanation put forth, before it was taken, in the Country, or City; that under the Doctrine of the Church of England, the Discipline then in the Church of Egland, was not included. So, your Argument from the Protestation, is of no value.  
But yet let us see what you can say for this, out of the Doctrine of the Church of England. First, the ordinary way to heaven, is by the Word and Sacraments▪ No man may preach and administer the Sacrament, but he that is lawfully called and sent; none are lawfully called and sent, but they only, who are called and sent by those who have authority. Bishops, and only Bishops, have authority to send in this kind, Article 39  
Here you play leger-demain, for the Article holds forth the way of ordination, by the Book of Consecration, to be a lawful way, but not the only lawful way. For the Composers of those Articles knew very well, that there was another way of ordination in other Churches, whom they always held as sisters; which they did not, with the Papists, condemn, though the Article approve the English; way and that being held forth as a lawful, not the only lawful way; it hinders not, but others may be authorized to ordain, as in other Reformed Churches; and therefore, if the Protestation for the maintenance of the Doctrine of the Church of England, were without exception against the Discipline, it will not prove your no Bishop, no Priest. The Book, you say, was composed in the days of King Edward the sixth, by those holy men, who after were blessed Martyrs. But these men, I must tell you, were not of your mind, that the distinction of Bishops, from Presbyters, was any other, than what Jerome had taught them by humane custom, 
* Dr Downam in answer to his reply is driven to this. If the Bishops better informed, concernning their functions, had now reform their judgements, that is, to hold their offices not by humane, but Divine disposition; In his answer to the Replyers Preface, who had pressed him with the judgement of Whitguift and Jewel.  nor held, the power of the keys belonged only to them; for in this Book of ordination, they charge the Presbyter, not only with care in Word and Sacraments, but the Discipline of Christ too.  
And whereas, you add, That the Articles were confirmed, 13. Elizabeth, and subscription enjoined; You should remember, it was with limitation, so far as they contained the Doctrine of the Church, not the discipline. You conclude, " thus far with the Protestation. But yet a little further, I pray you; For the Protestation adds, that the Doctrine of the Church of England is to be maintained against all Popery: Now you may find in Beauties lib. de Clericis, your argument of no Bishop, no Priest, so no Sacrament, so no Church; wherein all Protestant-writers oppose him, English and others: and therefore, surely, the Doctrine of the Church of England, rightly understood, condemns your position, which is a position in Popery, to overthrow Protestant Churches.   

CHAP. IU. PARAG. 2. Where in is showed, that the National Covenant, doth not engage to uphold Episcopacy: In Answer to Doctor Boughens fift Chapter.  
IN your fift Chapter, you attempt to prove, that the solemn league & covenant engageth to maintain Episcopacy. I might tell you, this is nothing to me, nor to the matter; for whatever you fancy of the Covenant, they that framed it, will follow it in their own sense; and if any Covenanters be of that mind, as you are, that not your, but moderated Episcopacy, that is, a Super-intendencie over a Presbytery, be nearest the word of God, yet they were not so considerable, as to be able to make peace, without abrogation of Episcopacy; nor without peace, to preserve King and Kingdom. If they could, than my Treatise were answered, by change of circumstances; that argues the lawfulness of the King's condescension, chief in that circumstance. But to the matter itself, you have not, nor do you here bring any thing to satisfy.  
First, Parag. 1, 2, 3. You come with your Crambe his coctâ, That no salvation, but by hearing and Sacraments, nor these without mission. The Apostles were sent of Christ, and they sent others, Titus and Timothy, to ordain Ministers.  
To all which I have answered before, and in part cleared it, That the Apostles, and Timothy and Titus their assistansts, as Evangelists, were extraordinary officers, and ceased; and that, the only ordinary officers now are Pastors, and Teachers, Ephes. 4.11.  
Touching whom, the Apostle gives direction, 1 Tim. 5. Titus 1. under the name of Bishops and Elders;) and these are Successors of the Apostles,) to all that power that is ordinary and neceslarie in the Church; and among these, there's by God's law, no priority, but of gifts, and order delegated by election. But for any Bishops, that are of the same order with the Apostles, it's a strange and groundless notion. Almost all Divines tell you, that Apostleship was an extraordinary office, that ceased; and though an Apostle may be said, allusively, to be a Bishop, yet a Bishop may not be said to be an Apostle; yet these things you over with again in this Chapter, and tell us of two sorts of Apostles, the Apostles of Christ, and the Apostles of the Churches, Philip. 2.25. 2 Cor. 8.23. Whereas, I have showed you, that for Epaphroditus, he is said there, either to be a messenger only, from Philippi, to Saint Paul, (which is more evident, in the same phrase used of those, 2 Cor. 8.23. expounded by Bilson himself, of messengers from the Churches, pag. 75.) or else that notes them to be, secundarii Apostoli, that is, as Salmasius takes it, Evangelists, and so extraordinary Officers: but more of this in the next Section.  
Next, you proceed to the example of best reformed Churches, wherein we agree with you, to reform, is in primaevam formam reducere, but that form is in Scripture, that's our first Christian story, and there we find no Bishop, but what is a Presbyter; others that are abusively called so, were not properly such, but Officers of an higher kind, whose Office being extraordinary, died with them: For your particular quotations; first, that of Zanchi, Exempla veteris Ecclesiae nobis debent esse instar praecepti, the Examples of the ancient Church ought to be to us as a precept, is to be understood, of the Church under the Apostles, registered in the Scriptures; and so the Ministers of London, (whom you cite also) speak expressly, that Scripture-examples are obligatory, and that will not serve your turn: But for the quotations out of Zanchy, that, in his conscience they were no better than Schismatics, that counted it a part of reformation to have no Bishop in degree of authority above their true fellow Presbyters: I have sought it earnestly in the place cited, but cannot find any such thing, de vera reformandae Ecclesiae ratione; but in other places I find the contrary. In a short confession of his faith, when he was seventy years of age, cap. 25. de Eccles. Gubernation, he speaks to this effect; He acknowledgeth only Pastors and Teachers to be left by the institution of Christ, as ordinary Ministers. The superintendency of one, taken up by men, as a remedy of Schism, he dislikes not; but from the tyranny, into which that presidency degenerated; he concludes, Quo proprius acceditur in ordinibus Ministrorum ad simplicitatem Apostolicam, eo magis etiam nobis probetur; at que ut ubique accedatur, dandam esse operam, judicemus: In the Orders of Ministers, the nearer we come to Apostolical simplicity, the more is it to be approved, and diligence should be used, that every where such propinquity to the word should be attained: Here you have Zanchy directly against what you would have him say; as also, on the fourth Commandment, de diversis Ministror●●● generibus, he clearly agreeth with me, that Pastors mentioned Eph. 4.11. are the highest Officers now left in the Church; and those the same, mentioned 1 Tim. 3. & Titus 1. Bishops, or Presbyters, which he proves to be all one; and that superiority, that in process of time, one had above another, was but by humane grant; For what you cite out of Melancthons' Epistles, touching Bishops; It is but one man's private opinion, and that, when they were in that case, that we a long time were, and still in the greatest part are, without any government settled; and undoubtedly, the Church had better be under a government that hath some rigour or tyranny in it, then under no government; so to shake off Bishops, as to be under no government, is, as Melancthon truly saith, inexpedient, if it were lawful; and such a liberty (as Luther said) is Libertas minimè utilis ad posteritatem, a liberty no ways profitable to posterity. But what is this to the Covenant, which resates not to persons, but to Churches ' Now it is apparent, that the Churches of Germany have reform Episcopacy so, that they have no such Apostle-Bishop, as you dream of, but Presbytery at the most, with the superintendency of one in their Presbyteries: neither hath that any weight, that you speak, of the Convention at Auspurg; for they were then but in a way of reformation, it was but the dawning of the day with them, and they could not see all things at the first; but we see, when they come to settle the order of their Churches, they settled Presbytery, not Episcopacy: And yet I deny not, that if the Bishops would then have been reasonable, they would have admitted their jurisdiction for peace-sake, as Melancthon saith, redimere pacem. And truly Sir, though I maintain, that the King, for peace, may abolish Episcopacy: Yet I am of that mind, and wish others were so too, redimere pacem duriori conditione, as Melancthon said, to redeem peace with an harder condition; with Episcopacy so regulated, as at first, to preside and rule in his Presbytery.  
But onething I may not pass; for, whereas Melancthon saith, that they did grant to Bishops, & potestatem ordinis & jurisdictionis, the power of order, and jurisdiction; you inquire What is this power of Order: certainly a power that Presbyters had not, that is, a power, at least, to ordain Ministers: But here, Master Doctor, you bewray too much ignorance for a D. D. for in power of order, not only Protestants, but most Papists make Bishops and Presbyters one, for that is to perform, as officers, prayers, consecrate sacraments, etc. and power of jurisdiction, only they make a Bishop's peculiar.  
For what you prosecute, touching power of Ordination to be only in their Bishops, not Presbyters; I will speak more fully to that in the following Section; In the mean time I must tell you, that in quoting Salmatius, Parag. 15▪ Of this Chapter, you show egregious negligence in reading, or, which is worse, deceit; for the words you cite out of him, touching Timothy and Titus, that they were Bishops indeed, of the same right, and of the same Order, whereof at this day they are accounted, who govern the Churches, and are over Presbyters: This he brings only by way of explication of Theodoret's opinion; but when he comes to deliver his own, He saith, pag. 63. That Timothy was rather super-Episcopus, above a Bishop, an Apostle. And again, pag. 69. He saith of them, per abusum igitur & impropriè Episcopi appellabantur, they were improperly, and abusively called Bishops. Thus also you use the London 1. D. who (you say) confess, that their government is not above 80. years standing: whereas they assert the institution of it by Christ, and the restitution only for 80 years; when they did likewise reform the corrupt doctrines in Popery: And do not you speak against your conscience, when you say, Calvin would have crushed that government in the bud, that sometimes you make a Geneva invention? Who would think a D. D. should be such a citer of authors?  
But to conclude this Section; if Bishops have no place in Scripture, the best reformation must be, to abolish Episcopacy; though well limited, they may be tolerated; and that they have no place in Scripture, is the work of the next Section.   

CHAP. IU. PARAG. 3. Wherein, for a fuller answer to what the Doctor hath said to prove Episcopacy Christ's institution; this Quession is resolved: whether a Bishop (now usually so called) be by the ordinance of Christ, a distinct Officer from him that is usually called a Presbyter? The one a successor of the Apostles, endued with power of ordination and other jurisdiction; the other, the Successor of the Presbyters, ordained by Timothy and Titus, endued with power of administering word and Sacraments: Neg.  
FOr the sounder and clearer resolving of this question, I shall proceed by way of Thesis, fetching things from the first original; barely proposing only what is confessed by all, but proving those things, wherein there is any controversy, or whereon the controversy hath dependence.  
Thesis', 1. first its agreed amongst all, that all the teaching Officers that can challenge Livine institution, are set down in an entire Catalogue, Eph. 4.11, And gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors, and Teachers; and therefore all that cannot derive their pedigree from one of these, must be in the case of those, Neh. 7.64.  
Thesis', 2. That of these Officers, some were extraordinary, some ordinary.  
Thesis', 3. That Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, were extraordinary officers, for the first planting of Churches; and Pastors and Teachers, ordinary.  
Thesis', 4. That the extraordinary officers were temporary, and the ordinary to be perpetual in the Church, Bilson perp. govern. p. 300. The office of Evangelists was extraordinary and temporary: Field of the Church, lib. 5. c. 22. And indeed, whatsoever is extraordinary, is temporary.  
Thesis', 5. That Apostles were the highest of extraordinary officers: and Pastors, the highest of those that were ordinary. Apostles are named first, and all that are named before Pastors, are acknowledged extraordinary, Ephes. 4.11.  
Thesis', 6. That in the extraordinary Officers, there were some gifts and acts peculiar to them, as such; as to the Apostles immediate calling, divine inspiration, infallibility in doctrine, universal charge; and in the Evangelist, to be an assistant to an Apostle, not to be perpetually fixed to any place, but for the finishing some special work, as Timothy at Ephesus, 1 Tim. 1.3. Titus at Crect, cap. 1.5. & 3.12.  
Secondly, There were some qualities and actions, which though required in, and done by them, as extraordinary officers, in an extraordinary way, yet are of necessity; and are, in an ordinary way, perpetually to be continued in the Church of God; as abilities to teach and rule the Church; and the acts of teaching, praying, ordination of Ministers, Church-censures, etc. See Bilson perp. govern. chap. 7. pag. 106, 107.  
Thesis', 7. That these Pastors, Eph. 4.11. that are the highest ordinary Officers, are Successors to the Apostles in all that power, and authority, and all those acts flowing from it, which are necessary, perpetual, and ordinary in the Church of God. This also is clear; power and authority require a subject; divine power and authority, a subject of divine institution: Now no other remains of those of God's institution, but Pastors and Teachers, which if they be not the same, Pastor is the chief. The other, as temporary, are ceased; therefore Pastors must be their successors, in all this power: and in them must the commands for execution be kept, without spot, or unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 6.14. And to them must that Apostolical promise be performed, Matth. 28.20. Behold, I am with you to the end of the world.  
Thesis', 8. The Pastors and Teachers, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. are no other but Synonymaes with those Elders ordained in every Church, Acts 14.23. and in every City, Tit. 1.5. This is clear; for those Elders that were here ordained, were officers of Christ's giving. The Apostles would ordain no other: it had been sacrilegious presumption; but they were neither Apostles, Prophets, nor Evangelists; Ergo, if Christ's, they must be under either Pastors or Teacher's  
Thesis, 9 These Elders, were, by the Holy Ghost, also styled Bishops, and were indeed Bishops, aliud aetatis, aliud officii nomen; and of them it is, that direction is given under the name of Bishops, 1 Tim. 3. Herein Jerome is most plain, seconded by Ambrose, or Hilary, an approved Author, under his name; who though they differ from other fathers, who understand by Bishop, 
Hieron. in Ep. ad Titum.  1 Tim. 3.2 Bishop distinct from a Presbyter, such as was in their times: Yet Jeromes reason preponderates all, because drawn out of the bowels of the Text, 1 Titus 1.5, 6, 7. Attend (saith he) the words of the Apostle, who having discoursed of the qualities of a Presbyter, after infers; for a Bishop must be blameless, etc. Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same. Again, if any yet doubt, (saith he) whether a Bishop, and a Presbyter, be not all one, let him read the Apostle, Phil. 1.1. Paul, and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the Saints which are in Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. Philippi (saith he) was a City of Macedonia: and certainly, in one City (as now they are called) more Bishops could not be. But St. Paul thus wrote, because at that time, Presbyters and Bishops were all one. If yet this seem ambiguous (saith he,) that Presbyters and Bishops were all one, it may be proved by another testimony: It's written in the Acts of the Apostles, when St. Paul came to Miletum, he sent to Ephesus, and called to him, thence, the Elders of that Church, to whom amongst other things he spoke thus; Take heed to yourselves, and to your flock over which the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to feed the Church of God, etc. Observe this diligently, (saith he) how calling the Presbyters of one City, Ephesus, he afterwards calls them Bishops: he adds Heb. 13.17. & 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. and concludes these things, that we might show, that amongst the Ancients, Presbyters and Bishops were the same.  
Thesis', 10. After the decease of the extraordinary Officers, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and their Office, with cause of it with them: the Church acknowledged no other Church-Officers, as instituted of Christ, but only the two, mentioned 1 Tim. 3. & Titus 1. 1 Bishops or Presbyters. 2 Deacons. Clemens, mentioned Phil. 4.3. who is witnessed, by Tertullian, to be ordained of St. Peter himself, the prescrip. in an Epistle to the Corinthians, writes thus: The Apostles preaching through the Countries and Regions: their first fruits, whom they had tried by the spirit, they appointed for Bishops and Deacons to believers. Here you see, by the Apostles were constituted but these two Offices, Bishops and Deacons, of whom he afterwards saith, that those that have humbly, and unblamably ministered to the sheep-fold of Christ, those we may not think may be justly thrown out of their Ministry: whence he infers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. It's a filthy thing beloved, yea, very filthy, and unworthy that conversation which is in Christ Jesus, to hear, that the most strong, and ancient Church of Corinth, for one or two persons, should make a faction against their Presbyters: He concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You therefore, who have laid the foundation of sedition, be instructed to repent, and be subject to your Presbyters; so, whom he called Bishops, he now calls Presbyters; and gives not, so much as any hint of any singular Bishops, but the company of Presbyters, or Bishops, over the Church of God, vid. Blond. Apol. pro sanct. Hieron. p. 11, 12.  
Polycarpe, in an Epistle to the Philippians: Be ye subject to the Presbyters and Deacons, as to God, and Christ; and here you see but two offices: and therefore yet the Presbyters ruled the Church in Common. Blond. ubi supra, p. 14, 1●. where many more witnesses may be seen. And in this, the Master of the Sentences consents too, lib. 4. Dist. 24. de Presbyteris; unde & Apud veteres, iidem Episcopi & Presbyteri fuêre: quia illud est nomen dignitatis, non aetatis: and a little after, excellenter tamen canones duos tantùm sacros ordines appellari censent; Diaconatus, scilicet, & Presbyteratus, quia hos solos primitiva ecclesia legitur habuisse, & de his solis praeceptum Apostoli habemus.  
Thesis' 11. Amongst these Bishops or Presbyters, there was one, who by the consent of the rest, either by their free election, or for his priority in conversion and ordination, had a pre-eminence of honour above the rest, for order-sake; who had no new ordination, or none for a great while, but what he had from his fellow-Presbyters, who chose him, and exalted him, without any further ado, So Hierom, ep. 85. ad Evagrium, which he confirms from Alexandria; For (saith he) Alexandria, etc. At Alexandria, even to Heraclas, and Dionysius, Bishops; The Elders did always name one Bishop, chosen out of themselves, and by them placed in excelsiori gradu, in an higher degree of honour, (not office.) Now whether in their choice, they did only look at merit, or whether they did a good while, (till, as 
* Ambrose or Hilary on the Ephesians. Quia prim●m Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur, etc. For he calls Timothy (who was created a Presbyter by him) a Bishop, because at first, Presbyters were called Bishops, that one withdrawing, another did succeed; but because the following Presbyters were found unworthy to hold that primacy, the way was changed, a Counsel providing, that not order, of time but merit should make the Bishop, constituted by the judgement of many Presbyters, lest an unworthy man should rashly usurp it, and be a scandal to many.  Ambrose saith, it proved inconvenient) advance him that was the next signior; it is argued both ways, though in my opinion, Blundel hath made it most probable, that according to Ambrose his expression, it went by seniority for certain years; in his preface to the forecited Book. Some think, it went by seniority in some places, and by election in others.  
Thesis'. 11. This preeminency that one had above the rest, was by Ecclesiastical custom, not by Divine institution: and advanced him only to an higher degree, or dignity; not to another order, distinct from his fellow-Presbyters; so that, still he must derive his succession from the Presbyters, or Bishops, that were to be ordained in every Church, and is to find his place in the divine Catalogue of officers, Ephes. 4.11. under astors, and not Evangelists, or Prophets. That this pre-eminence was not from any divine institution, but Ecclesiastical ordination, Jerom is express: The Bishops must know, that they are greater than Presbyters, rather by custom, then Divine disposition, Hieron. in Tit. So Augustine, ep. 19 Although, according to the words of honour, which the Church's use hath obtained, Episcopacy is greater than Presbytery, etc. Yet: See bear, the precedency of Bishops, is an honour of words, and a fruit of use. And this may be further cleared, from what was first done in conferring this pre-eminence. It was but a bare act of the rest of the Presbyters, as appears by the example brought by Hierom, in the Church of Alexandria. They chose out of themselves, and set him in an higher degree: This they did of themselves, and by themselves, without any Divine command, (Let it be produced, if there be any;) yea, without any example, in any of the Churches in the Scripture, and they did it by themselves, without the concurrence of other, and they could not set him in an higher order; Presbyters cannot make an Apostle.  
Thirdly, this may appear, from that little difference that was between such a Bishop and a Presbyter, in the father's times. Chrysost. Theophylact, Hilary, on 1 Tim. 3. Enquiring the reason, why the Apostle passeth from directions about Bishops, to directions about Deacons, no mention being made of a Presbyter; Give answer; First, Hilary, or, Ambrose, Quia Episcopi & Presbyteri una ordinatio est, uterque enim Sacerdos est, sed Episcopus primus. Because, of an Elder and a Bishop there is but one ordination, both are Presbyters, but a Bishop is first. And Chysostom, Because, a Presbyter doth so little differ from a Bishop to wit, in nothing but ordination, saith he, In nothing but election, saith Theophylact. Now, where the difference is so little, that one direction for qualification will serve for both; there is plainly acknowledged a difference in dignity, or degree of excellency only, not in order or office.  
That conceit then of Theodoret's, that they that are now called Bishops, were heretofore called Apostles, and those that are now called Presbyters, were then, i. e. in the Apostles times, called Bishops, is itself too groundless a fancy for you (Doctor Boughen) to ground your distinction of Apostle-Bishops, and Presbyter-Bishops; as though our now Bishops were Apostle-Bishops, and so of an higher Order, and endued by that order from Jesus Christ to many peculiar acts, which a Presbyter could not do: And that they are not only an higher degree of Presbyter-Bishops, endued with power by humane wisdom to proceed and order those actions, which by divine right, belong to all their fellow-Presbyters, who are to join with them in these acts of jurisdictions: This distinction, I say of yours, it hath no bottom to bear it up. 
Vide Morton. Appl. Cathol. l. 1. c. 33. Crim. tertia.   
For first, you see its directly contrary to Hierome, and Ambrose, or Hilary, and many others; who make Bishops in their times, to be the same with Presbyters, or Presbyter-Bishops, as you call them: Nay, it differs from other Fathers, who though they acknowledge not an Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter; yet they take that, which you say is spoken of a Presbyter-Bishop, 1 Tim. 3. & Tit. 1. of such Bishops as were in their time, which you would have to be Apostle-Bishops.  
3. It hath no ground in Scripture. The Scriptures sets no other orders, but Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, which are those Presbyter-Bishops, spoken of Acts 14.23. Acts 20.28. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.  
Now the three first are extraordinary, and ceased; the latter only remain. And therefore the Bishop, for what of him is divine, must be a Pastor, and that's the same with a Presbyter-Bishop; else, show us some institution for him: To talk of Timothy and Titus, is vain, being it is witnessed by Scripture, confessed by all, that they were Evangelists, which is extraordinary: Successors they may, and must, have in the work of ordination, but in their office they have not; but the same work is done by Pastors, succeeding them in those acts of Discipline, as well, as in those of teaching and administering the Sacraments: Neither need we be moved with the appellation which the Fathers bestow on them, calling them Bishops of Ephesus, and Crete; and saying, that St. Paul, in them, taught all Bishops. For when Scripture calls them Evangelists, and reckons Evangelists among extraordinary offices, that Christ hath given; what authority is of force against this testimony? Therefore we favourably interpret the saying of those Fathers: that they call them Bishops, with relation to the custom of their times, who called them Bishops, that did those acts that Timothy and Titus did, not that they were properly so: For they were of an higher order, and did these acts as Evangelists: which their successors are to do, as ordinary Pastors: Neither will their being Evangelists hinder the use of their examples, or the precepts given to them: For the same acts done by whatsoever officer, are to be done by the same rule; and therefore, as directions given to them for preaching, so for acting in government, are to be followed by other ordinary Officers; upon whom (by their decease) the power and care of their acts, are devolved, though of an inferior order: Timothy was to imitate Paul; an Evangelist, an Apostle: and every Pastor is to imitate these Evangelists, in such acts, as are common to Evangelists with them.  
Thesis', 13. All Presbyters being of the same Order, and that the highest of those that are now in the Church, have by divine law, equal power in places where the Holy Ghost hath set them Pastors and Bishops, as to preach the word, and administer Sacraments, so to do all other acts of government, when called, requisite for the edification and preservation of the Church; and the Bishop, who is but primus Presbyter, made by man for Orders sake, can rightly challenge no Monopoly, or sole interest, but only a presidency, to guide, rule, and order that Presbytery, wherein acts of jurisdiction are exercised, whether acts of ordination, or deposition; binding, or losing; excommunicating, or absolving. This I prove by these reasons:  
Argument, 1. Those who are truly and equally the successors of the Apostles, in ordinary, and necessary acts of the Ministry; to those by their office, belong all the acts of jurisdiction, that are necessary, and ordinary acts of jurisdiction: But Presbyter-Bishops are such successors of the Apostles; ergo. The Major is clear of itself; the Minor I prove thus: Pastors are truly, and equally successors of the Apostles, in necessary and ordinary duties of the Ministry, as appears Ephes. 4.11. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors.  
The three former were extraordinary, temporary, and ceased; so the Pastor must be the successor, if they have any: But Presbyter-Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Chost, to feed it, are equally and truly Pastors: ergo. The minor is clear, from the definition of a Pastor, which is an officer set over the flock of God, to feed it, & definitio competit omni, & essentia non variatur gradibus. See Acts 20.28.  
Argument, 2. Those that by divine law are equal in the power of order, those are equal in the power of government, or jurisdiction. All Presbyters, first and second, are equal in power of order; ergo. For the Minor, that all Presbyters are equal in the power of order; it may appear by the definition of the power of order: 
Lib. 5. of the Church, cap. 27  the power of order (saith Field) is that; whereby persons are sanctified, and enabled to the performance of such sacred acts, as other men, neither may, nor can do; as is the preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments.  
Now all Presbyters, 
See Field of the Church, lib. 3. c. 39  as Field confesseth, are equal in the power of Order; yea, not only he with other Protestants, but many Schoolmen, and other Papists also, as he there shows: For every Priest (saith Durand) in regard of his Priestly power, may minister all Sacraments; ea quae sunt ordinum, (saith Aureolus) omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo: ita quòd in potestate nullius, imò nec Papae est, illa auferre: in 4. sent. Dist. 24. Art. 2. Sect. tertia ratio etc. And this also appears because they must all sit under the same title of Pastors, Ephes. 4.11.  
For the Major. I prove it thus. Power of jurisdiction is, indeed, but a branch of the power of Order. A man by the power of order, is made a Minister of Christ, and so consecrated to serve Christ, in all ministerial services required of such a Minister of Christ.  
Now these services are to edify the Church, either by food, or physic; to further their salvation by word, or rod of Discipline: Now both these being ministerial acts and orders, making a man a Minister: hence it follows, that they that are equal in orders, in actu primo, in regard of power, when they have a call, are equally enabled to the exercise of discipline, or jurisdiction, as well as preaching, and consecrating Sacraments, both being acts of that office, to which he is advanced by orders. And thus much Field doth, ina manner confess: Three things (saith he) are employed in the calling of Ecclesiastical Ministers. First, An election, choice, or designment of persons, fit for so high and excellent employment. Secondly, the consecration of them, and giving them power and authority, to intermeddle with things that pertain to the service of God; to perform eminent acts of gracious efficacy, and admirable force, tending to the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men, and yield unto them whom Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood, all the comfortable means, assurances, helps, that may set forward their eternal salvation. Thirdly, the assigning, and dividing out to each man, thus sanctified to so excellent a work, that portion of God's people, that he is to take care of, etc.  
Now here plainly, under assurances, means, and helps to set forward salvation, acts of Discipline must needs be contained, 1 Cor. 5.5, 6. and this flows from power of order, as its habit is, actus primus, induing a man with power.  

* There is indeed, this difference between acts of jurisdiction, & other acts of order; the one every Presbyter may do alone; the other only in a Presbytery. So imposition of hands, 1 Tim. 4.14. was in, and by the Presbytery; so censures, 2 Cor. 2.7. by many. But a Minister may preach, baptise, administer the Lords Supper alone; and this was the use of the ancient Churches, who had their Presbyters, mentroned both in Scriptures, and Fathers.  Now to straighten the Presbyter in this act of his orders, he hath recourse to that feeble shift; That the Bishop only is Pastor, and the other Presbyters are but, as it were, curates under him; which if true, it is enough to make a Bishop despair, as well as a Presbyter to be despised: for how can he discharge the cure of souls in an hundred mile's circuit? But the contrary is evident, in the Presbyters of Ephesus, Acts ●0. 28. the Holy Ghost had placed them Bishops, to feed the stock of God: Neither is his objection, from the Angel of the Church's Rev. 2.3. weighty; for if there be not a Synecdoche in the word Angel, which Rev. 2.10. Some of you, etc. seems plainly to manifest: yet its clear he had only a priority of order, not of charge: And the priority of order, was ground enough for directing to him, what belonged to, and was communicated to all; as now it is to any temporary precedent of a Classis; or as the things that concern the whole Houses, are directed to the Speaker of either.  
The same is plain of the Elders of Alexandria, whose superintendent had no other charge from God, but only a precedency of honour, and order, from themselves: Besides, all Presbyter-Bishops set over charges by the Holy Ghost, are of those Pastors, Eph. 4.11. And I hope, no modest learned man, will think that any Precedent or Bishop, then, was the sole Pastor; or that these Presbyter-Bishops, set over the flock, by the Holy Ghost, could not act in their Ministr●, without leave of him: and therefore those rules of restraint, mentioned in Fathers and Counsels, were but invasions on the liberties of Presbyters, who had their cures, not from the Bishop, but from the Holy Ghost.  
Argument, 3. To whom the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are equally given; they have equal power of jurisdiction: but to all Presbyter-Bishops, the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given, and equally given: ergo. The Major is clear; for the keys of the Kingdom of heaven contain all jurisdiction; that's without all question. and the Apostles are hereby usually proved to be equal in jurisdiction, because the keys were equally given to them.  
For the Minor; the keys are appendants to the office of the Minister. The Apostles with mission had the keys, John 20. and so the confession of the Church of England, agrees harmoniously with the rest in this, that the power of the keys is equally in all Ministers, Harmon. of conf. chap 18. p. 362. So at the ordination of a Presbyter; the key of Discipline was given to the Presbyter, as well as that of Doctrine, in the Church of England. And if there be an equality in that order, whereof the keys are an appendix, they must have the appendix following in equality likewise, that are equal in that order.  
Argument, 4. That to which a man hath right, and, in acting, is restrained only by custom, novel constitutions or Ecclesiastical Canons, that, by God's law, he hath equal right to with others. But Presbyter-Bishops are restrained from, or limited in acts of government, (to which they have right) only by custom, novel constitutions of Emperors, or Ecclesiastical Canons: ergo, Jure Divino, power of government is in them equally with others.  
For the Minor, that they have power of government, I have formerly proved, because it is an act of their office: for the exercise of it, sometimes in ordination, Paul witnesseth, 1 Tim. 4.14. and for government, Jerome gives clear testimony: Ecclesiae olim communi Pres by ●erorum regebantur consilio; and they did consecrate their Bishop in Alexandria from St. Mark, to Heraclas, as he witnesseth. So did they ordain with the Bishop; and without the Bishop, the Chorepiscopi, & the City Presbyters, till inhibited by the Counsel of Ancyra, held in the beginning of the fourth Centurie. Panormitanus is express: olim (inquit) Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam, & ordinabant sacerdotes, & pariter conferebant omnia Sacramenta, in lib. 1. decret. de consuet. cap. quarto. Here is the right and practise asserted. Now for prohibitions, if any, out of the word show them; for the Fathers, they declare what the custom was in their times. Counsels and Emperors made laws only, limiting power to prevent inconveniences; and as Jerome saith, contra Luciferianos, many reservations were made, potius ad honorem sacerdotii quàm ad legis necessitatem. 
* Decreto Hisp. Synodi 2. Presbyteris quibus cum Episcopis plurima ministeriorum, communis est Disp●nsatio (edicitur) ut quaedam novel is & Ecclesiasti●is constitutionibus, sibi prohibita noverint, sicut Presbyterorum, ac diaconorum, & virginum consecratio, etc.  And therefore I conclude, the power of government, of binding and losing, and of ordination, is by divine right, an appendent to the office of a Presbyter-Bishop: and as there is no proof for, so no ●eed of your Apostle-Bishop: And so the chief cornerstone of your whole Book, which you relate to, from chapter to chapter, is found but untempered mortar, that is crumbled away when it comes to hard canvasing, and your building must down with it.  
We are indeed, much pressed in this question, with the authority of Fathers.  
But I say, first, the most ancient, (as is to be seen in blundel) 
* Apol. pro sententia Hieron.  speak but of two orders of Gospel-Officers in their time, which they sometimes call Bishops and Deacons; sometimes Presbyters and Deacons: Only Ignatius is urged, as a great friend of Bishops; but indeed he is too great a friend, for he doth so far exceed in his expressions, and so differ in that, from other writers of his time; that for that, and many other things, all, or the greatest part of his Epi●●les, lie under great suspicion of subornation, or corruption, vid. Blond. Apol. pro sanct. Hieron, & Cooks censura patrum.  
Secondly, the most rational of the Fathers, as Hierome, and Augustine, have witnessed, (not speaking obiter, or popularly, but purposely, giving their judgement in the thing,) that the difference between Bishop and Presbyter, is the issue of custom and use, not divine institution.  
Thirdly, the Fathers generally, give the Bishop but a Presidency, not a Monarchy, in jurisdiction: They ascribe to him a Presbytery, in which, and with which, he was to ordain, and censure; and without which, he was not to act in these things. And this plainly enough shows, that the Bishop's presidency was but for order sake, not that power rested only in him; for that power that is restrained by Divine ordinance to one order, may not be interposed in by another; 
* See Forbesii. Iren. p. 180. where he disputes against the Papists thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministerium solis Episcopis, à Christo tributum est, id non potest Papa etc. committere Presbyteris. At ministerium conferendi ordines potest Papa, etc. committere Presbyteris, Ergo, etc.  the Levites might not join with the Priests, in offering sacrifice, because it was a particular above their sphere, appropriated to the Priests; which neither in the absence of the Priest, nor by his leave, or commission, a Levite might do: But we know, at first, ordination was in the City and Country Presbyters, and forbidden them only with a Proviso, unless they had the consent, or commission of the Bishops; which prohibition, doth plainly show, that before they were used to ordain without him, and after might with his leave.  
Fourthly, the Fathers differ more from the high Prelatists, then from the Presbyterian: For the Presbyterian always have a Precedent to guide their actions, which they acknowledge may be perpetual, durante vitâ modò se bene gesserit; or temporary, to avoid inconvenience, which Bilson in his preface, (and again, and again, in his book of perp. gover.) takes hold of, as advantageous, because so little discrepant, (as he saith) from what he maintains: but now the high Prelatists exclude a Presbytery, as having nothing to do with jurisdiction, which they put as far above the sphere of a Presbyter, as sacrificing above a Levites; to wit, an act restrained to an higher order: whereas the Fathers acknowledge a Presbytery; and in divers cases, Counsels tie the Bishop to do nothing without them; and so its clear, the high Prelatists are at a further distance from the Fathers, than the Presbyterians.  
Fifthly, for that, wherein we differ from the Fathers, we have the Plea of one of the most judicious of the Fathers, Augustine, who being pressed with the authority of Cyprian, answers lib. contra Cresscon. 2. cap. 32. His writings I hold not as Canonical, but examine them by the Canonical writings: And in them, what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scriptures, I accept with his praise; what agreeth not, I refuse with his leave. This is our apology, in dissenting in this thing from some of the Fathers; wherein you see we follow a Father, and in that wherein Bilson makes use of him, to put off the authorities of some learned men of his age; and adds, God suffers the best of men to have some blemishes, lest their writings should be received as authentic, p. 15.2.  
Lastly, if we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacy, (wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them, than we;) yet I would have them to consider, in how many things we jump with the Fathers, wherein many of them have been dissenting, both in opinion, and practice; as touching promiscuous dancing, especially on the Lord's day. 2. Touching residency of Pastors in their Churches, which excludes also pluralities. 3. Frequency and diligence in preaching. 4. Touching the abuse of health drinking or drinking ad aequales calices. 5. Touching Bishops not entangling themselves with secular affairs, or businesses of State, in Prince's Courts. 6. Touching gaming at Cards, or Dice, and such like, so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers, against us, in this one point, (wherein themselves also are at a distance from them) while we keep closer to the Fathers, than they do in many others.  
And thus; (Doctor) I shall leave it to the judgement of the indifferent reader, whether Apostle-Bishops be not a mere fancy of your own framing; and indeed, now, there be no other but Presbyter-Bishops; one of which for Ecclesiastical custom, for pious ends had some power added to his Presidency, for order, which afterwards degenerated into tyranny.   

CHAP. IU. PARAG. 4. Wherein is showed the impertinency of the Doctors sixth chapter, against perjury, which the Author of the Case detests as much as be.  
TO come now to your 6. Chapter, where you propose the question, whether the King, without the impeachment of his Oath at his Coronation, may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy? And then tell us, Parag. 1. This question hath two branches: 1. Whether a Christian King be bound to keep his oath? 2. Whether he may not, etc. But did not your eyes dazzle, when you made this division? Did I ever question, whether the King's oath was obligatory, so far as it was lawful, and in that sense that it was intended? and so dispute, whether the sense of it were not the same of that with the people, that engageth only till alteration by consent in Parliament? Did not I express in the preface, that unless it did appear, that abrogation of Episcopacy might stand with the sense of the oath, the King ought not to consent? how falsely do you then affirm, that I persuade the King to break his oath? and how useless is this whole chapter? either taking for granted, what is not proved, that Episcopacy is a truth, and ordinance of Christ; or proving what is not in question, that oaths are to be kept, perjury to be avoided; wherein you are so vehement, that you fa●l into rank anabaptistry: pag. 34. asserting, that oaths therefore must be avoided, lest we fall into condemnation; as though all oaths were unlawful, for fear of perjury. You do also admix so many foul and bold slanders, uttered with such bitterness, and such evident falseness, that any but a partial reader, will detest them; and therefore I think them unworthy any answer.  
If I had said as that Court-Preacher, 
Herles answer to Doctor Fern. p. 3.  that the King is not bound to keep any oath he took to the people, to be ruled therein by law. His oath was but a piece of Coronation-show, he might take it to day, and break it to morrow, etc. On such a man, you might have spent some of your zeal against perjury; but to me it is impertinent, as the judicious reader shall plainly see, by that which follows now to be set down, out of the Case resolved, which supposes the oath ought to be kept, and only inquires after the true sense, and intention of it; and this may satisfy this impertinent chapter.   

The Case Resolved.  
THe usual way of clearing this assertion, is thus: The King is sworn to maintain the laws of the Land in force, at his Coronation; yet no man questions, and the constant practice shows, that it is not unlawful after, to abrogate any, upon the motion, or with the consent of his Parliament: The meaning of the oath, being known to be, to maintain the laws, while they are laws: but when they are abrogated by a just power, in a regular way, they are then wiped out of his charge and oath. So the King by his oath, is bound to maintain the rights of his Clergy, while they continue such. But if any of their rights be abrogated, by just power, he stands no longer engaged to that particular.  
And this I conceive, to be a sound resolution: For the King's oath is against acting, or suffering a tyrannous invasion on laws and rights, not against a Parliamentary alteration of either. But here steps in my first opponent, and though he disputes modestly, only proposing, what he holds forth, 
A nameless Author in a Book, impleading all War against the King  to serious consideration; yet he objects subtly, and his Discourse runs thus. The oath for maintenance of laws, is made Populo Anglicano, to the people of England, and so may be taken off by a future act, because it is by their own consent, represented in Parliament. But the oath to maintain the privileges of the Clergy, is made to such a part of his people, Clero Anglicano, and particularly taken by him, after his oath to the whole Realm, which were needless, unless it meant some other obligation. This seems (saith the learned Author) to make it a distinct obligation, and not releaseable, without the Clergies consent.  
I answer, taking it for granted, that the oath is thus taken by the King; That oath was so framed, when Clerus Anglicanus, was a distinct Society or Corporation, (as I may so say) à populo Anglicano, from the people of England.  
This distinction between the Clergy and Laiety, we may observe in our Historians. Daniel, in the life of William the first, giveth this for a reason, wh● the Clergy did so willingly condescend to him, because they had their province a part, whence they supposed a security to their privileges, how ever the Laiety were enslaved. The same distinction of the Clergy and Laiety, is observed by him in the life of Henry the second, pag. 83. And this was not only in England, but other Nations. Secularium petentes fastigia, in legum lationes seorsum ab alijs quae civium universitatis proruperant, Omnem Clerum ab hinc decernentes exemptum.  schisma & principatum supremorum pluralitatem inducentes ex ipsis quam velut impossisilem humanae quieti certa●● hujus inducentes experientiam demonstravimus, 170 1 Marsil Patau. defence. pacis, part. 2. cap. 23. Now being the Clergy and Laiety were distinct bodies, the Clergy holding their rights, by privilege distinct from the laws of the land; an oath to maintain the laws of the land, secured not them: But as another body, they had another oath for their security. But now this distinction of the Clergy, from the Laiety, that they should be a distinct Province of themselves, being a branch of Popery, is with it quite extinguished. And Laiety and Clergy are now one body politic, and under the same rule; for all privileges of the Clergy, that are contrariant to the laws of the land, were abolished in the reign of H. 8. As undoubtedly that was, that any Society should be exempt from secular power; for that was to set up two Supremacies. And therefore, though the oath be continued in that order that it was, when the Laiety & Clergy were distinct bodies; yet now, that this distinction is abrogated, and they are made one, the oath to the Clergy cannot be stronger, or more inviolabse than that to the Laiety, for the preservation of the laws of the land, both subject to regular alteration. Thus far the case.    


CHAP. V PARAG. 1. Showing, that the Clergies rights are as alterable, by King and Parliament, as the Layities; in answer to Doctor Boughen's 10. Chapter.  
HEre you invert the method I went in, but without just ground; for I followed the Authors I answered, in that order, in which they came out in public and to that I shall hold you; and therefore, now I must come to the 10. Chapter, reserving the seventh, eighth and nineth, to their due place. In your tenth Chapter, you're hard put to it, and make a great noise to little purpose, First,  
Parag. 1. You make an inference, and quarrel with it. It's lawful for the King to abrogate the rights of the Clergy. ergo, He may abolish Episcopacy. It's for all the world, as if one should say, It's lawful for the King to take away the rights of Lawyers, ergo, He may also take away Judicature.  
But you are bad at Parallels, for there may be Ecclesiastical Judicatures, without your Bishops; which are but the issue of humane custom, as Jerom tells you.  
Then Parag. 2. You raise a fort against a fort. It's lawful for the King to abrogate the rights of the Clergy, it is therefore lawful for him to abrogate Presbytery.  
I answer, we speak not here of lawfulness in general, but with relation to the King's oath; and sure, you do not think, that I conceive, the King's oath makes it unlawful for him to abrogate Presbytery, that is, Presbyterial government. But for what you say, touching the order of Presbyters, parag. 3. and the order of Bishops; there, I must tell you, that the King cannot take away the one, because, all confess it to be an Ordinance of Christ: But for that of Bishops, it's an ordinance of man, as I have proved, and so alterable. Your fourth and fifth Paragraphes, arae digression from this Question.  
Parag. 6. You say Well, bond he is by his oath to maintain the laws of the land, while they are laws, etc. But how long are these laws in force? till abrogated by just power in a regular way. To this you subscribe, adding, but the just power is in his Majesty, by your own confession, to maintain and abrogate laws.  
I Answer, If, by power to abrogate laws, you mean, that they cannot be abrogated without him; I confess it: but if you mean it, as sometime you seem to import it, that it is in his power, without concurrence of others, I may well deny it; because he doth not assume to himself such power. Your 7, 8, 9 parag. I shall let pass, as having nothing of consequence to the case in hand, though they contain some extravagant expressions.  
Parag. 10. You examine my words, that if any of the Clergies rights be abrogated, by just power, he stands no longer engaged to that particular. Here you quarrel for want of adding, just power in a regular way, which was not excluded, but included in my expression; and you yourself confess, parag. 12. when you say," just power goes always in a regular way. But you think I left out that expression, in a regular way, because I am not able to set down a regular way, wherein the Clergies right may be abrogated.  
Sure you are deceived; for that is the regular way, wherein all their canonical privileges, that are contrariant to the laws of the Land, are abrogated, that is, by the King, and Houses of Parliament. See then how childishly you trifle, Parag. 10, 22. And with as little reason, do you break out, parag. 13. What? a Clergy man, and a Preacher of the Word of God, and altogether for ruin and destruction? Surely this is your corrupt gloss; I am for paring off that which is humane addition, that the Ministry which is of God's institution, may be more free, and shine more bright; and this too, to deliver the King and Kingdom, from a destroying war. Is this to destroy or preserve? Let the Reader judge. And therefore for your impertinent reviling from Corah and Judas, they will but reflect shame on yourself; neither do I detract from my office, when I bring Ministers into the same rank with other Subjects, in regard of their humane, and alterable honours or privileges; for I speak of none other.  
Next, Parag. 14. You ask, what rights of the Clergy I would have abrogated. An idle question, to raise an odium; the question being in general, whether, as the laws that concern the rights of the Laiety, may be altered by King and Parliament, without breach of his oath; so also the laws that concern the rights of the Clergy, be alterable by the same power.  
As impertinent, false, and absurd is your reply, Parag. 15. that I argue from any rights of the Kingdom, to all the rights of the Clergy; when the same sign, any, is used in both places, as yourself set it down but three lines before. The Star-chamber, and high Commission Courts stood by law, yet these were abolished; so may Bishops and their Courts, and yet ample liberties, and immunities may belong to the Clergy, and as useful to the Church of God, and more suitable to his Word, as hath been shown; and therefore your question, whether it be lawful to take away all that the Clergy hath? is merely to make show of saying something, when indeed you are destitute of a rational answer: for do I infer, that the King may take away all that the Clergy hath? or only such particulars, as upon consideration, to him, and his Houses of Parliament, seem inconvenient? let the reader judge.  
Parag. 16. But you say, it cannot be done by a just power, because justice gives every one his own, according to God's command, Render to every one his due. Good Doctor, doth this prove any more, the injustice of altering laws, concerning Clergy, then concerning Laity? are not their laws, their rights and inheritances? but with this proviso, that they may be judged on by Parliament, whether convenient or inconvenient; and accordingly, either continue, or receive repeal, with the consent of the King, and no wrong done? for the laws are but their due, with that restriction; so the case is with the Clergy, till you disprove it, which though you would fain do, yet for aught I see, you are at your wit's end, by your fillings up, parag. 17.18. with such things as contain nothing towards an answer, but somewhat to confirm my assertion out of Augustine, charity prefers public good before her own private interest: So some privileges of the Clergy are to be submitted by them to public interest, promoted by peace and union.  
At last, you come to say something to the purpose that the only regular way to abrogate any of the rights of the Clergy, or Laity, is at their own motion, or consent made, and delivered by their representatives in Parliament, or convocation. Is this true, in the general? was it true of the abrogation of the Pope's Supremacies, and such live immunities of the Clergy? as their Sanctuaries for criminal offenders, etc. could not there be an alteration of these, regularly attempted, without it had proceeded from the representative of the Clergy? Sure then, I doubt, they had stood much longer than they did, to the prejudice of the Church and kingdom.  
Reason it is, I confess, that if any of their Privileges be in question, that they should be heard, and their reasons weighed; but if, after all they can say, it appears to the King and Parliament, that some privilege of theirs is inconvenient to weal-public, it may be altered without them, if they be froward; and yet we allow them the privilege of subjects; for all other subjects have their privileges thus subjected to the wisdom of king and Parliament; and yet this no tyranny, but good and needful policy: and so also 20. & 21. parag. which are the last of this chapter, are answered.   

CHAP. V PARAG. 2. Wherein is showed, that the distinction that is between Clergy and Laity, and their privileges in this Kingdom, hinders not, but the privileges of the one are alterable by King and Parliament, as well as of the other, in answer to Doctor Boughens 11. Chapter.  
IN your 11. Chap. Parag. 1. You say, to grate the very bones of the Clergy; (I tell you) that this oath was so framed, when the Clergy of England was a distinct society, or corporation from the people of England. I do say indeed, that the Clergy, and Laity, were distinct Corporations, but not for that end, that you mention, to grate the very bones of the Clergy, but to deliver the laborious Clergy rather from that tyranny, that they were not so long since under, by a few usurpers, or abusers of power; and I do not only say, but prove, that the Clergy and Laity, were such distinct corporations, as that they were under two Supremacies; and that I say, was popery; deny it, if you have the face: but first you ask," when this oath was framed; which is but a cavil; sigh you know it was framed before Henry 8. in whose days the Pope lost his Supremacy here. We read of the oath before the Altar, according to the custom in William 1. Dan. histor. pag. 36.  
But you say, his Majesty's oath is grounded on the word of God, according to the promise, Kings shall be nursing fathers.  
I answer, the question is not, whether the king doth well to maintain the rights and privileges of the Church; he is bound to maintain the just rights and privileges of Church and Laiety both: but the question is, whether, as notwithstanding his engagement to the Laiety; he may at the motion or (if it like you better) at the Petition of the Houses, altar any law that concerns the people; he may not also, on the like petition, altar what concerns the Clergy? therefore you must speak to this, or you speak not ad idem, and proceed by the fallacy, ex ignoratione elenchi. I would have you also know, the Bishops are not the Church; that is a Popish fancy. Church is otherways taken, in the note you touch parag. 3. even for the whole body of the Jews.  
Parag. 4. You seem to oppose my assertion, that now the Clergy and Laiety are one body politic, but by a weak reason, Why then are the Bishops thrust out of the House of Peers? as though every society of the body politic, were to have a party in the House of Peers; neither were they thrust out, as you uncivilly express it, but excluded by a legal Bill.  
After, Parag. 5. You confess, what before you made semblance to deny, that the Clergy are not a several and distinct body, but a several state, or Corporation, under the same body, which I willingly grant; but thence infer, if they be but a distinct member of the same body, than the heads of the body politic, under which they are, have the same power over them and their privileges, as over the other part of the body, the Laiety. It is therefore needless, and useless pains to prove, that a Clergyman, and others, may have distinct relations, Parag. 5. 6. 7. Who denies it? but it's a false calumny, that the Ministers and Stewards of God are cut out of all; for the thing aimed at in this treatise, is but to restore to some of them, what others, without warrant from God, had usurped from them.  
Whereas you inquire parag. 8. If this distinction between Clergy and Laiety, be a branch of Popery? You must add so distinct, as to be under two Supremacies, for so it was before Henry 8. and so it's expressed in my Case; and where I pray you, is such a distinction expressed to be continued, since Henry the 8th? You cannot show it; nor doth any thing that you bring, Parag 8. or 9 conclude it: distinct they were, but not so distinct, but still they and their privileges, were under the power of the same Supremacy, as yourself confess, Parag. 10, 11. where your insinuation against me, of setting up two Supremacies, is but a flash; for I shall show in the last Chapter, that the Supremacy I give to the Parliament, is not absolute, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and two such are not inconsistent, neither doth such respective Supremacy, make the Parliament lawless, or subject to no power: and for your closing question, Where then are the two Supremacies that you erect?  
I answer, I affirm it was so, but now it is abolished, and so I charge not you with it; but infer, that being equally under one Supremacy, that one Supremacy hath equal power over the privileges of both, which was the thing to be proved. Neither do I deny what you affirm, parag. 12, 13. That there are two distinct jurisdictions in our Land, under the same head; Neither do I deny, de facto but a Bishop by the standing laws, is regularly the King's immediate Officer to the King's Court of Justice in causes Ecclesiastical: But the query is, whether this be so unalterable, that the King and Parliament may not put it to a company of Presbyters? Which you have not yet disproved. Whether covetousness, and ambition be more amongst Prelates; then Presbyters, whom you accuse, God must judge. But whether they be not like to rest more among those, that would engross all, then among those that would have jurisdiction, and maintenance divided, men may easily judge.  
For what you say, parag. 14. of Timothy and Titus; I formerly proved them to be Evangelists, and what they had extraordinary, to be ceased; what they have ordinary, to rest in Pastors, who are Presbyter-Bishops, the highest ordinary Officers. For that saying of Cyprian, Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur: I would have you reconcile it with that, 1 Cor. 3.11. Other foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid, Jesus Christ. We acknowledge de facto, in Cyprians time, that the acts of the Church were ruled by the Bishops, but that, as Jeroms tells you, was by humane custom, not Divine disposition; nor was it without Presbyters, as you would have it: who therefore are as far from the government of his times, as we; what you quote after, may be but the heat of a Bishop, to whom we oppose Saint jerem, on Titus 1. and Phil. 1. What you cite out of Ignatius, is spoken, as upon search I find, only of that Bishop, as he then stood Orthodox, in opposition to some cursed weeds, or Heretics of the devils planting; but when the Bishop was an Heretic, as you know in many places it often fell out, would they have been blessed or cursed, that held with the Bishop, think you?  
For what you add," touching the privileges of Clergy; For the most part, you falsely calumniate me, that I seek to ruin them; you know, I call the alieanation of their means Sacrilege; neither do I envy any of their just privileges; but this is that which I have in hand; whereas there be two sorts of privileges, some Divine, some humane, I question only whether those humane privileges, separable from the offices appointed by Christ in his word, such as the Monarchy of one above all other, may not upon advisement, for the good of the Republic, admit of alteration, as well as Laypriviledges? Therefore you slander me grossly in objecting, that I would take away all honour from the Ministry, that the Scriptures by prophecy or precept have given to them. But you, on the contrary, egregiously abuse the Scripture, in applying what the Scripture saith, by way of honour, or privilege of the Ministry, that is, of Apostles, Prophets, Evanglists and Presbyter-Bishops, (which only are the Scriptures Bishops) to a few Diocesans; Creatures whom the holy page never knew: And so you-sleight the generality of Pastors, to exalt a few Lord-Bishops.  
Constantine's affection was pious to the Ministers of Christ. But the Bishops he honoured so, were men of another condition than those you plead for; they lorded it not in the Church, without the joint help of their Presbyters in government. And further, if there were not some error of the times, in some of the honours which he gave; how came they so quickly to fall together by the ears for Primacy? And to give occasion to that observation, That when their Chalices were wooden, the Bishops were golden, but the Bishops became wooden, when their Chalices became golden. Sure the general abuse gives occasion to suspect some error in expression of those affections. But I hope I have said enough, to let the intelligent Reader see, how far that assertion that I maintain (to prooure peace and safety to Church and Kingdom, ready to perish by an unnatural war) is from detracting from any just or useful respect, commanded, from the people to the Ministers, if faithful; though the meanest Pastors; which I know, and people will find, God will reward as done to himself.  
But one thing is not unworthy notice, in parag. 8. Where you say, Paul willeth the Philippians to receive Epaphroditus their Apostle, or Bishop, and also chargeth them to hold such in reputation.  
Consider, I pray you, had not the Philippians, then, other such as Epaphroditus? else why doth he give them charge of others of like quality? And may you not thence see, that Epaphroditus was no singular Bishop, but such an one as might have other Presbyters his fellows in like honours.   

Case of Conscience Resolved.  
Who knows not, that one of the privileges of the Clergy, was, for the Bishops to sit and vote in the House of Peers? yet that is abolished, as incongruous to their calling. And then why may not the removal of their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction be consented to, as well, if it prove inconvenient and prejudicial to the Church? The abolition of the one, is no more against the oath, then of the other.    

CHAP. VI Answering Doctor Boughens explanations for the removal of Bishops out of the House of Lords, in his 12. chapter.  
I Proceed now to examine your 12. Chapter, spent most upon the Theme, whether it be incongruous to the calling of Bishops, to sit and vote in Parliament? And here you are very passionate; but I must first tell you, your passionate folly 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 temporal jurisdiction or authority.  The words are these; whereas Bishops and other persons in holy orders, ought not to be entangled with secular jurisdiction (the office of the Ministry being of such great importance, that it will take up the whole man;) and that it is found by long experience, that their intermeddling with secular jurisdictions, hath occasioned great mischief and scandal; both to Church and State. His Majesty, 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 Archbishop, etc. 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 murmur are not against me, but against king and Parliament.  
But you question, whether they were not thrust out to make way for these civil broils? 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 Liturgy, illegally put upon the Scots, but Prelates? who put on the king, to raise an Army against them, more than 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 engagements with them, when against Prelates: But now the king's oath must be cried up, to keep them up: but you should remember, Quicquid fit propter deum, fit aequaliter; which hints the hypocrisy of your pretences, of renderness of an oath in this case, if you had not the same tenderness in the other case.  
Then Parag. 2. You tell an Apocrypha tale, of the outcries of some Clothiers, that occasioned the making of that statute, as though men would believe your traditional tale before the express words of king and Parliament, contained in the act.  
Parag. 3.4. You inquire, why it is incongruous to the calling of Bishop, to sit and vote in the House of Peers: and raise imaginary reasons, and confute them, looking over that in the statute: That Bishops and other persons, in holy orders ought not to be entangled in secular jurisdiction; and this is grounded on Scripture, 2 Tim. 2. comparing v. 4. & 7. and more expressly 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 show, that Christ should be both king and Priest, but his kingdom was not of this world; he would not entangle 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 counsel 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 easy to tell you, of a Bishop that preached, my head acheth, to usher, in the dethroning of a king? to tell, you how R. 2. was undone, by the unpolitique counsel of the pious Bishop of Carlisle? which shows, that usually the best Bishops, are the worst States men.  
Parag. 6. You add, a wonder it is, that my faction spies this incongruity, which was never discerned by the wisest of our forefathers. See you not, how you call king and Parliament a faction, whose sense I expressed? 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 Supremacy 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 judge 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, than the Apostles to serve tables? have they not a sphere, as Ministers, that will swallow up all their abilities? why should they then, any more than the Apostles, leave their spiritual work for secular employments?  
What you add touching David, parag. 10. that he erred for want of the presence and advice of the Priests, and suffered; but after he calls for the Priests, and acknowledgeth his error, etc. This is true, and yet withal, 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 Counsel 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 sphere of Divinity, and meddle with nothing Heretogeneal to their calling? So your reasonings, parag. 11, 12. are too weak to infer votes with Peers.  
For your statute, Parag. 14. I know not what to say to it, because I know not where to find 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, etc.  
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 than 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 horsemen 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 Clergy men to their own sphere, Divinity; leaving seculars to secular-men: therefore your curse causeless shall not come.  
To parag. 17. I say, I delivered not ex tripod, but out of the marrow of the act itself, 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 wisdom and conscience, I dare far better trust than 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 King's oath, than 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 perjury? Is this you that can calumniate others without cause, as spitting in the face of authority, and yet do this, and present it to the King himself, to read his own doom?  
But you distinguish between privileges, 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 intent; that the King may alter the Prelacy 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 settled on Pastors, the highest degree of Church officers now; and those are Presbyter-Bishops; and therefore the settling 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, engrossed all power into their own hands.  

Case of Conscience resolved.  
AGain when this oath was framed, the Church was endued, by the ignorance of the times, with divers unlawful immunities; in all which respects the oath was invalid, being vinculum iniquitatis; and some were pared off, as light shined forth. And why may not the great revenues of the Bishops, with their sole jurisdiction, in so large a circuit, be indicted and convict to be against the edification of the Church, and it be found more for the glory of God, that both the revenue be divided to maintain a preaching Ministry; and their jurisdiction also, for the better oversight and censure of manners? And then is there as good a plea, notwithstanding the oath, to alter this useless anti-Evangelical pomp, and domination of a few; as to antiquate, other immunities, arising from the error of the times, not the tenure of Scripture. Were indeed the priviledgs in question, such as were for the advantage of the Church, to further her edificacation; or had the Prelates been good Stewards, and innocent in the use of them; then had the plea carried a fairer show. But these having been so many forfeitures by abuse; and these great promotions, and jurisdictions, being as unwieldy to a spiritual soldier, as saul's armour to David; and so do not further, but hinder the work of the Gospel, whose strong holds are to be vanquished, not by carnal pomp, but spiritual furniture, mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.4. I see no just engagement to maintain such cumbersome greatness, adding only glory to the person, not vigour to the main work of the Ecclesiastic.  
Again, thus I argue: If the king may consent to alter the laws of the Nation, notwithstanding his oath, than so he may also the Clergies immunities: for those rights and immunities, they either hold them by law, or otherways: If by law, than the Parliament, which hath power to alter all laws, hath power to alter such laws as give them their immunities; and those laws altered, the immunity ceaseth, and so the king's engagement in that particular. If their immunity be not by law, it is either an usurpation without just title, which upon discovery, is null: Or, it was given by Papal power in times of darkness, which being an Anti-christian usurpation, is long since abolished in this kingdom.    

CHAP. VII. Showing, that the Monarchical jurisdiction and great revenues of the Bishops, may be divided to the advantage of the Church, in answer to Doctor Boughens 13. Chapter.  
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 prejudicial to the the Church, against unlawful immunities, anti-evangelical pom, pcumbersome greatness, and forfeitures by abuse, and these, you say, are cried out of, but none of them proved.  
I answer, the very expression were so clear, of things obvious to every impartial eye, that proof seemed 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, unlawful immunities.  
You argue, if they were held by law, than not un lawful, but legal.  
I answer, legal they were, because allowed by man's law, yet unlawful, because against God's law.  
Your next quarrel, is at the expression, when the oath was framed, the Church was endued 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 Popery? 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 King's 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 sanctuary; 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 Archbishop 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 scandalise 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. Almost (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 engage themselves with a pious zeal, but not according to knowledge, charging them with a crime, answerable to Magus his base self-seeking hypocrisy? or so inconsistent with a state of grace? If it should, what case do you put king and Parliament in, which more than once, charge them with perjury.  
But tell me sincerely, do you not think, in times of Popery, many unlawful things were given to the Clergy? and that many Canonical privileges were unlawful? Sure either their immunities, or the reformation of them was unlawful; had you rather condemn the reformation, than 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 Irony, 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 marshaled into Presbyteries, in the several parts of a Diocese, may not more easily see, and more speedily take course to redress errors, and apply general remedies for the reclaiming of the scandalous, than one Bishop over divers hundred Congregations, some of them the better part of a hundred miles from him. The Dioceses 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 Dioceses 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 bade made a Bishop, she had spoilt 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 cumbersome? Yet we deny not, that there was preaching under the Bishops, but I am sure there was the less for many of them; they silenced Preachers, prohibited preaching on Lords days, Afternoon, etc. And there was censure of manners, but yet Visitations were but once a year, and Presentations to be but twice; and might not many a man fall into, and perish in sin for all this? Besides that, their censures were more nimble against me for strictness, than looseness or profaneness. I believe therefore, the intelligent Reader will not be scoffed out of his belief of what I have hinted.  
Your Parag. 6. Gins, as you call it, with distempered foam, ends with appeal to last judgement, which is one main thing which hath made quiet me under Prelatical oppression, having referred myself to him that judgeth righteously.  
More of your foam 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 adorn your sarcasms; and yet I confess, htis alteration of the jurisdiction into more hands; and of the means of Bishops, to maintain more mouths 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 antichristian: But I by it, shall blow off all your aspersions, that you lay upon me, as an enemy of the Church, and Ministry, in my plea against Bishops, whereas this one thing shows, I seek the good of both, and that rationally.  
Parag. 8. You trifle again about the word altar, the vanity of which exception, was before showed. After you cast about your foam, which deserves no answer, but indignation; but whereas you would abuse Saint Augustine, to prove me an Heretic, citing out of him, that he is an Heretic, that for any temporary commodity, and chief 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 myself to him, that tries the heart and reins.  
Parag. 9 You come to examine what I said, touching the legality of your privileges, that if they be held by law, the Parliament that hath power to alter all laws, may alter those laws, and so the immunity ceaseth. You here first grant, you claim no privileges, 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 Atheistical to affirm that the Parliament can alter the laws of God; but all this is but trifling; for you know, by laws, I mean only humane laws of their own making, and all laws are understood by me, divisim, not conjunctim, that is, they have power to advise upon any particular law whatsoever, or whomsoever it concerns; and if on advisement, it seem conducible to weal-publike, to alter it, they have power to proceed to alteration; and so the Londoners themselves (whom here you would jeer, or provoke against me) would not (I am sure they should not) deny the Parliaments power to alter any of their immunities, that are convinced prejudicial to the weal-public.  
Parag. 12. To that which I say, upon the alteration of the law, the immunity 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 absolved from the oath of alliegance, by an ordinance, let them bear their burden; 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 yourself in impertinent accusations.  
But you conclude, Parag. 13. that suppose there be such a law, could it be just? etc. You are pleased to acknowledge our privileges to be our rights, how then can they be taken from us without injury?  
1. You altar the state of the question; for every injury is not perjury: the query was, whether they could be taken away without perjury.  
2. I acknowledge them your rights, that is, such as you have a legal claim to, while the laws thus stand; but these your rights were of three sorts: 1. Some of your Canonical privileges (at least formerly) were corrupt. Such were abolished by Henry the 8. These were your rights, that is, you had claim to them by man's, not God's law. 2. Some were essential 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 anomy. The second unviolable, by the unquestionable authority of God, the Author of them. The third are under the Consult of Parliaments, as other laws, which are the people's birthright, and they may alter both, if they see occasion: So the laws that concern the Clergy, make them neither worse nor better, than those laws that concern the Laiety, render them.  

Case of Conscience Resolved.  
THe Author illustrateth the force of his argument, by an example, holding forth an inconvenience: Where public faith is given for money, it is not releaseable by Parliament, without consent of the party; for if it be, it is in effect, no engagement, etc.  
Answ. There's a great deal of difference between an engagement made to persons on valuable considerations; and that which is made gratis to an office, or society, subservient to public good: Of the former kind, is the engagement to pay sums of money, of whom they were borrowed for public good, which is indispensible without the consent of the lender. Of the latter sort is this engagement to the English Clergy. Now engagements to a Society, to maintain their rights, indulged for the personal worth of present incumbents; or to promote the usefulness of that office: If in their matter they prove prejudicial to the office; or the succeeding officers, by their ill demeanour, forfeit them, their engagement becomes alterable: There is no injustice done to make a law to overrule, or alter this engagement. There's no question of power in the Parliament, to overrule it; for in the former case of money, if the King and Parliament should ordain release of the engagement, the engagement was gone in law, not in equity the order would be valid in law though injurious: So, if there be no injury, the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation. And where there is forfeiture by miscarriage, or the privilege to a Ministry (which ought to hold nothing but for public good) proves prejudicial, the abrogation will be just, as well as legal, there will be no injury done.  
But take it at the worst, it is but for the King to get the Clergies consent; and I hope in this case, they will not be so tenacious of their wealth and honour, as to let the Crown run an hazard, rather than they lay down their Mitres, and endanger the whole land to be brought to nothing, rather than themselves to moderation. I cannot but have a better conceit of the Major part of them, at this time, which will amount to a consent, and that, in this Author's judgement, takes off the scruple about the oath.    

CHAP. VIII. Showing, that abuses are a forfeiture of some privileges, in answer to Doctor Boughen's 14. Chapter.  
I Come now to answer your 14. Chapter, which you entitle, whether the lands of the Church may be forfeited by the misdemeanour of the Clergy?  
But here I must mind you, and the Christian reader, that whereas there are two parts of the Clergy in England;  
1. Parochial 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 Schisms;  
That which I have spoken of forfeitures, belongs to the latter, which are not God's ordinance; though it may be, so they would keep within ancient bounds, and express ancient worth, they might not be only tolerable, but useful; 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, than they make forfeiture.  
Now the Case thus stated; Your instance, Parag. 1. of Abiathars being succeeded by another, not the office abolished, is not a pari, for that was in an office expressly God's ordinance; so Episcopacy is not.  
What you say, Parag. 2. about justice, out of Lactantius, who in that place distinguisheth between Jus , quod pro moribus ubique variatur, & vera justitia quàm uniformem, ac simplicem proposuit omnibus Deus. I acknowledge 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 Commonwealth, etc. It is evidently contrary to his mind; for though this true and perfect justice, was wanting in all heathen societies, (for they had some constitutions, that swerved from it:) yet no man will say, there were no Commonwealths, but tyrannies, among the heathen, though they were not such complete Commonwealths as they might have been, had they known the rule of God's 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 society subservient to public good; You answer, that the settling 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 injury 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 injury to deny courtesies, which are given gratis to men for their worth. Artaxerxes bestowed a great largess on the Ministers of the Sanctuary, and he did excellently well 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 King's benevolence, and neglected the work of God, and had grown insolent against the Monarch; Whether it had been injurious in the succeeding Monarches, to have recalled that gift given to good men, to make them more serviceable to God, and devout in their prayers for the King.  
But Par. 4. You say, these lands and immunities were made to the office, and Episcopacy is a living office. But I answer, it's an office that may die, for the Diocesan-Bishop can find his Register in God's Book, he is later than 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 abolished, but till than 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 encroachments (excluding Presbyters) and Canonical privileges, which it challengeth, is grown burdensome, instead of useful, and the incumbents for the general much degenerate, both neglecting the main of a Pastor's office, preaching, and abusing their power to the hindering 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 itself. I believe, if the King had conquered, 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 privileges, by abuse and misdemeanours? For what you say, ' of Parliaments power, Parag. 6. I would you would always speak so modestly: By Parliamentary 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 Episcopacy, 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 outcry made, but the best is, it's a great deal of cry, and little wool. The outcry is at these words; If King and Parliament release the engagement, in the case of money, the engagement were gone 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 passed by King and Parliament, and that amounts to a law, and later laws overrule 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 outcry is at this, gone 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 Mary's time, laws, though injurious? And the Martyrs brought to a legal trial, by the Statute-laws of the Land, though injurious ones? This is so plain, that no rational man can deny it; and all the show 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 
* Yourself say pag. 40. Lex non obligat subditos in foro conscientiae, nisi sit just. The law binds not Subjects in the Court of conscience, unless it be just; But then this implies, in foro humano it doth, which agrees to what I say, but that you have a mind to quarrel.  pag. 94. l. 12. shows 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, etc. are Sophistical and childish, or malicious; whereas, you say, I stretch my conscience, and justify a power in the Parliament to do injury, and not only so, but a power to make laws to justify this injury; It's a most false slander: I say, there is in King and Parliament that Peerless power, that their agreement makes a law; but if they stretch this to unjust things, they abuse their power, and become injurious, and sin, yet we have no plea against them in law, that is, in foro humano, but in equity and conscience.  
Parag. 10. You quarrel, in like manner, with those words. So if there be no injury, the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation, which your dulness or passion makes you not understand and so you play the ape with them. The meaning is this, The King and Houses being the supreme power, what they ratify, 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 authority, and so valid in foro humano, in man's Court; yet that authority observes not the right rules of equity, 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 privileges as are necessary or useful; but neither is Episcopacy such an office, nor their large jurisdiction, and great pomp, such privileges.  
Parag. 13. Runs on the same string, " touching an office instituted of God, which Episcopacy is not, though Ministry be. And then kindly (as often formerly) grant the question, that of privileges perchance there may be a forfeiture, where they prove prejudicial to the public good; and so waves the question from that which is de jure, of right, which he hath been disputing all this while, to that which is de facto, of the fact of prejudice to the public: 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, etc. I answer, but the Bishops are not the Church; you do not, I hope, approve that popish language, they were then but a part, and an unsound part, being vassals to the man of sin. Yet William the Conqueror did ill, to appropriate Church-lands for covetousness, and for it might miscarry; so did they for the same cause, rob the Temples of the Heathen Deities; whence the proverb, Aurum Tolosanum, in Aulus Gel. Noct. Attic. lib. 3. c. 9 Yet they did well, that conscientiously abolished 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 sudden 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  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 hazard. Are you sorry to hear a Preacher speak the truth? hath not the Crown run an hazard 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 falsely slander; for though I know no cause that I should have had to grieve, to see the Bishops stripped of their greatness in a fair way; yet I have as seriously, and sincerely grieved for the hazard of of the Crown, as yourself; and have been as far from furthering 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 persuade 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 God's ordinances; partly occasioned it by neglect of good Discipline, and rigorously requiring conformity 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? Blasphemy in one kind they hindered not, in that they let blaspemous swearers pass without discipline, and enjoy the privileges of Sacraments. Atheism they promoted, by hindering the preaching of the Gospel, which they were enemies to, for the most part, to uphold their dumb Ministry, and for fear their idleness should be censured. They taught rebellion against the Lord, in teaching men to profane his Sabbaths: They hindered not, but occasioned bloodshed, 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 men's sores; but to show 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 people's dislike of them had not acted in a 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 quarrel 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 Episcopacy, 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 parochial charge, as they did before their Episcopacy; 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 Bishop's 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 elsewhere, in an accusatory way," of what is done to the Bishops and Clergy; I might object what hath been done to the Clergy 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 judgements for them.  
And therefore, in your Parag. 20. is slander out of malice or mistake, that I have preached for the Bishop's wealth, or mitre, etc. but your opinion is at last, if others be so violent to put him to it, the King and his posterity must perish,  you will consent to part with your greatness and honour. Sure, if you count those that put the King upon this straight, 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 loyalty? This shows what you pretend love to the King for; to uphold your own greatness, not his, further than it upholds yours.  
Parag. 21. You conclude, that if the Bishops knew themselves guilty of the difference between the King and Parliament, God forbidden but they should part with all they may, etc. 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, spoke the mind 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 sphere 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.  

Case of Conscience Resolved.  
BEsides this argument, there be other insinuations brought in by the same Author, that it would be dishonourable to the King's memory, to be an unfortunate instrument to pull down Cathedrals, and impoverish them, etc.  
Answ. To abolish Prelacy, and seize the revenue of Prelates to private or civil interest, undoubtedly could neither want stain nor guilt; such kind of impropriation as happened in the days of Henry the 8. was cried out of, all the Christian world over. Illam bonorum Ecclesiasticorum dissipationem cum detestando sacrilegio conjunctam, tecum & cum bonis omnibus deploramus, scelus universo orbi common, saith Beza, in respon. ad Sarav. de grad. Minist. pag. ult. But who knows not the great defect amongst us of congruous maintenance for Parochial Pastors, by whom the work of the Ministry is chief to be performed? And if those large revenues of the Prelates, were directed to supply with sufficient maintenance, all the defective Parishes in England, there would be no danger of sacrilege. And this would not be to ruin, but to rectify the devotion of former ages, and turn pomp into use, and impediments into helps. A work, for which following generations should not need to pity the king, as put upon it by misfortune, but rise up and call him blessed, whose many other disasters ended in so good and useful a work. Had the motives of Henry the 8. been as honest, to cast off Papal jurisdiction, as the act was holy; and the improvement of Abbey lands, as conformable to divine law, as the dissolution of Abbeys, to the rules of Divine wisdom: He might not only have been honourable in our Annals; but, if I may so speak, a Saint in our Calendar. It was the circumstances of actions, in themselves glorious, which made them a dishonour to him, though advantageous to the Church; which circumstances being avoided in the thing in question, God and good men will highly approve it, which is the only real, and regardable honour: Thus far my first opponent.    

CHAP. IX. Wherein is showed, that the converting of Bishop's Lands to maintain preaching-Ministers, would not be sacrilege, but a good work, in answer to Doctor Boughen's 15. Chapter.  
I Come now to answer to your 15. Chapter, wherein you dispute the Case, whether it be lawful to confer Bishops Lands on Presbyters; and first you say, the Church is like our Saviour Christ between two thiefs, 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 Episcopacy, are far more for Christ than 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 fancy. After, you say, I like theft, so I and my fellow. Presbyterians may be gainers; but your position is false: I abhor theft as much as you do, nor do I look at the gain of myself, 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 live occasion scandalous Ministers: And this we think is in the power of king and Parliament to do without theft. The revenues annexed to Cathedrals, being intended for the best good of the Church.  
But Parag. 2. You acknowledge 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 preached, would be profitable to the Church, and acceptable to God. For Ordination, we have spoken before, and shown, that Presbyters have as much power from God to ordain, as your Prelates, and are as good Bishops; only the other, by custom, gradatim, have robbed them. We shall have a choice piece, when you come to examine Divine right. I shall wish the Divines to be more careful to provide patience to bear your rail, than perspicacity to discern your subtleties: 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 it's made, it's not valid, without the proprietary, and that is God, etc. 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 that's the aim, and would be the issue of the diversion spoken of, that Christ might more preached, even to those that have long sat in darkness, and in the shadow of death.  
Nor is every diversion, (as you say, Parag. 5.) a turning rout 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 approved by as wise, and as honest men, as you. Do not you yourself, pag. 119. say, concerning Abbeys and Pryories; That good and pious men have wished that the abuses had been pruned off, and that the land had been disposed of, according to the Donors' intentions? What's that but diversion from the corrupt way of Abbeys and priories, 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-good, belonged to Bishops, and this not only 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 yourself; 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 Dioceses wanting preaching Presbyters, for want of maintenance, and many that preached wanting subsistence; and the Bishop, who you say, should maintain them, maintaining Princely 
* I myself once saw the Bishop of York, riding towards London, with forty five men in his Livery. And I wondering at the number, was told by one of them, that there was above twenty left behind, that wore their Lord's Livery.  State, a number of Servingmen, etc. 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 Apostolic 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 church-good; 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 shows 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 reaped 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 Diocese. Yet you say, in those times, Bishops and Presbyters were used to live in the same house: What, all the Presbyters in a Diocese? 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 inquire, Whence the want of maintenance for preaching Presbyters ariseth, and you answer, it is from the appropriation of tithes, 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 tithes, 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 ingenuity or affection to religion, but he made a far more considerable addition, out of his impropriation, to the incumbent, than 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 tithes in a legal 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 Bishop's Lands were bestowed on Presbyters: This would be, not ruin, but to rectify the devotion of former ages, which you say, is somewhat like Cardinal Woolsey's pretence, who dissolved forty small Monasteries of ignorant Monks, to erect two goodly Colleges 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 rational men will disallow it: But you would prove by the event, that this was not accepted of God, because his Colleges were not brought to perfection. But vulgus res eventu metitur, it's for vulgar capacities to judge of things by the event, not Doctors of Divinity. And had Cardinal 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 judge;" but this gave occasion to profuse sacrilege; but occasions are not always 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 inquire, 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 heresy, we have covenanted to root out, and have brought in all helps to irreligion and Atheism, etc. But this is but a false suggestion of yours; for though the power of Episcopacy (as Jerome saith) was first erected to prevent schism; yet amongst us of late, as I have showed, 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 Episcopacy was pull d down, but because we were so long without Presbytery settled, which is yet but lamely done; for where that is settled, it would far better prevent the rise and growth of heresy, than Episcopacy; as King James demonstrated to Montague, 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 heresy, 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 paracls. 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; Montague, Bishop of Bath and Wells, asked King James seriously, whence it was, that England did bring forth Sects, heresies, schisms, insomuch, that many families, before we were ware, 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 skilful 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 always resident, and vigilant in his parish; and this Pastor hath joined 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 heresy therefore can spring up in a Parish, without notice taken by the Pastor; and to prevent the rooting of any error in a Pastor, They have every week their Presbyteries, composed of all the Pastors in a Shrievalty, or Deanrie, in the chief City of that precinct; and this, not only to decide the more weighty questions touching manners; but also to try doctrine itself: Here do prophesy at least two; whereof the first doth only open the text and expound it: The second doth give the use, exhortation, and application: This finished, the rest meet together, and the two speakers go aside, until the Moderator of the Presbytery asketh every ones opinion of the doctrine delivered. And if (to say no worse) they do but smell out any thing, either it's forthwith buried by common suffrage, or if the Presbytery be divided in any question, yet at least, the whole matter is hushed in silence until the next Synod, which come twice a year. 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 gins with a Sermon; and then, either a new Moderator is chosen, or (which seldom falls out) the old is continued. The question referred to the Synod, is either composed, or hushed up again in silence, and referred to the National Synod, held once every year. Hither come, not only the Pastors, but the King, or his Commissioner, and usually some of all degrees, sufficiently furnished with judgement and authority to compose any controversy; so Heresy is stifled in the very birth. So you may see, that Presbytery is a better way to keep out, or under Schisms and Heresies, in King James his judgement, grounded on experience, than Episcopacy: For what you add, That the Pulpits and Presses, are locked up to all Orthodox men; Is false: if to any, it is my grief: I am not to answer for others faults.  
Parag. 13. You say, It's true, and not true, that by Parochial Pastors, the work of the Ministry is chief to be performed. True you say, it is in the Father's sense, not in mine. But my sense, I shall prove to you, is Scripture sense: For Pastors in my sense, are such as were ordained, Act. 14.13. and Tit. 1.5. in every Church, and were by the Holy Ghost, made overseers of them to feed them, Act. 20.28. This you confess; for these places you understand of Presbyter-Bishops. And I hope you will not oppose Fathers to Scriptures; if you do, you know who must fall, Gal. 1.8. It's true, that the place of a Bishop's jurisdiction, was sometime called a Parish; But that Parish was usually not so big as some Parishes in England now; If they were, how could six Bishops be assembled to the censure of every Presbyter, as the Canon was: sure thats above the number of all the Bishops that are in one of our Provinces, which grates hard on your Diocesans, showing, how unlike they are to ancient Bishops. ' Nor are the ordering of the Church, or ordaining of Presbyters, without the sphere of Presbyters, by any law of God, but humane custom: No, nor are these the chief works of the Ministry; No Doctor: Preaching, and sound Doctrine are the chief acts of the Ministry, 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 behind 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 show yourself 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 magis tale. And I will grant, that they that ordain Preachers, aught 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 only 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 philosophy? Generare sibi simile, To beget his like, is the affection of a living creature; And Presbytery, you know, is a living office, ergo, Presbyters may ordain Presbyters. I believe, you will sweat to give a rational answer to it. What you add about ordinary Courts of justice, and Parliament; Sir, though I count the Parliament the supreme Court, yet justice is chief done by inferior Courts, because it ordinarily lies on them, and the Parliament is only to supply and rectify their errors.  
But you proceed, and Parag. 15.16. Compare the Ministers to soldiers 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 levelly the Presbyters with the people, whom the Holy Ghost calls their guides set over them: Such similitudes you use to make. But every Preacher is not fit to be a Bishop: that's your judgement; but the Holy Ghost saith none should preach, except he be sent, and none should be sent, but such as are fitted to take the care and over sight of the Church, and that's the Holy Ghost's Bishop: Whatever your opinion is, see 1 Tim. 3.5. Acts 20.28. Indeed, such a Bishop as you would have, Monarchically to govern a whole Diocese of a Shire or two, cannot be made ex quolibet ligno; but neither Scriptures, nor primitive times acknowledge any such Bishop; But such a Bishop as may join with others in the government of a Church: a meaner man may be without prejudice, for others maturity in judgement, may help his want of experience.  
What you object, Parag. 17. about the Levellers Doctrine is suitable to this; Is but a capricious fancy of your own; for God hath comprised all ordinary Ministers under the same name of Pastors; and therefore man can make no difference among them, but for order's sake. Neither do I go about to levelly 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 sacrilege in my way. And first, you say, to overthrow Episcopacy, is to overthrow the Church, and for that it's not enough for you to abuse a Father, but an Apostle too; for when Saint Paul saith, we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Ephes. 2.20. What's that, saith Beza, but Jesus Christ? So the Apostle, who is the best interpreter of himself, explicates it, 1 Cor. 3.9. and adds, Planè est Anti-Christus, quî sibi tribnit quod unius Christi est: He is plainly anti-Christ, that arrogates to himself (or to any other) what is only Christ's. What think you of this? Again, those that take the Apostles to be the foundation, is it in respect of their persons, authority, 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 Ministry 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 sacrilege in robbing Father and Mother? But you answer for me, that it is no sacrilege, because the means shall still be settled on the Church: and that's a reason which you cannot answer: For sacrilege is an alienating of that which was justly devoted for sacred, to civil, or profane use; therefore change, so there be a continuance of holy use, is no sacrilege: 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 lies to take care for the edification of the Church: To dispose the Church's Patrimony, so as may be best for edification of the Church, appointing it to maintain preachers, not pomp, will be counted neither sacrilege, nor theft, by rational 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 Counsel of Chalcedon; but that Counsel spoke according to the corrupt customs of those times, not according to the tenure of Scriptures, who make all the Presbyters overseers over their particular flocks, to dwell with them as men of knowledge, and to take care for them; and that's to be in your sense 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 preached by Prebyters, bastards? nay, what if Churches cast off Episcopacy, are all her Presbyters bastards? Do you thus gratify the Papists, and abuse all the Ministers of our sister reform Churches? many of which far outstrip you in all ministerial 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 unlawful act: I disclaimed it in the very entrance of my Case resolved; but I only persuade to what, for aught I yet see, I have proved lawful; 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 hearty prayer, as those that know me can very well witness, notwithstanding your ignorant calumniations, to the contrary.  

Case of Conscience Resolved.  
MY second Antagonist exceeds the first, both in subtlety and peremptoriness; for he plainly affirms, that the King cannot desert Episcopacy, without flat perjury; and hence falls foul, both on those that would force him to it: and also on those moderate Courtiers, that for peace sake, counselled it. He disputes thus; There's difference between laws and oaths: Where the supreme Jus dominii is, there is a power above all laws, but not above their own oaths, in whom that power is; for law binds only while it is a law, that is, till it be repealed: But an oath bindeth as long as it pleaseth him, to whom it is taken: The reason is, because the supreme power may cedere jure suo, and oblige himself where before he was free; which if they do by promise, justice binds them to performance; but if by an oath, (the matter being lawful) then are they bound in religion and conscience; for an oath adds a religious bond unto God. If this were not so, no oath were binding to them.  
I answer; First, it's a ground laid down by this Author in the same place, that no oath is obligatory beyond the intention of it; and then I first propound it to consideration, whether the intention of this oath be not only against a tyrannous invasion on the rights of the Clergy, not against an orderly alteration of them, if any prove inconvenient; and to protect them against violence, not against legal ways of change?  
For first, this is as much, as is rational for a King to undertake; and therefore in right reason, the oath should have no other sense, if the words of the oath will bear it, as the words of this oath will.  
Secondly, this oath to the Clergy, must not be intended in a sense inconsistent with the King's oath, to the people, first taken for their protection in their laws and liberties; for then the latter oath will be a present breach of the former, and so unlawful. Now one of the Privileges of the People is, that the Peers and Commons in Parliament, have power, with the consent of the King, to alter whatever, in any particular estate, is inconvenient to the whole. And therefore he cannot afterward engage himself to any particular estate, to exempt it from this power; for by that oath, at least, cessit jure suo, in this Author's judgement; The Clergy and their privileges, are subject to the Parliament, or they are not; I hope, they will not now claim an exemption from fecular power: But if they be under Parliamentary power, how can it be rationally conceived to be the meaning of the King's oath, to preserve the Privileges of the Clergy against that power, to which they are legally subject? or how were the oath in that sense, consistent with the privileges of the nation, formerly sworn to by the king? If the oath had such a sense in times of Popery, when the Clergy were a distinct Corporation; yet when that exemption was abolished, as a branch of Antichristian usurpation: The change of their condition must needs change the intention of the oath, unless they will say, that the Crown stands still engaged to them, to maintain such privileges as by Act of Parliament, were long since abolished, which is, to make his oath to them contrariant to that taken before, for the maintenance of the laws: It's apparent then, to make the intention of the oath to be against a legal alteration by Parliament, makes it unlawful, and so not obligatory. And if it be not intended against legal alteration, the king may pass a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy, when his Houses of Parliament think it convenient, and petition for it, without violation of his oath.    


CHAP. X. PARAG. 1. Wherein is showed, what the true intention of the King's oath is, for maintenance of Episcopacy, in answer to Doctor Boughen's 8. Chapter.  
I Come now to answer the 8. Chapter, wherein you were pleased to take in hand this passage, beginning with my answer to my latter opponent, first; and yet you did not make an end with him, before you undertook to reply to my answer to my first opponent; which how judicious it is, let the Reader judge: for what advantage you did it, you best know.  
The question is, you say, Whether the King may desert Episcopacy without perjury, a question too high for any subject; but you are enforced to make that a question, that is harsh to loyal ears, lest you may seem to avoid my subtle and saucy cavils, as unanswerable. Good words, Doctor: If the question be too high for a subject, have not I the same plea for meddling with it, that you have, being led into it by my opponents? but the truth is, the question is fit enough for discussion, so it be done with reverence; whatever I am, I know you will confess, that both my former opponents knew as well their duty to our Sovereign, as you yourself, and were as observant of it: when men are to act by counsel or prayer for kings, unless they know, in Cases proposed, what is conscionable for him to do, or not to do, how can they rightly perform their duties? To balk such questions therefore, on just occasion, is not duty, but flattery; and to leave kings and their Counsellors without needful light: But you have a quarrel to me, for saying my second Antagonist affirms, that the King cannot desert Episcopacy without flat perjury, and say, his words are far more mannerly; why did you not then set down his more mannerly words, but abuse your reader with a falsity? but you will prove the thing, that Episcopacy may not be deserted without violation of oath, and the Church left to swine. No Sir, we would purge it of swine, and dogs too, which they exposed its choicest outward privileges to; but how do you prove it?  
First, Parag. 2. You go a begging, telling one of my confession, when I do but take the words of the oath from my Antagonists mouth, and dispute ex concesso, that the oath is as he relates it, To protect the Bishops, &c, and then you bring your observations, 1. Good Kings protect Bishops, 2. They ought to do it. 3. In right they ought to do it. But when I confess, that these words are in the oath, must I therefore approve all that is in the oath, yea, and take them in your sense too? I hope not.  
Thus far I approve the king's protecting Bishops, within the limits of their calling set them of God; but our Prelates have excluded their fellow-Presbyters. But thirdly, as of right he ought to do; I take to be a limitation how far he engageth himself, that is, so far as a good king in right aught to do, and if he go no further, he is injurious to none, though he displeases many, as you say, Parag. 3.  
Parag. 4. You add, the King hath sworn to be protector of the Church under his government, but that cannot be, unless he protect the Bishops, who are the Ministerial spouse of the Church: This is a false inference, for though the Ministry be necessary to the Church, yet not your Prelacy, which is but an humane additament: your proof is presumptuous, to make any man a Ministerial spouse of the Church, as well as it is for the Pope to be made a Ministerial head of it.  
Yet you repeat it, Parag. 5. With our frequent dish of no ordination without them, which hath been often enough answered. You conclude, if Bishops be of the same order with the Apostles, you have calvin's acknowledgement, that the Church cannot stand without them: yea, and mine too, and yet never the nearer; for, Ante Leves ergo. etc. as soon shall you find Hearts feeding in the middle region of the air, as your Bishops among the Apostles.  
You add, Parag. 6. that the Church cannot be without the Bishop, if we believe Cyprian, that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop; you add, that the Church is in the Bishop, causally, etc. If you understand by the Bishop, the Ministry, and by causally, as an instrument of its preservation; I grant it, without any inconvenience: otherways we can grant the Church to be causally in none other but Jesus Christ, the true head of it; nor is there any other that is fountain of it: it's as flat Popery to judge otherways, as to make the Pope the head of the Church: nay worse: For Hart makes the Pope to be the head; not as the fountain of life, as your similitude imports: but only in regard of directing the outward functions; and yet for this, that mirror of learning, Doctor Reynolds, doth implead Mr. Hart of high treason against Christ. And I remember also there, a witty and rational answer, that our learned Doctor makes to a place cited out of Leo. He grants Leo was an ancient: learned, holy, and witty man, yet a man, and a Bishop of Rome, etc. and applies to him a saying of Tully to Hortensius, when he immoderately praised eloquence, that he would lift her up to heaven, that himself might go up with her; so did Leo lift up St. Peter, etc. So Cyprian was an holy man, but a Bishop, so he might extol Bishops, that he might lift up himself with them. See confer, between Reynolds and Hart. cap. 1. divis. 2. therefore your premises have not yet force to draw my consent to their conclusion.  
Parag. 7. You grant, " that the oath is not obligatory beyond the intention, that is, say you, according to the common plain and literal meaning of it; good: as the plain literal meaning is to be found out of the grammar of it: and other circumstances, that may convince Reason of the intention of it.  
You add, Parag. 8. That the oath is to the Clergy, The King must have respect to them and their intention.  
I answer, not mental, but what the words of the oath import, considered with its circumstances; nor so much to the intention of the now giver, as the first framer.  
Now, I beseech you, if the King should have asked the Bishops, at the giving, whether if a Case should fall out, that he must not only venture (which he hath done,) but lose his Crown, rather than fail to save them, whether they would have said, yea, that is the meaning: Truly I believe not, and if they had, the King and Peers, and people, would have hissed them out rather, than the one would have persuaded, or the other would have yielded to have taken it with that sense and intention.  
Parag. 9 You inquire,, whether what hath been done, hath not been a tyrannous invasion?  
I answer, there hath been too much tumult, and Ministers have suffered too irregularly on both sides; but when the Houses present a Petition to the king, with a Bill, for abolition of Episcopacy, that only is the regular way, that I defend the king not to be engaged against.  
Parag. 10. You say, it was his duty to protect you while it was in his power.  
I answer, it was, and is his duty, so far as it was intended in the oath, but was not to hazard the destruction of himself and kingdom, for your Prelates; yet I advise not the breaking of his oath, as you would hint; but I limit the intention of the engagement of the oath, as in reason it ought to be. If you be not against an orderly alteration, (as you say, Parag. 4.) You grant the question, for than if the Parliament lay down their swords, and come with a Petition to desire his assent, notwithstanding his oath, he may assent, which was the thing to be proved.  
For my part, I abhor force upon a king; but if he might sign a Bill without force, I see no reason why danger of force can make it unlawful.  
To Parag. 12. I say, if the king hath done his best to protect them against violence, they can require no more, he hath done as much as his oath doth require; now he may take care to preserve himself, issue, and people. And for his Ministers, let them answer for themselves.   

CHAP. X. PARAG. 2. Showing the right sense of the King's Coronation-Oath, from this, that what he undertakes for the Bishops, must not be conceived to cross what he hath promised to the people; in answer to Doctor Boughen's 8. Chapter.  
I Proceed now to answer your eight Chapter, whose very Title is ominious, Whether the King's Oath taken to the Clergy, be injurious to his other subjects, and inconsistent with his oath to his people. Hereby you would insinuate, that I affirm it is, whereas I affirm, it cannot be conceived so to be, and therefore we must not put a sense upon it to make it so to be; and from this ground, I impugn your false sense of the oath, namely, that it takes away all power from the King, at the suit of his Parliament, to alter any of their jurisdictions, whereof they show the grievance. It's therefore a calumnious insinuation of yours, that I do set the liberties of the people against the Clergies; It's your false enhancing your privileges above those of the people, alterable by King and Parliament that is guilty of the incompatibility of their privileges, if such an evil be; and therefore I say Amen to your prayer, closing. Parag. 1.  
Parag. 2. I agree that God's law is unalerable by man: And I desire no more from you then that, what is sealed by man is alterable by man. For I plead for alteration of no privilege, but what is from humane indulgence, and that such an one too, that the Church may better want it, then have it in her Clergy.  
That of Par. 3.4. Touching justness of laws, may pass with some Animadversion of that of Ocham, that laws, nemini notabile afferant nocumentum: If by nocumentum we understand damage. For the law to pull down the houses in Rome, that stood in the Augurs way, (their principles granted) was just, yet it brought notable damage to the owners, but the public good was to carry it away: So laws among us against Monopolies undid some; yet the public emolument made the law just.  
Parag. 5.6. Are ignorant, trifling, or worse: For first, you quarrel at the phrase, the protection of the people's laws; who say you, made them Lawmakers? Not I Sir, but when King and Parliament have made them, they have propriety in them. The privilege of them is usually called part of their birthright. A man may call an house his own, because he possesseth it, and hath the benefit of it, though he made it not. So I call the laws the people's: But yet the following cavil is worse: For whereas I say, one of the privileges of the people is, that the Peers, and Commons in Parliament, have power, with consent of the King, to alter what ever, in any estate, is prejudicial to the whole; I had thought (say you) this had not been a privilege of the people, but the Parliament Representers, not the people Representees, etc. And again parag. 6. How the Lords will take this, I know not; Can they endure their power to be derivative? etc. Which all are but trifling and odious mistakes: For he might well know, that by People, I mean all, in distinction from the King, of what state soever, Peers, or others: Nay, doth not he himself take it so? witness his own expression, pag. 49. lin. 1.2. ‛ Under this word People, are comprehended the Nobility, Clergy, and Commons of this Kingdom. How trifling then are his exceptions, as though I set the people against the Parliament? When under People, I comprehend, as himself doth, all the Members of the Parliament.  
And yet more absurd is your trifling, parag. 7. in arguing against those words, That the Peers and Commons, have power to alter whatsoever is inconvenient, because it is in the King's consent to confirm, or cause a law. Sith I add in the same place, as you confess in parag. 8. with the consent of the King, and so ascribe not power of alteration without him, but with him: sure (as they say) the ●agle is hungry, when she catches at such Flies.  
As impertinent are your questions and answers, parag, 8.9. But parag. 10. You proceed to number up the inconveniences that will arise to the people, by stripping the Clergy of their immunities. But you must tie yourself to the immunities in question, else you say just nothing to the purpose. ' First, the curse for sacrilege; but I have freed the alteration intended from guilt of sacrilege, and therefore that is the curse causeless, that shall not come: If no more be done, then by my case, I prove lawful. If any do proceed further, and commit sacrilege: Whether many, or few, young or old, wittingly, or ignorantly, I excuse them not, but join in your censure, parag. 10.11.12.  
But parag. 13. When the Church is stripped of her means, ' what kind of Clergy shall we have? Jeroboams Priests, the lowest of the people (say you.) And have we not had many such, under the Bishops, in their, and other Lay-impropriations? Nay, was it not a design to fill all the Parishes in the Episcopal Cities, with the Singing-men of the Cathedral? Which was in a great part effected: and were not they of the lowest, and many times of the worst condition of the people? This is like to continue, and increase, if the Church be farther spoiled. But if the Bishops, and Deans and Chapters lands be employed to maintain Parochial Pastors; this will help to fill the Church with able and learned Preachers, and encourage men to dedicate their Children to the Ministry, and them to embrace it: because if they be learned and unblameable, there will be more opportunity of competent, though not of so great promotion, which was compatible but to a few.  
So the second inconvenience, pressed, parag. 13.14.15. is avoided also. parag. 16. All the inconvenience (you say) that Master Geree presseth, is, that we are not subject to the Parliament. But how far forth we are, and are not, we shall hear anon.  
Parag. 17.18. You tell me, I speak much of a first and ' second oath. I answer, if that be an error, I was led into it by my first Opponent, that distinguished between oath and oath; and the oath to maintain the privileges of the Clergy, he saith expressly, is taken after the oath to the whole Realm: neither do I see any thing in your Analysis of the oath here, or the delineation of the oath, in the beginning of your Book, that invalidates the expression of my Opponent in reality, though in some formality it doth. For there I see, that the King had particularly, and distinctly, engaged himself to the whole Realm, before he came to the Bishops, which are the only part of the Clergy, about whom our controversy is; and what he last promises to them, confirmed by his oath, must not contradict what he hath promised to the other: which promise must be understood to have a priority in order, in the bond of the oath, as well as in the bond of the promise.  
Parag. 19 You speak of sending us to Magna Charta, to know who the People and Commons of this Kingdom are, etc.  only fills up so much paper, being nothing to the question in hand.  
But Parag. 20. You reckon up the Privileges of the Church, as you have gleaned them out of Magna Charta, and Sir Edward Cook, in number 8. The second is, that no Ecclesiastical person be amerced according to the value of his Ecclesiastical benefice, but according to his lay-tenement, and according to the quality of his offence. The latter clause is reason, the former a privilege without reason, and prejudicial to the Civil state, and gives many Ecclesiastical persons leave to sin impunè. The fourth, That all Ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy all their lawful jurisdictions, and other rights, wholly without any diminution, or substraction whatsoever. I pray you, if the King's Coronation-oath engage so to the confirmation of this privilege, that the king cannot consent to allow it by Act of Parliament; how can that act be justified, that enables the Crown of England to appoint what persons else they will, to execute all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this kingdom? If that statute were lawfully made, notwithstanding this oath, why then may not another statute be made against their standing, sigh by the former they may be made unuseful? and yet the former, you brag, you" have engaged yourselves to maintain, in your oath of supremacy, Parag. 9  
The fifth privilege you name, is, that a Bishop is regularly the King's immediate Officer to the King's Court of justice, in causes Ecclesiastical. Whence I gather, that by our law, a Bishop is a king's creature, no Apostle; for he was the immediate Officer of Christ; though subject, in doing or suffering, to the Civil Magistrate, though heathen.  
You conclude, that it is provided by act of Parliament, that if any judgement be given, contrary to any points in the great Charter, it shall be holden for nought, etc.  
True, unless it be upon some particular statute of a latter Parliament, with the king, enacting things to the contrary.  
Parag. 21. You say, that I go forward, as if it were certain, that this to the Clergy, was a several oath from that to the people.  
I answer, I disputed upon my opponents proposals; and learned opponents do not use to make their cause worse than it is, nor indeed doth he; for though the king swear but once, yet he ptomiseth the things he sweareth, severally, and the promise of this to the Bishops, in question, is last; and therefore, in competition, must give way to other engagements: neither do the statutes, for confirmation of Magna Charta, bind the hands of succeeding Parliaments. Whose hands, as the leaaned Chancellor Bacon observes, cannot be bound by their Predecessors, if they see reason of alteration; a supreme and absolute power (saith he) cannot conclude itself. Hist. of H. 7. p. 145.   

CHAP. X. PARAG. 3. Showing, that the Clergy are equally under the Parliament, as well as Laiety, in answer to Doctor Boughen's 9 Chapter.  
I Now come to answer your ninth Chapter, which is an angry one; which makes me think that you were sorely puzzled: My Dilemma is, They are subject to the Parliament, or they are not. He answers, subject they are to the Parliament, consisting of head and members; not to the members alone, without the head; for we are subject to the members, only for the heads sake. Truly, this grant is all that I desire, or need; for the Parliament, I propose the Dilemma about, is that which consists of head and members united; to which if they be subject, then may these jointly determine of any of their privileges, in their own nature alterable, as they do of those of the people. Indeed, the King and Parliament ought not to take away any privileges that are for edification, but such as prove impediments rather; but, of that they are to be Judges, in the application of their power, and that's all needful to be said to parag. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  
And yet I leave it with confidence to the judicious Reader, as also, what I have said in the former Paragraph, touching a former and latter oath.  
But whereas you ask, Parag. 6. with what face I can say, that the King's oath to the Clergy is inconsistent with his oath to the people, parag. 6. I wonder with what face you can aver it, when as I directly say, it must not, and therefore take off an interpretation of it, that would make it inconsistent: whereas you say, the nation is weary of the Presbyterian government in three years; it's but a piece of none-sence, sigh this three years, (except a little liveless show in the City of London, and some few places more) the truth is, and our misery is, that we have been under no Ecclesiastical government at all.  
Parag. 7. You mention my words, if the oath had such a sense when the Clergy were a distinct Corporation, on which you spend your judgement, if you know what sense is. Truly Sir, you are the worst at picking out sense, that ever I knew, of a D. D. My meaning is plain, if the oath had a sense to exempt them from power of Parliament, it must be when they were a distinct Corporation, under another Supremacy, which now you disclaim.  
Parag. 8. You mistake," in saying I am zealous in distinguishing you and your Privileges.  
I answer to the distinction brought by my opponent, that it is not such, but that the Privileges of Clergy and People (I mean such as are alterable) are equally under Parliamentary power, for alteration on just grounds. And the king's oath to you is as obligatory, as to the people, in the right sense, and intention of it, which the review of the Covenant saith, is all the obligation of an oath.  
Parag. 9 You speak about the change of the condition of the" Clergy, as though the intent were to make it slavery. Sure Sir, it's far from my intent: The English Laiety are not slaves. He that saith, the Privileges of the English Clergy, that they hold by law, are inviolable to them, while the law remains; but that the laws concerning them, are alterable; makes them not slaves, but equal in freedom to any English Lay-subject.  
But Parag. 10. You would pretend to a little subtlety; for you say, the change of the Clergies condition, from Popery to Protestancy, was for the better or for the worse.  
I answer, undoubtedly, for better, morally; for now we are in Christ's way. Let every soul be subject, etc. Rom. 13.1. Then we were in Anti-christs' way but yet in a civil respect, we have not such exemptions or liberties as we had: we are more under uncivil power, but this is for the better; for that liberty that is without God's leave, is not indeed a privilege, but a snare to the party holding it. I confess with you, that the intent of the King's oath, was to protect his subjects in their several places, dignities, and degrees, and not to suffer them to oppress one another; but not to deny any Bill, that upon advisement, shall be presented, and manifested to conduce to the weal public.  
You proceed, Parag. 11. The intention of the oath, is to maintain the ancient, legal, and the just rights of the Clergy.  
I have answered, it is to maintain them against illegal oppression, but not against legal alteration, that you should prove, but do not. The continual practice of the nation is with me, wherein by divers statutes, many Canonical Privileges have been altered, as 25. H. 8. all Canonical Privileges, contrariant to the King's Prerogative, and civil laws, and 1 of Elizabeth, in giving power to the Crown to exercise all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by whom she will appoint; and this is all that I affirm, that Privileges are alterable by an orderly way in Parliament, and therefore you may take the Ghostly Father's place to the man of sin, which you would bequeath to me; you are fit to serve the Pope than I; you hold, no Bishop, no Church: but such passions I look at, but as winching when an argument pincheth.  
For Parag. 12. I consent to Sir Edward Cook, in his opinion, of the King's engagement, to maintain the rights and inheritance of the Church; nor is he against my limitation, for it's known what his opinion was, of the power of Parliaments; That they might alter what ever they saw inconvenient to publikeweal.  
In your parag. 12. You wilfully slander me, that I would" persuade the Laiety, that the Clergies weal is their woe. I only affirm, that if all such Privileges of the Clergy, that are in their nature alterable, be made unalterable by the king's oath; (that let the kingdom sink or swim, the King cannot consent by Act of Parliament, to alter them,) then are they inconsistent with the people; and this I say again. And I am carried thereto, by evidence of truth, and not any caninus appetitus after wealth and honour. Those that know me, will but laugh at your rashness, in these mistaken calumnies.  
The former part of your 14. Parag. is passionate nonsense, the latter part is a contradiction; for you say, if this oath be not against legal alteration, in the true and literal sense, etc. The King may not, without violation of his oath, pass a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy. What (I pray you) is legal alteration, of any thing here in England, but alteration by consent of the King and Parliament? How can this oath then, if it be not against a legal alteration, be against an alteration by Bill in Parliament? which is the only legal alteration of Privileges, founded on law in England; you are the strangest opponent that ever I met with, you make nothing of giving the cause, and railing at me for carrying it.  
To as little purpose is all you conclude with, parag. 15. Whereas I say, he may pass a Bill; you wonder, I say not, he must pass a Bill; you add, I say that which is equivalent. He cannot now deny consent without sin; but yet Sir, this must arise, not from any authority of the Houses, but from the condition of the King, to preserve, or restore peace to his kingdoms: For the kings negative voice, I always asserted it, as well as you, both in word and writing; but I affirm, he hath power of an affirmative voice, to confirm any thing that is for good of his people, which he hath not, nor ought not to swear away.  
It may be, you will say, true, if abolition of Episcopacy were for the good of the nation.  
I answer, that's to pass to another question, and to grant this in hand; but besides, the King and Parliament are to judge of the goodness of it, for the nation; and if they err, they are answerable to God alone.   

Case of Conscience resolved.  
SEcondly, I answer, from the expressions of the oath itself, as they are set down by the same Author, pag. 74. To protect the Bishops and their Privileges, to his power, as every good king in his kingdom, aught to protect and defend the Bishops, and Churches, under their government.  
Here you see, the engagement of the king, is but to his power, as every good King ought in right to protect, etc.  
Now such power is no further than he can do it, without sinning against God, and being injurious to the rest of his people. When then he hath interposed his authority for them, and put forth all the power he hath to preserve them; if after all this, he must let them fall, or support them with the blood of his good subjects, and those unwilling too, to engage their lives for the others privileges; I think none need question, but that he hath gone to the extent of his power, and as far as good Kings are bound in right; for it is not equal, to engage the lives of some, to uphold the honours of others. That were to be cruel to many thousands, to be indulgent to a few. Suppose a king put a Commander into a City, and give him an oath, to maintain the Privileges of it, and keep it for him to his power; and this Commander keeps this town till he hath no more strength to hold it, unless he force the Townsmen to arms, against that privilege which he hath sworn to maintain. If this Governor now surrender this town upon composition, doth he violate his oath? I think, none will affirm it: Such is the case with the king in this particular: when he hath gone as far in their protection, as is consistent with the weal of other his liege people, which he is sworn to tender; he hath protected them to his power, and his obligation is no further by the words of the oath.  
The only objection, as I conceive, which lieth against this, is, that though it be not in the King's power to uphold them, yet it is in his power, not to consent to their fall.  
Answ. If the king should be peremptory in denial, what help would this be to them? Such peremptoriness in this circumstance, might endanger his Crown, not save their Mitres. Besides, though it be in his power to deny assent to their abolition, in a natural sense, because voluntas non potest cogi; yet is it not in his power in a moral sense, because he cannot now deny consent, without sin; for if he consent not, there will evidently continue such distraction, and confusion, as is most repugnant to the weal of his people, which he is bound, by the rule of government, and his oath, to provide for.    

CHAP. XI. Showing, that the King is not bound to protect the Bishop's honours with the lives of his good subjects, in answer to Doctor Boughen's 16. Chapter.  
I Proceed to the answer of your 16. Chapter, entitled, 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 Privileges, 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 king's 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 privileges 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, than he can do it without sinning. And I after prove, he cannot so protect them, as to deny 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, etc. 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 confederacy against the King.  
Neither have I, as you say, parag. 4. Confessed 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 liberty, be his enemy, because he is against the usurping power of Bishops.  
Parag. 5. If after all this, he must perforce let the Bishop's fall, you and your schism have much to answer for. Still a Slanderer; it's 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 always against forcing him to it; for, I think, it is much more reason, that his conscience should be left free in its determination, than my own, or any private man's, in as much as God hath set him in so high a degree of eminency in his Kingdoms.  
But that you say, the sword was never drawn on the King's side, to maintain Religion established: They never learned to fight for Religion; It is an ignorant speech, misbecoming a D. D. For what juster cause of War, or more weighty, then to maintain Religion established? It's true, we may not fight to set up a Religion (which is true) against the laws and authority of the land where we live; that were against the direction to Christians, under Heathen Emperors, Rom. 13.1.2. But to join with authority to maintain Religion established, (supposing it true) with the last drop of our blood, is the most glorious quarrel; and so I doubt not, but the Royal party learned, though not from you, yet from better Divines. For your clinch about good subjects; It's 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 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 another's privileges. But who did so? Not a man (say you) engaged himself, but by the King's command, which you after prove, and state the question us you please. But this is but to shuffle, and altars 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 privileges of others, which I spoke upon this supposition; That if the King had condescended in point of Episcopacy, the War would have been at an end, Laws restored to exercise, etc. 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 condescension 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 tried, that nothing lawful had been omitted, by which there was any hope to have saved a great deal of misery, that his Majesty, his Royal relations, and the whole Nation hath suffered.  
But Par. 7. You deny them to be others privileges, and affirm them to be the people's, because they reap spirituals from them. But truly I must tell you, that the people reaped but little in spirituals from many of the Bishops, who seldom preached themselves, and robbed 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 Clergy, as plentifully, if not more, than ever they did; as well as without them, they do in other reformed Churches. But what you add," That in the suffering of the Clergy, all Families suffer, you substitute Clergy for Bishops. Other of the Clergy may be in better condition by the removal of Lording Bishops; but in your proof that one of the Tribe of Judah, of the most remarkable Family, turned Priest: That is so gross an oversight, that it is most unbeseeming a D. D. for its expressly 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 Priest's 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, etc.  
You add, parag. 8. What if Magna Charta do oblige all to stand up for the due observation of these privileges? then we must acknowledge that we are bound to obey his Majesty commanding, etc. Still you altar 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 privileges 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 paltry privilege of another. But it's well you can now confess, that Magna Charta is a great and justly magnified Charter. If you and your Prelates had been of this mind formerly, and not been so deep in breaking, and countenancing the breach of it in others, by illegal imprisonments, impositions, fines, both of Laiety and Clergy: England might have scaped this cannensem calamitatem, this mine-threatning calamity, under which it is ready 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 myself call it sacrilege. We do so, and that we judge the cause why they prospered not that did it, because they did it with that sinful circumstance of devouring holy things, which shown also their want of sincerity in it. Thirdly, you say, that they are for it styled 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 err, and so may that of Chalcedon; if the profit of the house had been employed for pious uses; I see no ground of complaint or censure. Fiftly, you say, you hope I will make a difference between our Saviour's institution, and man's invention. Truly I do, and have proved Diocesan-Bishops to be no institution of Christ, but man, in the foregoing Discourse. And lastly, I join 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 king's engagement to maintain the Privileges of the Clergy, 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 joining, they may overrule some parts of it, and upon just ground warrantably, as appears in all experience, as in paring Episcopal Canonical privileges, niminishing their jurisdiction by the high Commission annexed to, and set over Bishops, etc.  
Parag. 11. You inquire, Whether it be equal 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 sigh 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 of this, it hath been replied 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 Privileges of Townsmen, and keep a town to his power, whether he may not, notwithstanding his oath, make his composition, (if he cannot defend it without the Townsmen, 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 privilege, as not to bear arms against the King's enemies. Suppose it be so, I am no Lawyer; yet you know it's not unusual in cases, to suppose things that are not, so they be not impossible, as this is not; for the king may grant such an immunity if he please, that none shall be compelled 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 soldiers in the town are slain, or taken prisoners, that the Governor can defend it no longer, than 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 shows 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 than resoluteness, so I mean it: but I will strive hereafter, even in expressions, to cut off occasion from them that seek occasion. But you say, his not consenting to the fall of Bishops, may keep him from sin. But you beg the question; for I argue by my instance, in a Governor of a town, that there is no sin in resigning upon composition; and your proof, that it is a sin to consent to abolish Episcopacy, 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 than 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 Tragedy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Parag. 17, 18. You examine, that I say in a natural sense, it is in the King's power to consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy, not in a moral sense, because he cannot now deny without sin; the distinction you acknowledge, and say, it should be the King's care, that he incline not to sin. I say so too, he must venture all, rather than sin; and if I thought it were sin, I should choose death, rather than persuade 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 descent in this case, as I have proved: yet were Episcopacy an institution of Christ, I confess also, it were sin to abolish it: but I have proved it a brat of humane power; and what man sets up, you confess man may pull down.  
But I prove, that the king cannot deny his assent to abrogation of Episcopacy now, without sin, for else such confusion will follow, as is most repugnant to the weal of his people; this confusion we have felt: but what saith the Doctor to this, Parag. 19 Thus shall sin vary at your pleasure, sin it shall be now, that was none heretofore. Why Sir, is that strange, that circumstances should change the morality of actions? I am ashamed, that a D. D. of mine own mother University should discover such ignorance in Divinity. Was it not a thing unlawful in the Apostles time, after the Decree, Acts 15. to eat things strangled, and blood, 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, than followers, for such a silly fancy.  
But you proceed, Parag. 20. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Is there no law, for a King to tender the weal of his people? yes, sure that that requires him to be honoured as a father; and therefore, if he withholding his assent, occasion the keeping up confusion, repugnant to the weal of his people, undoubtedly there's a law broken, unless there be some superior law to check this. Oh, but Judge Jenkins saith, it's against the oath of the King and Houses, to alter the government for religion. But I pray you ask, the Judge whether it be against their oaths, to alter the religion, from Popery to protestancy? and withal, whether is greater, the religion, or the external government of it? and if without perjury they altar 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 judge, whether you be a prudent esteemer of matters.  
But you retort, Parag. 21. If the King do consent to abrogate Episcopacy, there will follow confusion, repugnant to the weal of his people. Your reason is, that there are as many for Episcopacy (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 occasioned by this confusion endanger temporal and eternal weal of people; that's it that makes me so study the healing of it.  
Parag. 22. You infer, that I mean to continue these distractions, unless Episcapacie be abrogated▪ But you are mistaken in me; though I have no good conceit of Episcopacy, yet I had rather it had continued, though to my burden and suffering, then have seen so much sin and misery by an unnatural war; but your expressions carry it, that your mind is so. Episcopacy 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 God's grace, followed the dictate of my conscience, above these twenty years, against my civil 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 conspiracy of Corah; and when you can prove by God's 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 God's Word tells us, that Presbyters are Bishops and Pastors, nor hath he left any distinct orders among Pastors, you may please yourself, 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 hurtful. God make the Sceptre of the King flourish, but as for your Episcopal Mitres, they have been so stained by those that wear them, that well may they get power, but I believe they will never get beauty and glory in our Israel again.  

Case of Conscience Resolved.  
THirdly, I answer, that this Opponent in this Dispute, argues upon this ground, that the supreme jus Dominij, even that which is above all laws, is in the King: which under favour, I conceive, in our State is a manifest Error. There's a supremacy in the King, and a supremacy in the Parliament. But the supremacy, or the supremum jus Dominij, which is over all laws figere, & refigere, to make or disannul them at pleasure, is neither in the King, nor in the Houses apart, but in both conjoined. The King is the supreme Magistrate, from whom all power of execution of laws is legally derived. The Parliament is the supreme Court, by which all other Courts, which derive their power for execution of laws from the King by his Commissioners, are to be regulated; and the King and the Parliament are the supreme power to make and disannul laws. Sith then this supremum jus Dominij, that is over all laws, is not in the King: He cannot lawfully make any engagement to any against the laws, and legal rites of others; for that were not cedere jure suo, sed alieno. This oath then to the Clergy cannot engage him against the legal privileges of the people, or the Parliament, which he is bound to maintain; one of which is, to be ready, by confirming needful Bills, to relieve them, from whatsoever grievance they suffer from any. And thus, I think, the Case is sufficiently cleared, that notwithstanding the King's oath to the Clergy at his Coronation, he may consent to the extirpation of Prelacy out of the Church of England.    

CHAP. XII. Wherein it is cleared, that though the King be the Supreme Magistrate, yet that supremacy which is over all laws, is in this Kingdom, not in the King alone, but in the King and Parliament; in Answer to Doctor Boughen's 17. Chapter.  
I Come now to your last Chapter, entitled, Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdom? But why not as well, 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 shall let you see, that as there is more vapour, so more vanity 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 wind: I blame them that set up two absolute supremacies, that had power to make laws independantly one of another: only the Clergy had the better end of the staff; for the Laiety must be subject to their laws, but they would be exempt from the Laities. This I condemned out of Marsilus Patavinus, as an enemy to quiet, because such were always 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 Supremacy? A D. D. cannot be so ignorant. You cannot choose 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 Supremacy, did not that hint to you only a Supremacy secundum quid, in some respect only? and yet more expressly, when I call it the supreme Court, that is, supreme, 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 Supremacy? Nay, do not you yourself ascribe as much to it, when you say, This I say, that the Parliament is Curia Capitalis, the supreme Court of this Kingdom? Your own words, pag. 136. if Supreme, there's supremacy, quicquid dicitur de in est in; it cannot be denominated supreme, but there is supremacy in it, in some respect; denominatio fit ab inhaesione; did you not then cavil against conscience at a supremacy 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 King's highness is the only supreme Governor of this Land, & c? How are my positions against this oath? Do not I ascribe to the king, to be the only Supreme Magistrate? You that could play with summum, and supremus; Can you tell us a difference, between Magistrate, and Governor? If not, he that asserts the King the supreme Magistrate, reacheth the sense of that oath, which maketh him supreme Governor. Therefore I need fear no humane penalties against perjury, for this; No, Doctor, I hope once, the Lord will not hold him guilty, will more make me dread perjury, than all other penalties.  
Parag. 3. you say, I clip his Majesty's 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. What's become of the oath of Supremacy then (say you)? Safe enough say I, The King remains still supreme Governor; he is said to be only 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 Yorkshire; where first, he tells them, that the experience, 
Col. of Remonst. and pag. 320. 321.  and wisdom 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, etc. And then a little after. In this Kingdom, the laws are jointly 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 privileges. The government, according to these laws, is trusted to the King, etc.  
Have not I now followed my copy right? the supreme power to make laws, is Aristocrati, call in three States, free to vote, and the King the supreme 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 show the vanity of your flourishes.  
Your Parag. 4. Is a mere 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 Supremacy to make and unmake laws. This is neither in King, nor Houses apart, but conjoined.  
Here than we are fallen back to one Supremacy. Why did you then trifle so much about two? But this (say you) is to skip from Monarchy to Aristocracy; just as his Majesty 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 celerity; 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 supremacy over all Laws, to make or disannul them, is in the King alone, at the Petition of both Houses. Ridiculum caput; for it's as much as to say, it's 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, and desire by Petition. Besides, have you forgot the statute, yourself 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, etc. Oportet te esse memorem.  
But you will come to Scriptures, Fathers, and modern Authors, as Parag. 6. ' Peter ascribeth supremacy to the King, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. But that is clearly, as I have said, as Supreme Magistrate, to whom others are subordinate, and this admonition must be with limitation too, where Kings are supreme. You do not think that the Apostle doth levelly all Kings, and give them all one equal supremacy; 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 supreme. Those of Athens were under the power of the people, those of Lacedaemon, under the Ephori. See Grot. de jure bell. & pac. lib. 1. cap. 2. parag. 8. The sentences out of Fathers, which you quote, parag. 6, and 7. speak of absolute Monarches, 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 Monarchy, Collect. of Declar. etc. pag. 320. 321. And that sentence cited by you out of Grotius will confute you; That's the supreme civil power, cujus actus alterius juri non subsunt. Whose acts are not subject to another man's censure; For those acts that any do by the King's authority, are the King's acts; and the Parliament hath power to disannul these acts, and punish these agents, as the King informeth, Collect. of Remonstr. pag. 321. to show, 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 rely 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 supreme Head, is no more than what I ascribe to him, to be supreme 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 fancy.  
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 only deny that supremacy in the Parliament, 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 supremacy can be in that Court, that cannot lawfully Convene, till the King summonthem? There is this; The supremacy of a Court, as you confess, to be the supreme 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 acknowledge it: this Parliament only excepted, by a particular Statute, made in this Parliament with the King's assent. And for the manner, The king himself saith, they are free, and have privileges of their own. For the great Lawyer's judgement, you speak of, in Richard the 2. time, That if any in Parliament proceed upon other Articles, or in other manner than is limited by the King, etc. they are to be punished as Traitors.  
I wonder, you will mention it, sigh that great Lawyer was flattering Tresilyan, who by such ill Counsel helped to overthrow 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 show.  
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 transgress, he may punish them: but the law they are sworn to follow, against any private instructions of his; that's 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 supreme 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 only concludet he King to be supreme Magistrate, but exclude not the Parliament from being the supreme Court: you say, but yet it is the Kings Court. I deny it not; I deny him only to be above it, in the capacity of a Court, though it sit by his writ. Therefore all you do here, is, but lis de lana caprina, mere trifling.  
And as captious a conceit 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 wisdom 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 overrule or alter the rights of other, but for the public good; but for that they may; you know there were many had legal rights in offices in Star-Chamber, and yet for public 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 sense, 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 deny, or delay justice to any, for any Letter, or Prohibition of the king. And though his taking the Parliament into the joint assistance of making laws, makes not them supreme: yet it hinders that supremacy of laws-making from being solely in him, sigh he can do nothing without them.  
For Parag. 24. I would not brand you, nor delude the people, as you object; But only seek to give a rational sense of the king's oath, which they that oppose, brand themselves. I did believe, what I expressed in my good conceit of the present Bishop's tenderness to preserve the King from hazard; but if they be all of your mind, 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 Episcopacy, for the safeguard of either.  
For Parag. 25. 26. I desire no more, then that the king should give every one his own, preferring the public before any private. I confess the king's 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 Episcopacy: 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 amplify, 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 God's Image stamped on him. But Episcopacy, as I have showed, is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an inhuman 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 Episcopacy is an abstract: your similitude only holds thus, as it were worse to kill the species, than one man; so to abolish Episcopacy, then to degrade one Bishop; If either were evil. But, in a regular way, I have showed you, both are good; therefore, as I fear not your law, so I doubt not of God's approbation, being conscious to my sincere intentions, for the good of King and kingdom, in it.  
For your Conclusion, Parag. Vlt. I must mind you, that it cannot be better than 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 persuade his heart so far; If that moderation that he would bring them to, would satisfy 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 overflowing of all sin, with an high hand, shall yield first; (that some government may be settled in the Church, Laws recover their power in the Commonwealth, sin be prevented, Justice and amity revived) they will be most acceptable to God, and aught to be so with men.  
Deo gloria. Finis   

Postscript.  
THe sentence, you, after all, cite out of Doctor Burges, I may not pass over. Observe the plagues of such men, as are never touched with the miseries of others: They commonly fall under the same judgements which others, unpitied, have tasted before. I thank God, this toucheth not me; for I have neither caused, nor been senseless of the miseries of others. But have not many poor Ministers been silenced, turned out of all, for things that others counted trifles, and might have forborn them in, but they scrupled at as sins, and could not submit? And have they not passed unpitied by many Prelates and Prelatical men? I speak not of my own Diocesan, whom I found most pitiful, and would not be slack to requite it, with active sympathy, upon good opportunity. But Doctor, you know what pity you vouchsafe them in this Treatise. Nothing but Schismatics, and Heretics, justly ejected, etc. Therefore now, with joseph's Brethren, consider how you have been in a fault concerning your Brethren, Gen. 42.21.22. and give glory to God, that he may lift you up, which I hearty wish and beg of God; and so Doctor, far you well.   

Errata.  
PAge 17. line 17. read officers. page. 18. line 24. deal and, p. 21 l, 10. χ. p. 24. put in the margin against line. 7, 8, 9 Apol. cap. 39 p. 37. l. 31. deal or. p. 49. l. 25. r. by. p. 61. in title of the 6. chapter for explanations, r. exclamations. p. 70. l. 2. for me, r. men, p. 75. l. 14. for can r, cannot, p. 95. l. 17. for one, r. me. p. 100 l. 2. for cause, r. casse. p. 104. l. 24. for uncivil, r. civil. p. 106. l. 16. r. This must, ariseth. p. 112. l. 28. r. diminishing. p. 114. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 116. l. 9 r. is, So Episcopacy. p. 119. l. 18. read summus.