The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. Shewing, that the Monarchicall juriſdiction and great revenues of the Biſhops, may be divided to the advantage of the Church, in anſwer to Doctor Boughens 13. Chapter.
THis paſſage of my Caſe, you attempt to anſwer chap. 13. and tell us, that there's a great cry againſt the juriſdiction of Biſhops, as inconvenient, and prejudiciall to the the Church, againſt unlawful immunities, Anti-evangelicall pom, pcumberſome greatneſs, and forfeitures by abuſe, and theſe, you ſay, are cryed out of, but none of them proved.
I anſwer, the very expreſſion were ſo clear, of things obvious to every impartiall eye, that proof ſeem'd needleſs: and ſure I am, you would diſprove it, if you could, it ſtands you upon, which not doing, it may paſs for currant: yet one quirk you have in this 1. parag. on the word, unlawfull immunities.
You argue, if they were held by law, then not un lawfull, but legall.
I anſwer, legall they were, becauſe allowed by mans law, yet unlawful, becauſe againſt Gods law.
Your next quarrell, is at the expreſſion, when the oath was framed, the Church was indued by the ignorance of the times.
But you complain parag. 2. I tell you not when this time was; but what then? do you not know, it was in times of Poperie? and do you think there was as much true light at Weſtminſter then, as now, as you intimate in this parag.? Sure if you do, you have not only a Biſhop, but (as they ſay) a Pope in your belly.
Parag. 3. You take notice, that I conclude, the Kings oath is invalid in theſe reſpects, & vinculum iniquitatis; then you mention 5. particulars, 4. of which you ſay, you have quitted already; but I have therein diſproved you: and do not you think, that to exempt malefactors from trial, that fled to Churches for ſanctuarie; and the Clergies exemptions from ſecular puniſhments (which multiplied many ſlaughters by them, as Daniel witneſſeth, in his ſtory of Henry 2. pag. 83. (and yet Becket Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury, aſſerted this, as one of the liberties of the Church, which the king had ſworn to maintain, pag. 84.) I ſay, did not theſe, and ſuch like, think you, flow from ignorance? but it grieves you more, that I ſhould ſay, the oath in this reſpect, is vinculum iniquitatis, and ſay Parag. 4. I wilfully ſcandalize divers Princes of bleſſed memory, and charge them almoſt as deeply as St. Peter did Simon Magus, with the bond of iniquity, Acts. 8.23. Al-moſt (we ſay in the north) ſaves many a l…e; for is affirming that Princes (for want of light, which they wanted means for) do ingage themſelves with a pious zeal, but not according to knowledg, charging them with a crime, anſwerable to Magus his baſe ſelf-ſeeking hypocriſie? or ſo inconſiſtent with a ſtate of grace? If it ſhould, what caſe do you put king and Parliament in, which more then once, charge them with perjurie.
But tell me ſincerely, do you not think, in times of Poperie, many unlawfull things were given to the Clergie? and that many Canonicall priviledges were unlawfull? Sure either their immunities, or the reformation of them was unlawful; had you rather condemn the reformation, then the corruption, for fear of obliquely blaming the ancient Princes? Do you not hereby caſt an imputation on thoſe latter Princes, whom you are more bound to reſpect?
Your parag. 5. is a ſcornful Ironie, hinting ſomethings falſe, ſomethings irrational; falſe it is, That what immunities were unlawful in Biſhops, We would challenge; or inherit their anti-Evangelical pomp: and as irrational is it, not to apprehend, that divers ſcores of Presbyters marſhalled into Presbyteries, in the ſeveral parts of a Dioceſs, may not more eaſily ſee, and more ſpeedily take courſe to redreſs errors, and applie general remedies for the reclaiming of the ſcandalous, then one Biſhop over divers hundred Congregations, ſome of them the better part of a hundred miles from him. The Dioceſſes of Biſhops, heretofore were called Pariſhes; and indeed at firſt, few of them equal to ſome Pariſhes in England, and yet then they had Presbyters. Now their Dioceſſes are as large as Shiers, nay, it may be contain more Shiers, and Presbyteries diſcarded. Is not this prejudicial to the edification of the Church? Beſides, have you not heard what Queen Elizabeth uſed to ſay? That when ſhe bad made a Biſhop, ſhe had ſpoyled a good Preacher? And how few of that rank imitate the Apoſtles diligence, or charge, for preaching, 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. Is not this a ſign that the greatneſs is cumberſom? Yet we denie not, that there was preaching under the Biſhops, but I am ſure there was the leſs for many of them; they ſilenc'd Preachers, prohibited preaching on Lords daies, Afternoon, &c. And there was cenſure of manners, but yet Viſitations were but once a year, and Preſentations to be but twice; and might not many a man fall into, and periſh in ſin for all this? Beſides that, their cenſures were more nimble againſt me for ſtrictneſs, then looſneſs or prophaneſs. I believe therefore, the intelligent Reader will not be ſcoff'd out of his belief of what I have hinted.
Your Parag. 6. Begins, as you call it, with diſtempered foame, ends with appeal to laſt judgement, which is one main thing which hath made quiet me under Prelatical oppreſſion, having referred my ſelf to him that judgeth righteouſly.
More of your foame you caſt, in your fume, Parag. 7. Firſt, you ask "Why we are fallen from abolition, to alteration? I anſwer, this alteration, will prove an abolition to them, quâ Biſhops, do not you fear. Next this alteration, you jeer, not ſparing to abuſe Scripture to adorne your ſarcaſms; and yet I confeſs, htis alteration of the juriſdiction into more hands; and of the means of Biſhops, to maintain more mouthes to preach the Goſpel, is the beſt plea I have against Biſhops.
I confeſs it is, and you ſhall never prove it anti-Evangelical, or anti-Chriſtian: But I by it, ſhall blow off all your aſperſions, that you lay upon me, as an enemy of the Church, and Miniſtery, in my plea againſt Biſhops, whereas this one thing ſhews, I ſeek the good of both, and that rationally.
Parag. 8. You trifle again about the word altar, the vanitie of which exception, was before ſhewed. After you caſt about your foame, which deſerves no anſwer, but indignation; but whereas you would abuſe Saint Auguſtine, to prove me an Heretick, citing out of him, that he is an Heretick, that for any temporary commodity, and chiefly for his own glory, and preferment, doth either raiſe, or follow falſe and new opinions.
Mine anſwer is, that I have proved my opinions grounded on Scripture, and ſo neither falſe nor new. And for any end of mine in it, beſides the peace of the land, and the edification of the Church; I leave my ſelf to him, that tries the heart and reins.
Parag. 9. You come to examine what I ſaid, touching the legalitie of your priviledges, that if they be held by law, the Parliament that hath power to alter all laws, may alter thoſe laws, and ſo the immunity ceaſeth. You here firſt grant, you claim no priviledges, but what is legal: but you cavil at that which is ſaid, that the Parliament hath power to alter all laws; nay, you affirm, it is Atheiſticall to affirm that the Parliament can alter the laws of God; but all this is but trifling; for you know, by laws, I mean only humane laws of their own making, and all laws are underſtood by me, diviſim, not conjunctim, that is, they have power to adviſe upon any particular law whatſoever, or whomſoever it concerns; and if on adviſement, it ſeem conducible to wealpublike, to alter it, they have power to proceed to alteration; and ſo the Londoners themſelves (whom here you would jeer, or provoke againſt me) would not (I am ſure they ſhould not) deny the Parliaments power to alter any of their immunities, that are convinc'd prejudicial to the wealpublique.
Parag. 12. To that which I ſay, upon the alteration of the law, the immunitie ceaſeth; you in effect deny the concluſion; for you anſwer not the argument convincing, but hold the Theſis: You add indeed, that an ordinance was never conceived ſufficient to alter a law; but what's this to the purpoſe? who ſpeaks of ordinances? my argument runs of laws.
If any think themſelves abſolv'd from the oath of alliegance, by an ordinance, let them bear their burthen; neither do I go about to abſolve the King from his oath of protection, (as you here calumniate me) but interpret the bond rationally, which you cannot anſwer; and ſo vent your ſelf in impertinent accuſations.
But you conclude, Parag. 13. that ſuppoſe there be ſuch a law, could it be juſt? &c. You are pleaſed to acknowledg our priviledges to be our rights, how then can they be taken from us without injury?
1. You alter the ſtate of the queſtion; for every injurie is not perjurie: the quaerie was, whether they could be taken away without perjurie.
2. I acknowledg them your rights, that is, ſuch as you have a legal claim to, while the laws thus ſtand; but theſe your rights were of three ſorts: 1. Some of your Canonicall priviledges (at leaſt formerly) were corrupt. Such were aboliſh'd by Henry the 8. Theſe were your rights, that is, you had claim to them by mans, not Gods law. 2. Some were eſſentiall to the callings, grounded on the Word of God. 3. Some were indulged by the Prince and State. The firſt ſort were void to a Chriſtian, by their anomie. The ſecond unviolable, by the unqueſtionable authoritie of God, the Author of them. The third are under the Conſult of Parliaments, as other laws, which are the peoples birth-right, and they may alter both, if they ſee occaſion: So the laws that concern the Clergie, make them neither worſe nor better, then thoſe laws that concern the Laytie, render them.
Caſe of Conſcience Reſolved.
THe Author illuſtrateth the force of his argument, by an example, holding forth an inconvenience: Where publique faith is given for money, it is not releaſeable by Parliament, without conſent of the partie; for if it be, it is in effect, no ingagement, &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 ſocietie, ſubſervient to publique good: Of the former kinde, is the engagement to pay ſums of money, of whom they were borrowed for publike good, which is indiſpenſible without the conſent of the lender. Of the latter ſort is this engagement to the Engliſh Clergie. Now engagements to a Societie, to maintain their rights, indulged for the perſonall worth of preſent incumbents; or to promote the uſefulneſs of that office: If in their matter they prove prejudiciall 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 equitie the order would be valid in law though injurious: So, if there be no injurie, the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation. And where there is forfeiture by miſcarriage, or the priviledg to a Miniſtrie (which ought to hold nothing but for publike good) proves prejudiciall, the abrogation will be juſt, as well as legall, there will be no injurie done.
But take it at the worſt, it is but for the King to get the Clergies conſent; and I hope in this caſe, they will not be ſo tenacious of their wealth and honour, as to let the Crown run an hazzard, rather then they lay down their Mitres, and indanger 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.