The Sifters Sieve Broken

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cribrari to Sift this Resolution.

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 judgment, 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 innocence, and (at the best) the Doctors 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 honor 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. This made me restless in my spirit, while there was anything (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 Honor, 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 fore-saw 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 then Peace; yet unless, by some happy accommodation, War were shortened, we were in great danger to be no small losers, both in Truth and Holyness. 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 since what is Human, 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 judgment, 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 Anonymous 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 Kings Chaplains (as learned, rational, and sincerely affected to his Majesty, as Doctor Boughen, though not so froward) who agreed with me in desiring, and endeavoring accommodation. He presented it to a Counselor 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 New-Castle, his Majesty had divers disputes with Master Henderson about this very subject; which occasioned me to re-view 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 honor 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 everywhere 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,

Touching the Oath, we shall consider in the body of the Book itself. But what speaks he of defending the Kings 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 Kings 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 Supreamacie, which the King doth challenge; Nor, what I had not warrant for, from his Majesty's own Pen; No, nor, but what this Answerer himself is forced to relinquish, while, and where he makes a Mimick show of opposition.

There is one passage more in this Epistle, which I cannot pass by. Where he hath spoken of one,

In his Epistle to the Reader, he tells him,

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; 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 Kings 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 Kings 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, &c.] 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 its 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 Kings oath was unlawful in that point, unless it did engage him to maintain Episcopacy, as then 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 kings 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 kings 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 Doctors Answer. And if the oath be proved in that sense unlawful, then I hope tits no offense, but necessary in dispute, so to call it; unless we be to flatter Superiors in what ever they do; and so not honor, but Idolize 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 cites a place out of Doctor Burgess 's fire of the Sanctuary, touching imprecations, and Seditious railings 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 railings 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 God's, Psalm 82.1? And nearest in honor and Authority to the king? Nay, hath not he done worse to the king, then anything that he lays to my charge? For is not perjury worse, then through incogitancie to swear to something 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 kings 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 Bishops 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 profer'd money for any Ecclesiastical Gifts, nor Livings, 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 nettl'd 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 railings (of which the Doctors 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.

Imprimatur,

Case Resolved.

WHether the King, (considering his oath at Coronation to protect the clergy, and their privileges) can salvâ conscientiâ consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy? Aff.

When I consider, first, that there is no hope of the Kings or kingdoms safety, without an union between our King and Parliament. Secondly, that such an union is tantùm non impossible, 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 Kings 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 candor towards Antagonists, in giving them due testimony, so clear, that one would think it a fitter object for envy, then carping; but Dr. Boughen can find a knot in a bulrush; and therefore, because in the title it is said, that in the

But now to the motives, which

CHAP. IV. 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 Kings 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 endeavor 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,

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 incongruitie in them. And then you tell

Next, Parag. 5. You confess!

This you say, Parag. 6. "You have proved already, cap. 2.6.7.8. And I there have shown the weakness and sophistry of your proofs, and shall do it more hereafter.

But you proceed, Parag. 7.

Now if the Presbyters elect one to be President, though not for life; why shall not their act be as valid, as if the Presidencie were for longer continuance? Sure, while learned Bilson gathers from the Presbyterians grant, of a President 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,

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,

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,

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.

And whereas, you add,

CHAP. IV. PARAG. 2. Where in is shown, that the National Covenant, doth not engage to uphold Episcopacy: In Answer to Doctor Boughens fifth Chapter.

IN your fifth Chapter, you attempt to prove,

First, Parag. 1, 2, 3. You come with your Crambe his coctâ,

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, its 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

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,

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

For what you prosecute, touching

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. IV. 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 Crete, 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, &c. 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 Teachers

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, 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, &c. 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 Timothy, 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 spake thus; Take heed to yourselves, and to your flock over which the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to feed the Church of God, &c. 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, de 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 unblameably ministered to the sheep-fold of Christ, those we may not think may be justly thrown out of their Ministry: whence he infers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

Polycarp, 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 Episcopy & 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 preeminence of honor 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 Jerome, ep. 85. ad Evagrium, which he confirms from Alexandria; For (saith he) Alexandriae, &c. At Alexandria, even to Heraclas, and Dionysius, Bishops; The Elders did always name one Bishop, chosen out of themselves, and by them placed in excelsiori gradu, in an higher degree of honor, (not office.) Now whether in their choice, they did only look at merit, or whether they did a good while, (till, as Ambrose saith, it proved inconvenient) advance him that was the next senior; it is argued both ways, though in my opinion, Blundel hath made it most probable, that according to Ambrose his expression, it went by senioritie for certain years; in his preface to the fore-cited Book. Some think, it went by senioritie in some places, and by election in others.

Thesis. 11. This 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 preeminence was not from any divine institution, but Ecclesiastical ordination, Jerome is express: The Bishops must know, that they are greater then Presbyters, rather by custom, then Divine disposition, Hieron. in Tit. So Augustine, ep. 19. Although, according to the words of honor, which the Churches use hath obtained, Episcopacy is greater then Presbytery, &c. Yet: See bere, the precedency of Bishops, is an honor of words, and a fruit of use. And this may be further cleared, from what was first done in conferring this preeminence. It was but a bare act of the rest of the Presbyters, as appears by the example brought by Jerome, in the Church of Alexandria. They chose out of themselves, and set him in an higher degree: This they did of themselves, and by themselves, without any Divine command, (Let it be produced, if there be any;) yea, without any example, in any of the Churches in the Scripture, and they did it by themselves, without the concurrence of other, and they could not set him in an higher order; Presbyters cannot make an Apostle.

Thirdly, this may appear, from that little difference that was between such a Bishop and a Presbyter, in the fathers times. Chrysost. Theophylact, Hilary, on 1 Tim. 3. Inquiring the reason, why the Apostle passeth from directions about Bishops, to directions about Deacons, no mention being made of a Presbyter; Give answer; First, Hilary, or, Ambrose, Quia Episcopy & Presbyteri una ordinatio est, uter{que} 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 Theodorets, that they that are now called Bishops, were heretofore called Apostles, and those that are now called Presbyters, were then, i. e. in the Apostles times, called Bishops, is 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 human 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.

For first, you see its directly contrary to Jerome, and Ambrose, or Hilary, and many others; who make Bishops in their times, to be the same with Presbyters, or PresbyterBishops, 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 perservation of the Church; and the Bishop, who is but primus Presbyter, made by man for Orders sake, can rightly challenge no Monopoly, or sole interest, but only a presidencie, to guide, rule, and order that Presbyterie, wherein acts of jurisdiction are exercised, whether acts of ordination, or deposition; binding, or loosing; excommunicating, or absolving. This I prove by these reasons:

Argument, 1. Those who are truly and equally the successors of the Apostles, in 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: 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, as Field confesseth, are equal in the power of Order; yea, not only he with other Protestants, but many School-men, and other Papists also, as he there shows: For every Priest (saith Durand ) in regard of his Priestly power, may minister all Sacraments; ea quae sunt ordinum, (saith Aureolus ) omnes recipiunt immediate à Christo: ita quod in potestate nullius, imo nec Papae est, illa auferre: in 4. sent. Dist. 24. Art. 2. Sect. tertia ratio &c. And this also appears because they must all sit under the same title of Pastors, Ephes. 4.11.

For the Major. I prove it thus. Power of jurisdiction is, indeed, but a branch of the power of Order. A man by the power of order, is made a Minister of Christ, and so consecrated to serve Christ, in all ministerial services required of such a Minister of Christ.

Now these services are to 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 implied 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, &c.

Now here plainly, under assurances, means, and helps to set forward salvation, acts of Discipline must needs be contained, 1 Cor. 5.5, 6. and this flows from power of order, as its habit is, actus primus, induing a man with power.

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 miles 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 Churches Rev. 2.3. weighty; for if there be not a Sy • echdoche in the word Angel, which Rev. 2.10. Some of you, &c. seems plainly to manifest: yet its clear he had only a priority of order, not of charge: And the 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 president of a Classis; or as the things that concern the whole Houses, are directed to the Speaker of either.

The same is plain of the Elders of Alexandria, whose superintendent had no other charge from God, but only a precedency of honor, and order, from themselves: Besides, all Presbyter-Bishops set over charges by the Holy Ghost, are of those Pastors, Eph. 4.11. And I hope, no modest learned man, will think that any President or Bishop, then, was the sole Pastor; or that these Presbyter-Bishops, set over the flock, by the Holy Ghost, could not act in their 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 Century. 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 practice 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. And therefore I conclude, the power of government, of binding and loosing, and of ordination, is by divine right, an appendant to the office of a Presbyter-Bishop: and as there is no proof for, so no • eed of your Apostle-Bishop: And so the chief corner-stone of your whole Book, which you relate to, from chapter to chapter, is found but untempered mortar, that is crumbled away when it comes to hard canvassing, and your building must down with it.

We are indeed, much pressed in this question, with the authority of Fathers.

But I say, first, the most ancient, (as is to be seen in Blundell ) 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 Jerome, and Augustine, have witnessed, (not speaking obiter, or popularly, but purposely, giving their judgment in the thing,) that the difference between Bishop and Presbyter, is the issue of 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 Presbyterie, in which, and with which, he was to ordain, and censure; and without which, he was not to act in these things. And this plainly enough shows, that the Bishops Presidencie was but for order sake, not that power rested only in him; for that power that is restrained by Divine ordinance to one order, may not be interposed in by another; 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 President to guide their actions, which they acknowledge may be perpetual, durante vitâ modo se been gesserit; or temporary, to avoid inconvenience, which Bilson in his preface, (and again, and again, in his book of perp. gover. ) takes hold of, as advantageous, because so little discrepant, (as he saith) from what he maintains: but now the high Prelatists exclude a Presbyterie, as having nothing to do with jurisdiction, which they put as far above the sphere of a Presbyter, as sacrificing above a Levites; to wit, an act restrained to an higher order: whereas the Fathers acknowledge a Presbyterie; 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, then the Presbyterians.

Fifthly, for that, wherein we differ from the Fathers, we have the Plea of one of the most judicious of the Fathers, Augustine, who being 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 Prelacie, (wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them, then we;) yet I would have them to consider, in how many things we jump with the Fathers, wherein many of them have been dissenting, both in opinion, and practice; as touching promiscuous dancing, especially on the 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 Princes Courts. 6. Touching gaming at Cards, or Dice, and such like, so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers, against us, in this one point, (wherein themselves also are at a distance from them) while we keep closer to the Fathers, then they do in many others.

And thus; (Doctor) I shall leave it to the judgment of the indifferent reader, whether Apostle-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. IV. PARAG. 4. Wherein is shown 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,

If I had said as that Court-Preacher,

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 Kings 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, 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 Laity, we may observe in our Historians. Daniel, in the life of William the first, gives this for a reason, wh • the Clergy did so willingly condescend to him, because they had their • rovince a part, whence they supposed a security to their privileges, how ever the Laity were enslaved. The same distinction of the Clergy and Laity, 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. Civile schisma & principatum supremorum pluralitatem inducentes ex ipsis quam velut impossisilem humanae quieti certa •• hujus inducentes experientiam demonstravimus, 170 1 Marsil Patav. defense. pacis, part. 2. cap. 23. Now being the Clergy and Laity 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 Laity, that they should be a distinct Province of themselves, being a branch of Popery, is with it quite extinguished. And La • tie and Clergy are now one body politick, 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 Laity & 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 then that to the Laity, 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 ninth, to their due place. In your tenth Chapter, you'r hard put to it, and make a great noise to little purpose, First,

Parag. 1. You make an inference, and quarrel with it.

But you are bad at Parallels, for there may be Ecclesiastical Judicatures, without your Bishops; which are but the issue of human custom, as Jerome tells you.

Then Parag. 2. You raise a fort against a fort.

I answer, we speak not here of lawfulness in general, but with relation to the Kings oath; and sure, you do not think, that I conceive, the Kings oath makes it unlawful for him to abrogate Presbyterie, 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, its 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

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,

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.

Next, Parag. 14. You ask,

As impertinent, false, and absurd is your reply,

Parag. 16. But you say,

At last, you come to say something to the purpose

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 shown, 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,

But you say,

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 Laity both: but the question is, whether, as notwithstanding his engagement to the Laity; he may at the motion or (if it like you better) at the Petition of the Houses, alter any law that concerns the people; he may not also, on the like petition, alter 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 Laity are one body politique, but by a weak reason,

After, Parag. 5. You confess, what before you made semblance to deny,

Whereas you inquire parag. 8.

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.

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 Jerome’s tells you, was by human 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 Ierem, 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 human, I question only whether those human 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,

Constantine's affection was pious to the Ministers of Christ. But the Bishops he honored so, were men of another condition then 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 honors which he gave; how came they so quickly to fall together by the ears for Primacie? And to give occasion to that observation, That when their Chalices were wooden, the Bishops were golden, but the Bishops became 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,

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 honors.

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.

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 over-sight 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 armor 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 vigor 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, then so he may also the Clergies immunities: for those rights and immunities, they either hold them by law, or otherways: If by law, then the Parliament, which hath power to alter all laws, hath power to alter such laws as give them their immunities; and those laws altered, the immunity ceaseth, and so the kings 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.

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, &c.

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 demeanor, forfeit them, their engagement becomes alterable: There is no injustice done to make a law to over-rule, or alter this engagement. There's no question of power in the Parliament, to over-rule 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 honor, as to let the Crown run an hazard, rather then they lay down their Mitres, and endanger the whole land to be brought to nothing, rather then 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 Authors judgment, takes off the scruple about the oath.

Case of Conscience Resolved.

BEsides this argument, there be other insinuations brought in by the same Author, that it would be dishonorable to the Kings memory, to be an unfortunate instrument to pull down Cathedrals, and impoverish them, &c.

Answ. To abolish Prelacie, 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 commune, 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 chiefly 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 honorable in our Annals; but, if I may so speak, a Saint in our Calender. It was the circumstances of actions, in themselves glorious, which made them a dishonor 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 honor: Thus far my first opponent.

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, counsel'd 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, its 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 Kings 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 Authors judgment; 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 Kings 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 Anti-Christian 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: Its 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 shown, what the true intention of the Kings 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,

First, Parag. 2. You go a begging,

Thus far I approve the kings protecting Bishops, within the limits of their calling set them of God; but our Prelates have excluded their fellow-Presbyters. But thirdly, as of right he ought to do; I take to be a limitation how far he engageth himself, that is, so far as a good king in right ought to do, and if he go no further, he is injurious to none, though he displeases many, as you say, Parag. 3.

Parag. 4. You add,

Yet you repeat it, Parag. 5. With our frequent dish of no ordination without them, which hath been often enough answered. You conclude,

You add, Parag. 6.

Parag. 7. You grant, "that the oath is not obligatory beyond the intention, that is, say you,

You add, Parag. 8.

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 then fail to save them, whether they would have said, yea, that is the meaning: Truly I believe not, and if they had, the King and Peers, and people, would have hiss'd them out rather, then the one would have persuaded, or the other would have yielded to have taken it with that sense and intention.

Parag. 9. You inquire,,

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,

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 then 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 Kings 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,

Parag. 2. I agree that God's law is unalerable by man: And I desire no more from you then that,

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,

And yet more absurd is your trifling, parag. 7. in arguing against those words,

As impertinent are your questions and answers, parag, 8.9. But parag. 10.

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 competible but to a few.

So the second inconvenience, pressed, parag. 13.14.15. is avoided also. parag. 16. All the inconvenience (you say)

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 anything 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.

But Parag. 20.

The fifth privilege you name, is,

You conclude,

True, unless it be upon some particular statute of a latter Parliament, with the king, enacting things to the contrary.

Parag. 21. You say,

I answer, I disputed upon my opponents proposals; and learned opponents do not use to make their cause worse then it is, nor indeed doth he; for though the king swear but once, yet he ptomiseth the things he sweareth, severally, and the promise of this to the Bishops, in question, is last; and therefore, in competition, must give way to other engagements: neither do the statutes, for confirmation of Magna Charta, 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 Laity, 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,

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.

Parag. 7. You mention my words,

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 kings 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, its far from my intent: The English Laity 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,

I answer, undoubtedly, for better, morally; for now we are in Christ's way. Let every soul be subject, &c. Rom. 13.1. Then we were in Anti-Christ's 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,

You proceed, Parag. 11.

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 Kings 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 Fathers place to the man of sin, which you would bequeath to me; you are fitter to serve the Pope then I; you hold, no Bishop, no Church: but such passions I look at, but as winchings when an argument pincheth.

For Parag. 12. I consent to Sir Edward Cook, in his opinion, of the Kings engagement, to maintain the rights and inheritance of the Church; nor is he against my limitation, for its 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 willfully slander me, that I would "persuade the Laity, 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 kings 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 honor. 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,

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

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, ought 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, &c.

Now such power is no further then 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 honors 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 Towns-men 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 Kings 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 Miters. 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.

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 favor, 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 conjoin'd. 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. Since 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 Kings oath to the Clergy at his Coronation, he may consent to the extirpation of Prelacie out of the Church of England.