The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. Containing ANIMADVERSIONS on Doctor BOUGHENS firſt Chapter, wherein he playes with the Introductions to the diſpute; and herein is diſcovered his ſubtilty in the whole, and ridiculous trifling in this part of the Book.
WE have heard your malicious charges againſt the Author of the little Treatiſe, which you undertake to anſwer. Now I muſt minde the Reader, of a Serpentine ſubtilty, that you uſe, to deceive him into a belief of your foul ſlanders, if he be not cautelous; which is, not to ſet down the treatiſe entire, nor to take it in order as it lyes, leſt the view of it, if it had been entirely ſet down, ſhould clearly have cryed falſe on your ſlanders; but here and there pack ſome of it in your margent, in what method you pleaſe. I ſhall therefore take this courſe, to ſet down the firſt Treatiſe by parts entire, A caſe Reſolved.that the Reader may the better judg, whether is true, my Apology, or your Calumny; and when I have ſet down any entire part of the caſe reſolved, I ſhall indeavour to cleer what you have objected againſt it, in any part of your prolix Sieve.
Firſt therefore, the Introduction into the diſpute, runs thus in my printed Treatiſe.
Caſe Reſolved.
VVHether the King, (conſidering his oath at Coronation to protect the clergy, and their priviledges) can ſalvâ conſcientiâ conſent to the abrogation of Epiſcopacy? Aff.
When I conſider, firſt, that there is no hope of the Kings or kingdomes ſafety, without an union between our King and Parliament. Secondly, that ſuch an union is tantùm non impoſſibile, unleſs the King condeſcend in point of epiſcopacy: Thirdly; for the King to condeſcend renitente conſcientiâ, though it might gratifie 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 preſt 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 paines, to reſolve this caſe, and cleer 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 ruine of the King, and Kingdome, 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 cleer, that one would think it a fitter object for envy, then carping; but Dr. Boughen can finde a knot in a bulruſh; and therefore, becauſe in the title it is ſaid, that in the Book it is cleared, that the King may without impeachment ;to his Coronation oath abrogate Epiſcopacy, the Dr. ſaith, Doctor Boughen pag. 1. chap. 1. par. 1.I full magiſterially determine before the caſe be ſo much as propoſed. Is this the faſhion, firſt to reſolve, and then to propoſe the caſe? This may be the courſe of Hereticks, not of Catholiques. But you are reſolved to maintain, that a Chriſtian may ſwear, and forſwear, without the leaſt prejudice to his ſoul. Thus the Dr. wherein he hath given a ſpecimen in the porch, what ſtuffe we are like to meet with in the building; and gives me juſt cauſe to bewail my unhappineſs, that having at firſt to deal with learned, and rational men, am now fallen into the hands of a paſſionate trifler: for doth not every intelligent man know, that though titles of Books be firſt ſet, yet they are laſt made, and uſually laſt printed, and contain in them the Summe of the Book? wherein, I doubt not, he will finde, not a magiſterial, but ſo rational a deciſion, that he will, in anſwering it, haerere in luto, before I have done with him: For the accuſation wherewith he cloſeth his paragraph, being groundleſs rayling, I know where it will reflect ſhame, with the impartial Reader, and therefore it needs no other anſwer, but a peremptory denyal; nothing being more abhorrent from my ſoul, or the ſcope of this Treatiſe, then either to maintain ſwearing, or forſwearing. "But parag. 2. He affirmes my practiſe is accordingly, becauſe thoſe of my perſwaſion have taken up armes againſt their Soveraign, and hold the Parliament ſubordinate to no power under heaven. But here, his aſſertions are not onelyonly impertinent to the caſe, but known to be falſe, by thoſe that know me; but then he comes in with a ſecond ſcornful expreſſion, that I have taken the oath of a canonical obedience; and yet indeavour the abrogation of Epiſcopacy. But how knows he, that I have taken the oath of canonical obedience? ſure I am, having never had inſtitution, nor induction, it was never profer'd me: but becauſe he (it ſeems) hath been ſo ready to ſwear, all muſt be in that bond: but what if I had taken the oath? I know no engagement to inhibit me to ſeek the abrogation of Epiſcopacy, from the oath, ſith I was never forbidden by the Dioceſan, to ſeek it; nay I can aſſure him, that Dr. Biſhop of Gloceſter.Smith, who impoſed hands on me, and in whoſe dioces, while he liv'd, I exerciſed my Miniſtry, was of Ieromes mind, that a Biſhop was an humane creature, as he expreſt himſelf in conference to a friend of mine, and ſo not unalterable. For his 3 Parag. Touching Smectimnuus making a Biſhop and an Elder all one, a and thence his wonder, how they indure my propoſition, being he knows that Author ſpeaks of Biſhop and Presbyter in a Scripture-ſenſe (which anon will cut his combe;) and I ſpeak of a Dioceſan Biſhop, as now he ſtands; as he confeſſeth Parag. 4. That his quirk about Smectimnuus, and the Maſters of the Aſſembly, is ridiculous trifling, fitter for a boy diſputing in Parvis, to lengthen out an argument, then for a D.D. writing a book, in a caſe of moment.
But now to the motives, which he ſaith I produce for the abrogation of Epiſcopacy, he ſhould have ſaid for writing this caſe about it. For the firſt, no hope of the Kings and kingdoms ſafety, without union between the King and our Parliament, he doth not deny it, but yet he divides them ſeditiouſly: Our King, and your Parliament. I acknowledg him as my King, pray and act for him in my ſphear, as my Soveraign: the King hath written to them as his Parliament, yet the Dr. divides them, though he cannot deny, no ſafety without union: For his petitions made in Scriptures phraſe, they are from him, as his heart is which I leave to God; and in a good ſenſe ſay, Amen. For the Second ground, there is no probable means of union, without the Kings condeſcention in point of Epiſcopacy. This, parag. 6. and 7. he denies not, but adds ſome things out of his own diſtempered minde, viz. unleſs he lay down his lands &c. Which he cannot prove, though I am truly ſorry, that he hath any colour to ſet them off as credible to any. For the third, If the King ſhould do it renitente conſcientia, it would be ſinful, &c. To this Parag. 8. he ſaith, that I perceive, and in a manner confeſs, that this he muſt do; for you ſay, it would be ſinful to himſelf. Thus you perſwade our Soveraign into ſin, &c. Was there ever a more falſe, or irrational paſſage dropt from a D.D. pen? do I ſay it abſolutely, when I only ſay, if he ſhould condeſcend, renitente conſcientia? or do I perſwade to ſin, when I ſhew ſuch inconveniences of ſin, as cannot be ballanc'd? But by way of amplification, we have another piece of Divinity, worthy ſuch a D. D. Every reluctance of conſcience makes not a grant ſinfull, but when my conſcience checks me on juſt grounds. Is this catholike doctrine? I am ſure, it is not orthodox; for it is point-blank to Saint Paul, ſpeaking of thoſe that act againſt conſcience, for want of light in indifferent things; and ſo not on juſt grounds. Rom. 14.17. compared with verſe. 25. The kingdome of God is not in meat, and drink; But he that doubteth, is damned if he eateth, becauſe he eateth it not of faith; for whatſoever is not of faith, is ſin. For the laſt, that the Coronation oath is preſt by learned pens, &c. "he first takes notice of my confeſsion, Parag. 9. Wherein he might obſerve my candor to my Antagoniſts, and therein read my intentions, that, not out of diſtaſte to perſons, but out of love to peace, and with a quiet and well affected heart, to thoſe I oppoſe, I wrote the reſolution of this caſe; but the Doctors blood-ſhot eye, can ſee none of this. He hath not ſo much ingenuity as the Heathen, virtus in hoſte. No, he was reſolved to carry on his Book with railings and ſcoffs; and I am reſolved, neither to envy, nor to imitate him; being well aſſured that ſuch dealing will prejudice both the work and Author, with any pious and prudent Reader. Next he trifles about an expreſſion touching the Kings condeſcention, (I beſeech you, do you dream? who told you, that his Majeſty had condeſcended to this impious and anti-chriſtian demand? ſaith he.) Whereas he knows, the context of my words evidence them to be ſpoken hypothetically, not catogorically. But we muſt give him leave to catch at ſhows, that wants real exceptions. For his other expreſſions, "That deſire of abrogation of Epiſcopacy, is impious and anti-chriſtian; This will appear but froth, unleſs he can make his Dioceſan Lord Biſhop an Ordinance of God, which will now come to tryal.