The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 4

The Sifters Sieve Broken · Chapter 4

p. 26CHAP. 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 convinc'd of the unlawfulneſs of Epiſcopacie, it will not hold; and ſo it would caſt the reſolution of this doubt, about the oath, upon another queſtion, touching the unlawfulneſs of Epiſcopacie, which is a larger field. I ſhall therefore endeavour to ſhew, that though for argument ſake, it be granted that Epiſcopacie be lawful, yet notwithſtanding that his oath, the King without impeachment may, in this circumſtance, conſent to abrogate Epiſcopacie.

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.

p. 27For Parag. 1. You infer, if Epiſcopacy be lawful, then the Kings oath is not vinculum iniquitatis; egregiam laudem, &c. who knows not, that on that ſuppoſition the oath is lawful? You adde, 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 Kings oath to maintain Epiſcopacie, in that uſurping height wherein it ſtood, that by his oath you might keep up your own abſurd &c. oath; yet I perceived that his Majeſtie, and other impartial Judges, might interpret Epiſcopacie in a more moderate way, as it is now come to paſs (his Majeſtie, offering to bring Epiſcopacie 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 Epiſcopacie were lawful (underſtanding, as you may perceive by the ſcope, lawful only, not neceſſarie) yet the King might conſent by Bill to abrogate it.

After having ſpent parag. 2. in impertinent ſlander, according to your cuſtome, parag. 3. You ridiculouſly deſcant upon two phraſes ſatisfactory, and not hold; though being applyed to divers perſons, your own conſcience tells you, there's no incongruitie 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 acknowledg; 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 Epiſcopacie: You ask, what I mean by circumſtance, whether the Kings oath, or Epiſcopacie; and run on in a childiſh deſcant, unworthy of paper; when any but a Dul-man may ſee plainly enough, what I mean by (in this circumſtance) that is, according to the p. 28grounds 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 Epiſcopacie; 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 lawfull, then the reaſon why the King cannot conſent to abrogate Epiſcopacie, is not his oath (in your judgment,) but becauſe it is an ordinance of God, and more then lawful. Well; now let us try it there; prove Epiſcopacie 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 ſhewed the weakneſs and ſophiſtry of your proofs, and ſhall do it more hereafter.

But you proceed, Parag. 7. That Epiſcopacy is the onelyonly order to which Chriſt hath given power to ordain Presbyters, and Deacons, &c. 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, adminiſtring Sacraments, and the uſe of the keys, were left to thoſe ordinary Officers, Paſtors and Teachers, Eph. 4.11. And under them are comprized all ordinary teaching Miniſters, without any diſtinction from God: the diſtinction that followed after, was but humane for order, and to avoid accidentall 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-…lders, 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 Catholique, but a p. 29Roman Catholique; for juſt ſo, Bellarmine, and others of that leaven, argue againſt Proteſtant Churches, to un-Church them; with whom, though you may joyn; yet all thoſe, that according to their profeſſion, are true Proteſtants, and imbrace 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 Gods 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 miniſterie, 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 Presbyterie, in acts of government. For all antiquitie acknowledgeth the Presbyterie did govern with him, and ordain with him.

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 compleat, the Ordination of the other, cannot be effentially defective.

Auguſtine is impertinently cited by you, Sine noſtro officio eſt plebi certa pernities. Without our, (without the Epiſcopal office) there is certain ruin to the people.

For though Auguſtine were a Biſhop, and wrote to a Biſhop, (as you ſay) yet by that, without our office, he plainly means the office of the Miniſtery in general, not of Epiſcopacie: For he makes it lawful to flee, in that Epiſtle, as Paul did, when there be others to look to the Church; p. 30Fugiant (ſaith he) ubi ab alijs, (qui non ita requiruntur,) non deſeratur Eccleſia, ſed praebeant cibaria conſenvis ſuis, qui aliter vivere non poſſunt. Let them flee, where the Church is not forſaken of others, that have not ſuch an eye upon them, but they will miniſter ſpiripual food to their fellow ſervants, which otherwiſe cannot live. Now what were thoſe others? not Biſhops, for there were not many of them in one City, or Countrey; but Presbyters.

But now you will prove it, by the Proteſtation and Covenant. Firſt, by the Proteſtation, You have vowed in the preſence of Almighty God, to maintain the true reformed Proteſtant Religion, expreſſed in Doctrine of the Church of England.

Add, I pray you, againſt all Poperie, and Popiſh innovations. And you muſt remember again preſently, upon the framing of the proteſtation, there was an Explanation put forth, before it was taken, in the Countrey, or Citie; that under the Doctrine of the Church of England, the Diſcipline then in the Church of Egland, was not included. So, your Argument from the Proteſtation, is of no value.

But yet let us ſee what you can ſay for this, out of the Doctrine of the Church of England. Firſt, the ordinary way to heaven, is by the Word and Sacraments▪ No man may preach and adminiſter the Sacrament, but he that is lawfully called and ſent; none are lawfully called and ſent, but they onelyonly, who are called and ſent by thoſe who have authority. Biſhops, and onelyonly Biſhops, have authority to ſend in this kinde, Article 39.

Here you play leger-demain, for the Article holds forth the way of ordination, by the Book of Conſecration, to be a lawful way, but not the only lawful way. For the Compoſers of thoſe Articles knew very well, that there was another way of ordination in other Churches, whom they alwaies held as ſiſters; which they did not, with the Papiſts, condemn, though the Article approve the Engliſh; way and that being held forth as a lawful, not the onelyonly 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 p. 31of the Doctrine of the Church of England, were without exception againſt the Diſcipline, it will not prove your no Biſhop, no Prieſt. The Book, you ſay, was compoſed in the dayes of King Edward the ſixth, by thoſe holy men, who after were bleſſed Martyrs. But theſe men, I muſt tell you, were not of your minde, that the diſtinction of Biſhops, from Presbyters, was any other, then what Jerome had taught them by humane cuſtome, **Dr Downam in anſwer to his reply is driven to this. If the Biſhops better informed, concernning their functions, had now reformed their judgements, that is, to hold their offices not by humane, but Divine diſpoſition; In his anſwer to the Replyers Preface, who had preſt him with the judgement of Whitguift and Jewel.nor held, the power of the keyes belonged onelyonly to them; for in this Book of ordination, they charge the Presbyter, not only with care in Word and Sacraments, but the Diſcipline of Chriſt too.

And whereas, you add, That the Articles were confirmed, 13. Elizabeth, and ſubſcription enjoyned; You ſhould remember, it was with limitation, ſo far as they contained the Doctrine of the Church, not the diſcipline. You conclude, "thus far with the Proteſtation. But yet a little further, I pray you; For the Proteſtation adds, that the Doctrine of the Church of England is to be maintained againſt all Popery: Now you may finde in Bellarmins lib. de Clericis, your argument of no Biſhop, no Prieſt, ſo no Sacrament, ſo no Church; wherein all Proteſtant-writers oppoſe him, Engliſh and others: and therefore, ſurely, the Doctrine of the Church of England, rightly underſtood, condemns your poſition, which is a poſition in Popery, to overthrow Proteſtant Churches.

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

IN your fift Chapter, you attempt to prove, that the ſolemn league & covenant engageth to maintain Epiſcopacy. I might tell you, this is nothing to me, nor to the matter; for p. 32whatever you fancie of the Covenant, they that framed it, will follow it in their own ſence; and if any Covenanters be of that minde, as you are, that not your, but moderated Epiſcopacie, that is, a Super-intendencie over a Presbyterie, be neereſt the word of God, yet they were not ſo conſiderable, as to be able to make peace, without abrogation of Epiſcopacie; nor without peace, to preſerve King and Kingdom. If they could, then my Treatiſe were anſwered, by change of circumſtances; that argues the lawfulneſs of the Kings condeſcention, chiefly in that circumſtance. But to the matter it ſelf, you have not, nor do you here bring any thing to ſatisfie.

Firſt, Parag. 1, 2, 3. You come with your Crambe his coctâ, That no ſalvation, but by hearing and Sacraments, nor theſe without miſſion. The Apoſtles were ſent of Chriſt, and they ſent others, Titus and Timothie, to ordain Miniſters.

To all which I have anſwered before, and in part cleared it, That the Apoſtles, and Timothy and Titus their aſſiſtanſts, as Evangeliſts, were extraordinarie officers, and ceaſed; and that, the onelyonly ordinary officers now are Paſtors, and Teachers, Epheſ. 4.11.

Touching whom, the Apoſtle gives direction, 1 Tim. 5. Titus 1. under the name of Biſhops and Elders;) and theſe are Succeſſors of the Apoſtles,) to all that power that is ordinarie and neceſlarie in the Church; and among theſe, ther's by Gods law, no prioritie, but of gifts, and order delegated by election. But for any Biſhops, that are of the ſame order with the Apoſtles, its a ſtrange and groundleſs notion. Almoſt all Divines tell you, that Apoſtleſhip was an extraordinarie office, that ceaſed; and though an Apoſtle may be ſaid, alluſively, to be a Biſhop, yet a Biſhop may not be ſaid to be an Apoſtle; yet theſe things you over with again in this Chapter, and tell us of two ſorts of Apoſtles, the Apoſtles of Chriſt, and the Apoſtles of the Churches, Philip. 2.25. 2 Cor. 8.23. Whereas, I have ſhewed you, that for Epaphroditus, he is ſaid there, either to be a meſſenger onelyonly, from Philippi, to Saint Paul, (which is more evident, in the ſame p. 33phraſe uſed of thoſe, 2 Cor. 8.23. expounded by Bilſon himſelf, of meſſengers from the Churches, pag. 75.) or elſe that notes them to be, ſecundarii Apoſtoli, that is, as Salmaſius takes it, Evangeliſts, and ſo extraordinary Officers: but more of this in the next Section.

Next, you proceed to the example of beſt reformed Churches, wherein we agree with you, to reform, is in primaevam formam reducere, but that form is in Scripture, that's our firſt Chriſtian ſtory, and there we finde no Biſhop, but what is a Presbyter; others that are abuſively called ſo, were not properly ſuch, but Officers of an higher kinde, whoſe Office being extraordinary, dyed with them: For your particular quotations; firſt, that of Zanchi, Exempla veteris Eccleſiae nobis debent eſſe inſtar praecepti, the Examples of the ancient Church ought to be to us as a precept, is to be underſtood, of the Church under the Apoſtles, regiſtred in the Scriptures; and ſo the Miniſters of London, (whom you cite alſo) ſpeak expreſly, that Scripture-examples are obligatorie, and that will not ſerve your turn: But for the quotations out of Zanchy, that, in his conſcience they were no better then Schiſmatiques, that counted it a part of reformation to have no Biſhop in degree of authority above their true fellow Presbyters: I have ſought it earneſtly in the place cited, but cannot finde any ſuch thing, de vera reformandae Eccleſiae ratione; but in other places I finde the contrary. In a ſhort confeſſion of his faith, when he was ſeventie years of age, cap. 25. de Eccles. Gubernatione, he ſpeaks to this effect; He acknowledgeth only Paſtors and Teachers to be left by the inſtitution of Chriſt, as ordinary Ministers. The ſuperintendency of one, taken up by men, as a remedy of Schiſm, he diſlikes not; but from the tyrannie, into which that preſidencie degenerated; he concludes, Quo proprius acceditur in ordinibus Miniſtrorum ad ſimplicitatem Apoſtolicam, eo magis etiam nobis probetur; at que ut ubique accedatur, dandam eſſe operam, judicemus: In the Orders of Miniſters, the neerer we come to Apoſtolicall ſimplicity, the more is it to be approved, and diligence ſhould be uſed, that every where ſuch propinquity to the word ſhould be attained: Here you have Zanchy directly p. 34againſt what you would have him ſay; as alſo, on the fourth Commandement, de diverſis Miniſtror… generibus, he cleerly agreeth with me, that Paſtors mentioned Eph. 4.11. are the higheſt Officers now left in the Church; and thoſe the ſame, mentioned 1 Tim. 3. & Titus 1. Biſhops, or Presbyters, which he proves to be all one; and that ſuperioritie, that in proceſs of time, one had above another, was but by humane grant; For what you cite out of Melancthons Epiſtles, touching Biſhops; It is but one mans private opinion, and that, when they were in that caſe, that we a long time were, and ſtill in the greateſt part are, without any government ſetled; and undoubtedly, the Church had better be under a government that hath ſome rigour or tyranny in it, then under no government; ſo to ſhake off Biſhops, as to be under no government, is, as Melancthon truly ſaith, inexpedient, if it were lawful; and ſuch a liberty (as Luther ſaid) is Libertas minimè utilis ad poſteritatem, a liberty no wayes profitable to poſterity. But what is this to the Covenant, which reſates not to perſons, but to Churches' Now it is apparent, that the Churches of Germany have reformed Epiſcopacie ſo, that they have no ſuch Apoſtle-Biſhop, as you dream of, but Presbyterie at the moſt, with the ſuperintendency of one in their Presbyteries: neither hath that any weight, that you ſpeak, of the Convention at Auſpurg; for they were then but in a way of reformation, it was but the dawning of the day with them, and they could not ſee all things at the firſt; but we ſee, when they come to ſettle the order of their Churches, they ſetled Presbyterie, not Epiſcopacie: And yet I deny not, that if the Biſhops would then have been reaſonable, they would have admitted their juriſdiction for peace-ſake, as Melancthon ſaith, redimere pacem. And truly Sir, though I maintain, that the King, for peace, may aboliſh Epiſcopacie: Yet I am of that minde, and wiſh others were ſo too, redimere pacem duriori conditione, as Melancthon ſaid, to redeem peace with an harder condition; with Epiſcopacie ſo regulated, as at firſt, to preſide and rule in his Presbyterie.

But onething I may not paſs; for, whereas Melancthon ſaith, that they did grant to Biſhops, & poteſtatem ordinis p. 35& juriſdictionis, the power of order, and juriſdiction; you enquire What is this power of Order: certainly a power that Presbyters had not, that is, a power, at leaſt, to ordain Miniſters: But here, Maſter Doctor, you bewray too much ignorance for a D. D. for in power of order, not only Proteſtants, but moſt Papiſts make Biſhops and Presbyters one, for that is to perform, as officers, prayers, conſecrate ſacraments, &c. and power of juriſdiction, only they make a Biſhops peculiar.

For what you proſecute, touching power of Ordination to be only in their Biſhops, not Presbyters; I will ſpeak more fully to that in the following Section; In the mean time I muſt tell you, that in quoting Salmatius, Parag. 15▪ Of this Chapter, you ſhew egregious negligence in reading, or, which is worſe, deceit; for the words you cite out of him, touching Timothy and Titus, that they were Biſhops indeed, of the ſame right, and of the ſame Order, whereof at this day they are accounted, who govern the Churches, and are over Presbyters: This he brings only by way of explication of Theodorets opinion; but when he comes to deliver his own, He ſaith, pag. 63. That Timothy was rather ſuper-Epiſcopus, above a Biſhop, an Apoſtle. And again, pag. 69. He ſaith of them, per abuſum igitur & impropriè Epiſcopi appellabantur, they were improperly, and abuſively called Biſhops. Thus alſo you uſe the London 1. D. who (you ſay) confeſs, that their government is not above 80. years ſtanding: whereas they aſſert the inſtitution of it by Chriſt, and the reſtitution only for 80 years; when they did likewiſe reform the corrupt doctrines in Poperie: And do not you ſpeak againſt your conſcience, when you ſay, Calvin would have cruſht that government in the bud, that ſometimes you make a Geneva invention? Who would think a D. D. ſhould be ſuch a citer of authors?

But to conclude this Section; if Biſhops have no place in Scripture, the beſt reformation muſt be, to aboliſh Epiſcopacie; though well limited, they may be tolerated; and that they have no place in Scripture, is the work of the next Section.

p. 36CHAP. IV. PARAG. 3. Wherein, for a fuller anſwer to what the Doctor hath ſaid to prove Epiſcopacy Chriſts inſtitution; this Queſsion is reſolved: whether a Biſhop (now uſually ſo called) be by the ordinance of Chriſt, a diſtinct Officer from him that is uſually called a Presbyter? The one a ſucceſſor of the Apoſtles, indued with power of ordination and other juriſdiction; the other, the Succeſſor of the Presbyters, ordained by Timothy and Titus, endued with power of adminiſtring 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 confeſt by all, but proving thoſe things, wherein there is any controverſie, or whereon the controverſie hath dependance.

Theſis, 1. firſt its agreed amongſt all, that all the teaching Officers that can challenge Livine inſtitution, are ſet down in an intire 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, ordinarie.

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 p. 37officers: 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 fixt to any place, but for the finiſhing ſome ſpecial work, as Timothy at Epheſus, 1 Tim. 1.3. Titus at Creet, 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 neceſſitie; and are, in an ordinarie 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 authoritie, and all thoſe acts flowing from it, which are neceſſary, perpetual, and ordinary in the Church of God. This alſo is clear; power and authoritie require a ſubject; divine power and authoritie, a ſubject of divine inſtitution: Now no other remains of thoſe of Gods 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, untill 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, p. 38were officers of Chriſts giving. The Apoſtles would ordain no other: it had been ſacrilegious preſumption; but they were neither Apoſtles, Prophets, nor Evangeliſts; Ergo, if Chriſts, they muſt be under either Paſtors or Teachers

Theſis, 9. Theſe Elders, were, by the Holy Ghoſt, alſo ſtiled 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 diſcourſ'd 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 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 ſpake thus; Take heed to your ſelves, 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 ſhew, 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 p. 39cauſe of it with them: the Church acknowledgd 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 tryed 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 miniſtred to the ſheep-fold of Chriſt, thoſe we may not think may be juſtly thrown out of their Miniſtry: whence he infers, foreign, &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, foreign. 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 p. 40election, or for his priority in converſion and ordination, had a preheminence of honour above the reſt, for order-ſake; who had no new ordination, or none for a great while, but what he had from his fellow-Presbyters, who choſe him, and exalted him, without any further ado, So Hierom, ep. 85. ad Evagrium, which he confirms from Alexandria; For (ſaith he) Alexandriae, &c. At Alexandria, even to Heraclas, and Dionyſius, Biſhops; The Elders did always name one Biſhop, choſen out of themſelves, and by them placed in excelſiori gradu, in an higher degree of honour, (not office.) Now whether in their choice, they did only look at merit, or whether they did a good while, (till, as **Ambroſe or Hilary on the Epheſians. Quia prim…m Presbyteri Epiſcopi appellabantur, &c. For he calls Timothy (who was created a Presbyter by him) a Biſhop, becauſe at firſt, Presbyters were called Biſhops, that one with-drawing, another did ſucceed; but becauſe the following Presbyters were found unworthy to hold that primacy, the way was changed, a Counſel providing, that not order, of time but merit ſhould make the Biſhop, conſtituted by the judgement of many Presbyters, leſt an unworthy man ſhould raſhly uſurp it, and be a ſcandal to many.Ambroſe ſaith, it proved inconvenient) advance him that was the next ſenior; it is argued both waies, though in my opinion, Blundel hath made it moſt probable, that according to Ambroſe his expreſſion, it went by ſenioritie for certain yeers; in his preface to the fore-cited Book. Some think, it went by ſenioritie in ſome places, and by election in others.

Theſis. 11. This preheminency that one had above the reſt, was by Eccleſiaſtical cuſtom, not by Divine inſtitution: and advanc'd him onelyonly to an higher degree, or dignity; not to another order, diſtinct from his fellow-Presbyters; ſo that, ſtill he muſt derive his ſucceſſion from the Presbyters, or Biſhops, that were to be ordained in every Church, and is to finde his place in the divine Catalogue of officers, Epheſ. 4.11. under aſtors, and not Evangeliſts, or Prophets. That this preheminence was not from any divine inſtitution, but Eccleſiaſtical ordination, Jerom is expreſs: The Biſhops muſt know, that they are greater then Presbyters, rather by cuſtome, then Divine diſpoſition, Hieron. in Tit. So Auguſtine, ep. 19. Although, according to the words of honour, which the Churches uſe hath obtained, Epiſcopacy is greater then Presbytery, &c. Yet: See bere, the precedencie of Biſhops, is an honour of words, and a fruit of uſe. And this may be further cleared, from what was firſt done in conferring this preheminence. It was but a bare act of the reſt of the Preſbyters, as appears by the example brought by Hierom, in the Church of Alexandria. They choſe out of themſelves, and ſet p. 41him in an higher degree: This they did of themſelves, and by themſelves, without any Divine command, (Let it be produced, if there be any;) yea, without any example, in any of the Churches in the Scripture, and they did it by themſelves, without the concurrence of other, and they could not ſet him in an higher order; Presbyters cannot make an Apoſtle.

Thirdly, this may appear, from that little difference that was between ſuch a Biſhop and a Presbyter, in the fathers times. Chryſoſt. Theophylact, Hilary, on 1 Tim. 3. Inquiring the reaſon, why the Apoſtle paſſeth from directions about Biſhops, to directions about Deacons, no mention being made of a Presbyter; Give anſwer; Firſt, Hilary, or, Ambroſe, Quia Epiſcopi & Presbyteri una ordinatio eſt, 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 excellencie onelyonly, not in order or office.

That conceit then of Theodorets, that they that are now called Biſhops, were heretofore called Apoſtles, and thoſe that are now called Presbyters, were then, i. e. in the Apoſtles times, called Biſhops, is it ſelf too groundleſs a fancie for you (Doctor Boughen) to ground your diſtinction of Apoſtle-Biſhops, and Presbyter-Biſhops; as though our now Biſhops were Apoſtle-Biſhops, and ſo of an higher Order, and indued by that order from Jeſus Chriſt to many peculiar acts, which a Presbyter could not do: And that they are not only an higher degree of Presbyter-Biſhops, indued with power by humane wiſdome to proceed and order thoſe actions, which by divine right, belong to all their fellow-Presbyters, who are to joyn with them in theſe acts of juriſdictions: This diſtinction, I ſay of yours, it hath no bottom to bear it up.Vide Morton. Appl. Cathol. l. 1. c. 33. Crim. tertia.

For firſt, you ſee its directly contrary to Hierome, and Ambroſe, or Hilary, and many others; who make Biſhops in p. 42their times, to be the ſame with Presbyters, or PresbyterBiſhops, as you call them: Nay, it differs from other Fathers, who though they acknowledg not an Identity of a Biſhop and Presbyter; yet they take that, which you ſay is ſpoken of a Presbyter-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 extraordinarie, and ceaſ'd; the latter only remain. And therefore the Biſhop, for what of him is divine, muſt be a Paſtor, and that's the ſame with a Presbyter-Biſhop; elſe, ſhew us ſome inſtitution for him: To talk of Timothy and Titus, is vain, being it is witneſſed by Scripture, confeſ'd by all, that they were Evangeliſts, which is extraordinary: Succeſſors they may, and muſt, have in the work of ordination, but in their office they have not; but the ſame work is done by Paſtors, ſucceeding them in thoſe acts of Diſcipline, as well, as in thoſe of teaching and adminiſtring the Sacraments: Neither need we be moved with the appellation which the Fathers beſtow on them, calling them Biſhops of Epheſus, and Crete; and ſaying, that St. Paul, in them, taught all Biſhops. For when Scripture calls them Evangeliſts, and reckons Evangeliſts among extraordinarie offices, that Chriſt hath given; what authoritie is of force againſt this teſtimony? Therefore we favourably interpret the ſaying of thoſe Fathers: that they call them Biſhops, with relation to the cuſtome of their times, who called them Biſhops, that did thoſe acts that Timothy and Titus did, not that they were properly ſo: For they were of an higher order, and did theſe acts as Evangeliſts: which their ſucceſſors are to do, as ordinarie Paſtors: Neither will their being Evangeliſts hinder the uſe of their examples, or the precepts given to them: For the ſame acts done by whatſoever officer, are to be done by the ſame rule; and therefore, as directions given to them for preaching, ſo for acting in government, p. 43are to be followed by other ordinary Officers; upon whom (by their deceaſe) the power and care of their acts, are devolved, though of an inferior order: Timothy was to imitate Paul; an Evangeliſt, an Apoſtle: and every Paſtor is to imitate theſe Evangeliſts, in ſuch acts, as are common to Evangeliſts with them.

Theſis, 13. All Presbyters being of the ſame Order, and that the higheſt of thoſe that are now in the Church, have by divine law, equal power in places where the Holy Ghoſt hath ſet them Paſtors and Biſhops, as to preach the word, and adminiſter Sacraments, ſo to do all other acts of government, when called, requiſite for the edification and perſervation of the Church; and the Biſhop, who is but primus Presbyter, made by man for Orders ſake, can rightly challenge no Monopoly, or ſole intereſt, but only a preſidencie, to guide, rule, and order that Presbyterie, wherein acts of juriſdiction are exerciſed, whether acts of ordination, or depoſition; binding, or looſing; excommunicating, or abſolving. This I prove by theſe reaſons:

Argument, 1. Thoſe who are truly and equally the ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, in ordinarie, and neceſſary acts of the Miniſtry; to thoſe by their office, belong all the acts of juriſdiction, that are neceſſary, and ordinary acts of juriſdiction: But Presbyter-Biſhops are ſuch ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles; ergo. The Major is clear of it ſelf; the Minor I prove thus: Paſtors are truly, and equally ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, in neceſſary and ordinarie duties of the Miniſtry, as appears Epheſ. 4.11. Apoſtles, Prophets, Evangeliſts, Paſtors.

The three former were extraordinarie, temporary, and ceaſ'd; ſo the Paſtor muſt be the ſucceſſor, if they have any: But Presbyter-Biſhops ſet over the flock by the Holy Choſt, to feed it, are equally and truly Paſtors: ergo. The minor is clear, from the definition of a Paſtor, which is an officer ſet over the flock of God, to feed it, & definitio competit omni, & eſſentia non variatur gradibus. See Acts 20.28.

Argument, 2. Thoſe that by divine law are equall in the power of order, thoſe are equal in the power of government, or juriſdiction. All Presbyters, firſt and ſecond, are equall in power of order; ergo. For the Minor, that all Presbyters are p. 44equal in the power of order; it may appear by the definition of the power of order: Lib. 5. of the Church, cap. 27the power of order (ſaith Field) is that; whereby perſons are ſanctified, and inabled to the performance of ſuch ſacred acts, as other men, neither may, nor can do; as is the preaching of the Word, and adminiſtration of the Sacraments.

Now all Presbyters, See Field of the Church, lib. 3. c. 39.as Field confeſſeth, are equal in the power of Order; yea, not only he with other Proteſtants, but many School-men, and other Papiſts alſo, as he there ſhews: For every Prieſt (ſaith Durand) in regard of his Prieſtly power, may miniſter all Sacraments; ea quae ſunt ordinum, (ſaith Aureolus) omnes recipiunt immediatè à Chriſto: ita quòd in poteſtate nullius, imò nec Papae eſt, illa auferre: in 4. ſent. Diſt. 24. Art. 2. Sect. tertia ratio &c. And this alſo appears becauſe they muſt all ſit under the ſame title of Paſtors, Epheſ. 4.11.

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

Now theſe ſervices are to edifie the Church, either by food, or phyſick; to further their ſalvation by word, or rod of Diſcipline: Now both theſe being miniſterial acts and orders, making a man a Miniſter: hence it follows, that they that are equall in orders, in actu primo, in regard of power, when they have a call, are equally inabled to the exerciſe of diſcipline, or juriſdiction, as well as preaching, and conſecrating Sacraments, both being acts of that office, to which he is advanc'd by orders. And thus much Field doth, ina manner confeſs: Three things (ſaith he) are implyed in the calling of Eccleſiaſticall Miniſters. Firſt, An election, choice, or deſignment of perſons, fit for ſo high and excellent imployment. Secondly, the conſecration of them, and giving them power and authority, to intermeddle with things that pertain to the ſervice of God; to perform eminent acts of gracious efficacy, and admirable force, tending to the procuring of the eternal good of the ſons of men, and yield unto them whom Chriſt hath p. 45redeemed with his moſt precious blood, all the comfortable means, aſſurances, helps, that may ſet forward their eternal ſalvation. Thirdly, the aſſigning, and dividing out to each man, thus ſanctified to ſo excellent a work, that portion of Gods people, that he is to take care of, &c.

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

**There is indeed, this difference between acts of jurisdiction, & other acts of order; the one every Presbyter may do alone; the other only in a Presbytery. So impoſition of hands, 1 Tim. 4.14. was in, and by the Presbytery; ſo cenſures, 2 Cor. 2.7. by many. But a Miniſter may preach, baptize, adminiſter the Lords Supper alone; and this was the uſe of the ancient Churches, who had their Presbyters, mentroned both in Scriptures, and Fathers.1 Tim 4:142 Cor 2:7Now to ſtreighten the Presbyter in this act of his orders, he hath recourſe to that feeble ſhift; That the Biſhop only is Paſtor, and the other Presbyters are but, as it were, curates under him; which if true, it is enough to make a Biſhop deſpair, as well as a Presbyter to be deſpiſed: for how can he diſcharge the cure of ſouls in an hundred miles circuit? But the contrary is evident, in the Presbyters of Epheſus, Acts …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 prioritie of order, was ground enough for directing to him, what belonged to, and was communicated to all; as now it is to any temporary preſident of a Claſſis; or as the things that concern the whole Houſes, are directed to the Speaker of either.

The ſame is plain of the Elders of Alexandria, whoſe ſuperintendent had no other charge from God, but only a precedencie of honour, and order, from themſelves: Beſides, all Presbyter-Biſhops ſet over charges by the Holy Ghoſt, are of thoſe Paſtors, Eph. 4.11. And I hope, no modeſt learned man, will think that any Preſident or Biſhop, then, was the ſole Paſtor; or that theſe Presbyter-Biſhops, ſet over the flock, by the Holy Ghoſt, could not act in their 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.

p. 46Argument, 3. To whom the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are equally given; they have equall power of juriſdiction: but to all Presbyter-Biſhops, the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given, and equally given: ergo. The Major is clear; for the keys of the Kingdom of heaven contain all juriſdiction; that's without all queſtion. and the Apoſtles are hereby uſually proved to be equall in juriſdiction, becauſe the keys were equally given to them.

For the Minor; the keys are appendants to the office of the Miniſter. The Apoſtles with miſſion had the keys, John 20. and ſo the confeſſion of the Church of England, agrees harmoniouſly with the reſt in this, that the power of the keys is equally in all Miniſters, Harmon. of conf. chap 18. p. 362. So at the ordination of a Presbyter; the key of Diſcipline was given to the Presbyter, as well as that of Doctrine, in the Church of England. And if there be an equalitie in that order, whereof the keys are an appendix, they muſt have the appendix following in equality likewiſe, that are equal in that order.

Argument, 4. That to which a man hath right, and, in acting, is reſtrained only by cuſtom, novell conſtitutions or Eccleſiaſticall Canons, that, by Gods law, he hath equal right to with others. But Presbyter-Biſhops are reſtrained from, or limited in acts of government, (to which they have right) only by cuſtome, novell conſtitutions of Emperours, or Eccleſiaſticall Canons: ergo, Jure Divino, power of government is in them equally with others.

For the Minor, that they have power of government, I have formerly proved, becauſe it is an act of their office: for the exerciſe of it, ſometimes in ordination, Paul witneſſeth, 1 Tim. 4.14. and for government, Jerome gives clear teſtimonie: Eccleſiae olim communi Pres by …erorum regebantur conſilio; and they did conſecrate their Biſhop in Alexandria from St. Mark, to Heraclas, as he witneſſeth. So did they ordain with the Biſhop; and without the Biſhop, the Chorepiſcopi, & the City Presbyters, till inhibited by the Counſell of Ancyra, held in the beginning of the fourth Centurie. Panormitanus is expreſs: olim (inquit) Presbyteri in communi regebant Eccleſiam, p. 47& ordinabant ſacerdotes, & pariter conferebant omnia Sacramenta, in lib. 1. decret. de conſuet. cap. quarto. Here is the right and practiſe aſſerted. Now for prohibitions, if any, out of the word ſhew them; for the Fathers, they declare what the cuſtome was in their times. Counſels and Emperors made laws only, limiting power to prevent inconveniences; and as Jerome ſaith, contra Luciferianos, many reſervations were made, potius ad honorem ſacerdotii quàm ad legis neceſſitatem. **Decreto Hisp. Synodi 2. Presbyteris quibus cum Epiſcopis plurima miniſteriorum, communis eſt Diſp…nſatio (edicitur) ut quaedam novell is & Eccleſiaſti…is conſtitutionibus, ſibi prohibita noverint, ſicut Presbyterorum, ac diaconorum, & virginum conſecratio, &c.And therefore I conclude, the power of government, of binding and looſing, and of ordination, is by divine right, an appendant to the office of a Presbyter-Biſhop: and as there is no proof for, ſo no …eed of your Apoſtle-Biſhop: And ſo the chief corner-ſtone of your whole Book, which you relate to, from chapter to chapter, is found but untempered mortar, that is crumbled away when it comes to hard canvaſſing, and your building muſt down with it.

We are indeed, much preſt in this queſtion, with the authoritie of Fathers.

But I ſay, firſt, the moſt ancient, (as is to be ſeen in Blundell) **Apol. pro ſententia Hieron.ſpeak but of two orders of Goſpel-Officers in their time, which they ſometimes call Biſhops and Deacons; ſometimes Presbyters and Deacons: Only Ignatius is urged, as a great friend of Biſhops; but indeed he is too great a friend, for he doth ſo far exceed in his expreſſions, and ſo differ in that, from other writers of his time; that for that, and many other things, all, or the greateſt part of his Epi…les, lie under great ſuſpition of ſubornation, or corruption, vid. Blond. Apol. pro ſanct. Hieron, & Cooks cenſura patrum.

Secondly, the moſt rationall of the Fathers, as Hierome, and Auguſtine, have witneſſed, (not ſpeaking obiter, or popularly, but purpoſely, giving their judgment in the thing,) that the difference between Biſhop and Presbyter, is the iſſue of cuſtome and uſe, not divine inſtitution.

Thirdly, the Fathers generally, give the Biſhop but a Preſidency, not a Monarchy, in juriſdiction: They aſcribe to him a Presbyterie, in which, and with which, he was to ordain, and cenſure; and without which, he was not to act in theſe p. 48things. And this plainly enough ſhews, that the Biſhops Preſidencie was but for order ſake, not that power reſted only in him; for that power that is reſtrained by Divine ordinance to one order, may not be interpoſed in by another; **See Forbeſii. Iren. p. 180. where he diſpures againſt the Papiſts thus: foreign miniſterium ſolis Epiſcopis, à Chriſto tributum eſt, id non poteſt Papa &c. committere Presbyteris. At miniſterium conferendi ordines poteſt Papa, &c. committere Presbyteris, Ergo, &c.the Levites might not joyn with the Prieſts, in offering ſacrifice, becauſe it was a particular above their ſphear, appropriated to the Prieſts; which neither in the abſence of the Prieſt, nor by his leave, or commiſſion, a Levite might do: But we know, at firſt, ordination was in the City and Country Presbyters, and forbidden them only with a Proviſo, unleſs they had the conſent, or commiſſion of the Biſhops; which prohibition, doth plainly ſhew, that before they were uſed to ordain without him, and after might with his leave.

Fourthly, the Fathers differ more from the high Prelatiſts, then from the Presbyterian: For the Presbyterian alwaies have a Preſident to guide their actions, which they acknowledg may be perpetuall, durante vitâ modò ſe bene geſſerit; or temporary, to avoid inconvenience, which Bilſon in his preface, (and again, and again, in his book of perp. gover.) takes hold of, as advantageous, becauſe ſo little diſcrepant, (as he ſaith) from what he maintains: but now the high Prelatiſts exclude a Presbyterie, as having nothing to do with juriſdiction, which they put as far above the ſphear of a Presbyter, as ſacrificing above a Levites; to wit, an act reſtrained to an higher order: whereas the Fathers acknowledg a Presbyterie; and in divers caſes, Counſels tye the Biſhop to do nothing without them; and ſo its clear, the high Prelatiſts are at a further diſtance from the Fathers, then the Presbyterians.

Fifthly, for that, wherein we differ from the Fathers, we have the Plea of one of the moſt judicious of the Fathers, Auguſtine, who being preſt with the authoritie of Cyprian, anſwers lib. contra Creſſcon. 2. cap. 32. His writings I hold not as Canonicall, but examine them by the Canonicall writings: And in them, what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scriptures, I accept with his praiſe; what agreeth not, I refuſe with his leave. This is our apologie, in diſſenting in this thing p. 49from ſome of the Fathers; wherein you ſee we follow a Father, and in that wherein Bilſon makes uſe of him, to put off the authorities of ſome learned men of his age; and adds, God ſuffers the beſt of men to have ſome blemiſhes, leſt their writings ſhould be received as authentique, p. 15.2.

Laſtly, if we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacie, (wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them, then we;) yet I would have them to conſider, in how many things we jump with the Fathers, wherein many of them have been diſſenting, both in opinion, and practice; as touching promiſcuous dancing, eſpecially on the Lords day. 2. Touching reſidency of Paſtors in their Churches, which excludes alſo pluralities. 3. Frequencie and diligence in preaching. 4. Touching the abuſe of health drinking or drinking ad aequales calices. 5. Touching Biſhops not intangling themſelves with ſecular affairs, or buſineſſes of State, in Princes Courts. 6. Touching gaming at Cards, or Dice, and ſuch like, ſo that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers, againſt us, in this one point, (wherein themſelves alſo are at a diſtance from them) while we keep cloſer to the Fathers, then they do in many others.

And thus; (Doctor) I ſhall leave it to the judgment of the indifferent reader, whether Apoſtle-Biſhops be not a meer fancy of your own framing; and indeed, now, there be no other but Presbyter-Biſhops; one of which for Eccleſiaſtical cuſtome, for pious ends had ſome power added to his Preſidency, for order, which afterwards degenerated into tyranny.

p. 50CHAP. IV. PARAG. 4. Wherein is ſhewed the impertinency of the Doctors ſixth chapter, againſt perjury, which the Author of the Caſe deteſts as much as be.

TO come now to your 6. Chapter, where you propoſe the queſtion, whether the King, without the impeachment of his Oath at his Coronation, may conſent to the abrogation of Epiſcopacie? And then tell us, Parag. 1. This queſtion hath two branches: 1. Whether a Chriſtian King be bound to keep his oath? 2. Whether he may not, &c. But did not your eyes dazzle, when you made this diviſion? Did I ever queſtion, whether the Kings oath was obligatory, ſo far as it was lawful, and in that ſence that it was intended? and ſo diſpute, whether the ſence of it were not the ſame of that with the people, that ingageth only till alteration by conſent in Parliament? Did not I expreſs in the preface, that unleſs it did appear, that abrogation of Epiſcopacy might ſtand with the ſence of the oath, the King ought not to conſent? how falſly do you then affirm, that I perſwade the King to break his oath? and how uſeleſs is this whole chapter? either taking for granted, what is not proved, that Epiſcopacy is a truth, and ordinance of Chriſt; or proving what is not in queſtion, that oaths are to be kept, perjury to be avoided; wherein you are ſo vehement, that you fa…l into rank anabaptiſtry: pag. 34. aſſerting, that oaths therefore muſt be avoided, leſt we fall into condemnation; as though all oaths were unlawfull, for fear of perjury. You do alſo admixe ſo many foul and bold ſlanders, uttered with ſuch bitterneſs, and ſuch evident falſeneſs, that any but a partial reader, will deteſt them; and therefore I think them unworthy any anſwer.

If I had ſaid as that Court-Preacher, Herles anſwer to Doctor Fern. p. 3.that the King is not bound to keep any oath he took to the people, to be ruled p. 51therein by law. His oath was but a piece of Coronation-ſhow, he might take it to day, and break it to morrow, &c. On ſuch a man, you might have ſpent ſome of your zeal againſt perjury; but to me it is impertinent, as the judicious reader ſhall plainly ſee, by that which follows now to be ſet down, out of the Caſe reſolved, which ſuppoſes the oath ought to be kept, and only enquires after the true ſenſe, and intention of it; and this may ſatisfie this impertinent chapter.

The Caſe Reſolved.

THe uſual way of clearing this aſſertion, is thus: The King is ſworn to maintain the laws of the Land in force, at his Coronation; yet no man queſtions, and the conſtant practice ſhews, that it is not unlawful after, to abrogate any, upon the motion, or with the conſent of his Parliament: The meaning of the oath, being known to be, to maintain the laws, while they are laws: but when they are abrogated by a juſt power, in a regular way, they are then wiped out of his charge and oath. So the King by his oath, is bound to maintain the rights of his Clergie, while they continue ſuch. But if any of their rights be abrogated, by juſt power, he ſtands no longer engag'd to that particular.

And this I conceive, to be a ſound reſolution: For the Kings oath is againſt acting, or ſuffering a tyrannous invaſion on laws and rights, not againſt a Parliamentarie alteration of either. But here ſteps in my firſt opponent, and though he diſputes modeſtly, onelyonly propoſing, what he holds forth, A nameleſs Author in a Book, impleading all War againſt the Kingto ſerious conſideration; yet he objects ſubtilly, and his Diſcourſe runs thus. The oath for maintenance of laws, is made Populo Anglicano, to the people of England, and ſo may be taken off by a future act, becauſe it is by their own conſent, repreſented in Parliament. But the oath to maintain the priviledges of the Clergie, 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 p. 52make 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 Societie or Corporation, (as I may ſo ſay) à populo Anglicano, from the people of England.

This diſtinction between the Clergie and Laytie, we may obſerve in our Hiſtorians. Daniel, in the life of William the firſt, gives this for a reaſon, wh… the Clergie did ſo willingly condeſcend to him, becauſe they had their …rovince a part, whence they ſuppoſed a ſecurity to their priviledges, how ever the Laytie were inſlaved. The ſame diſtinction of the Clergie and Laytie, is obſerved by him in the life of Henry the ſecond, pag. 83. And this was not onelyonly 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. defenſ. pacis, part. 2. cap. 23. Now being the Clergie and Laytie were diſtinct bodies, the Clergie holding their rights, by priviledge 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 ſecuritie. But now this diſtinction of the Clergy, from the Laytie, that they ſhould be a diſtinct Province of themſelves, being a branch of Poperie, is with it quite extinguiſht. And La…tie and Clergie are now one bodie politick, and under the ſame rule; for all priviledges of the Clergie, that are contrariant to the laws of the land, were aboliſht in the raign 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 Laytie & Clergie were diſtinct bodies; yet now, that this diſtinction is abrogated, and they are made one, the oath to the Clergie cannot be ſtronger, or more inviolabſe then that to the Laytie, for the preſervation of the laws p. 53of the land, both ſubject to regular alteration. Thus far the caſe.