The Fastening of Saint Peters Fetters, Tract · Section 3 · Subsection 8
Subſectio Octava.
This Preface being paſt, they proceed to the Reaſons why they cannot Covenant an endeavour to extirpate Prelacy; that is to ſay, The Government by Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, their Chancellours, or Commiſſaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-deacons and all other Eccleſiaſtical Officers depending on that Hierarchy: And they propound five Reaſons; two relate unto the Government, the third and fifth unto their own capacity, and the fourth unto the eſtate of the Church; according to this order I ſhall conſider them: And,
1. Oxford firſt and ſecond exception to the extirpation of Prelacy.They tell us, They are not ſatisfied how they can with a good conſcience ſwear to extirpate Epiſcopal Government, which ſay they, we think to be, if not Jure Divino, in the ſtricteſt ſenſe by expreſs command, yet of Apoſtolical inſtitution; that is to ſay, was eſtabliſhed in the Churches by the Apoſtles, according to the mind, and after the example of their Maſter, Jeſus Chriſt; and that by vertue of their ordinary power and authority derived from him, as deputed by him Governours of his Church.
Or at leaſt that Epiſcopal Aristocracy may lay a more just title and claim to a Divine Inſtitution, than Papal Monarchy, Presbyterial Democracy, and Independants by particular Congregations, or gathered Churches.
2. We are aſſured by the undoubted teſtimony of Ancient Records, and later Hiſtory, that this Form of Government hath been continued with ſuch an univerſal, uninterrupted, unqueſtioned ſucceſſion in all the Churches, and in all Kingdoms that have been called Chriſtian, for fifteen hundred years together; that there never was in all that time any conſiderable oppoſition againſt it; that of Aerius was the greateſt, which grew from diſcontent, and gain'd him the reputation of an Heretick.
From which antiquity to depart, they fear by this extirpation to give advantage to the Papiſts by contempt of antiquity; and ſhould diminiſh the Authority due to the conſentient judgement and practice of the univerſal Church, &c.
Sir, this is a very fair and ſpecious exception; for Divine Inſtitution, and ancient univerſal practice are very ſtrong bars againſt any Oath; and ſtrong conjecture of the one, and certain aſſurance of the other, do forcibly ſuperſede any mans acting to the contrary; yet Sir,
I wonder that theſe learned men do but think of a Divine Inſtitution, and yet are aſſured of ancient univerſal practice, uninterrupted for fifteen hundred year; methinks the laſt ſhould rather have remained doubtful; for conſcience can only be ſatisfied in the certainty of the former: A think ſo in a Divine Warrant, is both ſinful and dangerous; and I think the univerſal uniterrupted practice of the Church for fifteen hundred years might well run back unto the times of our Lord and Saviour, and at leaſt the Acts of his Apoſtles; and the Sacred, as well as Eccleſiaſtical Story, might make mention of this Government, and ſo create an undeniable certainty; for the one, is a very uncertain ground of aſſurance without the other: But ſtay Sir, I forgot the year in which theſe learned men wrote, it was 1647. and ſo indeed one hundred and forty years might return before Epiſcopal Government appeared in the World; and yet they may by antient Records, and later Hiſtories, find the practice of it fifteen hundred years; but this will more weaken, than ſtrengthen the Divine Right; for without doubt, the moſt primitive and pure eſtate of the Church was in the firſt one hundred and forty years.
2. Their Argument loſeth its force, by the ambiguity of their terms; for I am Sir, at the ſame loſs with them, for the Ratio formalis objecti, Saint Peters Bonds abide. p. 2, 3.the thing to be extirpated, as in my laſt with Dr. Gauden. They tell us of an Epiſcopal Government, and an Epiſcopal Aristocracy, but do not deſcribe it; it is no marvel that the Popes Legates ſhould interdict the diſpute in the Council of Trent, Hiſtory of the Council of Trent, Edit. 3. p. 591, 592.concerning the Divine Right of Epiſcopal Superiority, or direct it into ſuch general and uncertain debates, that there might be of it no determination; but, Sir, I think it very ſtrange that a Proteſtant Univerſity, profeſſedly ſeeking ſatisfaction to their conſcience, ſhould ſo ſophiſtically by general terms of an uncertain acceptation, maintain to themſelves doubts to which they deſire reſolution. They well know Epiſcopal Government may denominate the Government Communi Concilio Presbyterorum, by all Miniſters in the Church, who are the very true undoubted Scripture-Biſhops; unto which, or whom there may be ordinis cauſa, for method ſake, a Superintendent Moderator or Chair-man; and this Epiſcopal Government is undoubtedly of Divine Inſtitution, and antient practice, preſcribed by the Holy Ghoſt, and propounded in the ſacred ſtory of the Acts of the Apostles, Chap. 20.28. where, as in other Scriptures, Biſhops and Presbyters are terms ſynonimous, denominating perſons inveſted with the ſame Office and Authority, and enjoying the ſame qualifications, and by common conſent ruling the Church of Chriſt; and then, Sir, we muſt tell them this is not to be endeavoured to be extirpated, nor doth the Covenant ſo propound it; which if it do, I conſent to reject it.
But if by Epiſcopal Government, they mean that ſpecial Form and Frame of Government wherein one perſon is advanced into a diſtinct order of Miniſtry above other Miniſters, and is inveſted with Prince-like power over them, enjoying an Authority peculiar to him, eonomine, as Biſhop, of ſole Ordination and Juriſdiction, unto whom all other his Fellow-Miniſters are Subjects, and muſt ſwear to him obedience, who muſt have a Council denominated, Deans, Deacons, Prebends, Chapters, and the like, over and among whom he ſits as Lord; and yet over him acknowledgeth a more ſuperiour order under the title of Arch-biſhop, to whom he oweth and ſweareth obedience; and in this ſuperiour order, and lordly manner, he ruleth all Paſtours, and People, ſomtimes by himſelf, ſomtimes by his Chancellor or Comiſſary, his Surrogates, Deans, and Arch-deacons, with all Officers of State and Power within ſuch prefixed bounds and limits, which is called his peculiar Dioceſs; and either they muſt mean this, or miſtake the meaning of the Covenant; which yet doth very plainly deſcribe the Prelacy to be extirpated, to be a Government by Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, their Chancellours, Commiſſaries, Deans, &c. And then, Sir, I muſt deny, not that they think (for I muſt believe the profeſſion of their thought, though I think it ſtrange) but that there is any good ground for ſuch thoughts: and the opinion of an Univerſity, will not without good demonſtration in this point, beget ſuch thoughts in me, That the Apoſtles by vertue of their ordinary power and authority derived from Chriſt, and deputed Governours of his Church, did ever eſtabliſh this Epiſcopal Government; or that it was according to the mind, and after the example of Jeſus Chriſt, who himſelf did never exerciſe a Pompous and Princely power over his Diſciples; but converſed with them as his Peers and Equals; and gave them in charge that they ſhould not affect Superiority one over another, or Princely power over Gods Heritage.
I muſt put theſe Maſters and Scholars of Oxford, to prove by plain and pregnant Scripture, That the Office of the Miniſtry may in Ordination be divided, and only ſome part of it be thereby committed; ſo as that the Deacons may preach and baptize, but not conſecrate the Lords Supper.
That there are more orders of the Miniſtry than one, the Biſhop or Presbyter, or more Officers in the Church, than Elders and Deacons, appointed by Chriſt or his Apoſtles by their Apoſtolical Authority, who have only deſcribed their qualification, and directed the Ordination of theſe two, and no more. That the Presbyter (in whom is required the ſame qualification; to whom is to be yielded the ſame obedience, ſubjection and respest; who receiveth the ſame Ordination, and is charged with the ſame duty, and inveſted with the ſame power of feeding and governing the Church of God, with the Biſhop, and none other) is an order diſtinct from and ſubject to the Biſhop, ſo to be ruled by him, and not to exerciſe his Office, but by the Biſhops Licenſe, and at his pleaſure; and that the Presbyter is bound to ſwear obedience to the Biſhop as his Ordinary.
That certain particular Prieſts or Deacons ſhuld by Papal conſtitution and Princely indulgence without the counſel and common ſuffrages of the Colledge of Presbyters, beſpeaking their conſet, or conſent of the common people, The force of Prelacy covenanted againſt.be conſtituted a Colledge or Cathedral Council to the Biſhop, to adviſe with him, and rule under him, by the name of Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-deacon and Prebends, to Elect the Biſhop in vacancy, and hold Courts, conſtitute Canons, and exerciſe all Juriſdiction over all Churches and Miniſters, not being ſo much as choſen by them, or having their conſent, much leſs commiſſion ſo to do.
That any one Miniſter or Biſhop doth ſtand charged with all the Congregations and Paſtors of them in one County, or many Counties making one Dioceſs; and be by vertue of office bound to the inſpection, and paſtoral Correction and Government of them; and that the ſeveral Biſhops of a Kingdom be themſelves ſubject to one Metropolitan Church and Arch-biſhop, to whom they ſhall ſwear obedience, and ſhall be ſubject to be by him overſeen, ordered and corrected; ſure if the Word of God conclude ſuch ſuperiority over the Church in one Kingdom, it will conclude a Catholick ſuperiority over the univerſal Church; and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Arch-biſhops, as the Arch-biſhops are above the Biſhops, and the Biſhops above the Presbyters; for theſe are not differences of kind, but of degree; nor is there pleaded for Divine Right, or Apoſtolical Inſtitution of the one in the Church of England, what is not pleaded for the other by the Fathers of the Council of Trent; and by Bellarmine that Cardinal Popes Champion; Bellarm. de Clericis. lib. 1.5. cap. 14.and who can deny a quatenus ad omne, &c?
Laſtly, That Biſhops and Miniſters of the Goſpel may exerciſe their Office and Function by Ʋicegerents and Deputies, Commiſsaries or Chancellours; or that by any Apoſtolical direction they may, and have authority to Commiſſionate any ſuch; or that the determination and diſpoſal of Civil Affairs, Matters of Marriage, and Adminiſtrations, belong to them; that they muſt by themſelves, or joyning unto themſelves, Profeſſors and Students of the Civil Law, keep Courts, on which Proctors, Apparitros, and the like are dependent; and ſo judicially rule and govern in theſe caſes.
This is the Form of Government theſe learned Caſuiſts muſt think, is, if not of Divine Right by immediate precept from God, yet eſtabliſhed by the Apoſtles, according to the mind, and after the example of their Maſter, Jeſus Chriſt, and that by vertue of their power and authority, as deputed Governours of the Church; or otherwiſe their thoughts are very vain and impertinent; for not an Epiſcopal Government wherein all the Biſhops, Miniſters of the Church within any City, Country or Kingdom, inveſted with equal authority and dignity, being all of the ſame Order, do by common Council govern the Church; but this ſpecifical Prelacy, preſuming it ſelf to be an Hierarchy, or holy Government, and chief Prieſt-hood, not to be gain-ſayed without high profaneſs; or with-ſtood and deſtroyed without ſacriledge, formally exiſting in Arch-biſhops, ſuper our Princes to Biſhops; Biſhops, Soveraign Lords to all Miniſters or Preſbyters; and enjoying the ſtanding Cathedral Council, and ſubordinate Judges, Deans, Arch-deacons, Deans and Chapter, and tranſmitting their power, and Epiſcopal authority to Chancellours and Commiſſaries; and ſo ruling with all ſtate, and pompous attendants; not only mens profeſſion of Religion, but their propriety of civil enjoyments, is Covenanted to be extirpated. I hope Sir, that theſe ſerious men would not cozen their own Conſciences, and cheat the World; by their obſervation the Covenant would bind us againſt Epiſcopacy and Biſhops in general; and not take notice how it is limited to one particular kind; and then Sir, I muſt be free to tell them, That the Divine Right, or Apoſtolical Inſtitution of this Epiſcopal Government, is but a think ſo, of no more value than a dream; for I not only think, but am ſure, the libraries of learning, in all that famous Univeſity, will never lay us down this Form of Government in the Church of Epheſus, (though I ſhould grant Timothy to be a Biſhop therein) Antioch, Philippi, Creet, or the ſeven Churches of Aſia (ſuppoſing their Angels to have been Biſhops) in all which I deny not a Government by Biſhops, and thoſe made by the Holy Ghoſt; to whom I will preſume to think, had I then lived, and been inveſted with that Miniſterial authority I now by Gods grace enjoy, poor, ſimple I, might have ſtood up as a Peer, or at leaſt Biſhop Suffragan; and if they give not ſome Scripture inſtance, I think Eccleſiaſtical ſtory will never prove the Apoſtles eſtabliſhed this Form of Government in the Church; or at leaſt, not by their Apoſtolical power and authority, as deputed by Chriſt governours of the Church; and I am ſure, not after the example, nor according to the mind of Jeſus Chriſt their Maſter; it being directly inconſiſtent with the quality of this Kingdom, and dictated parity of his Miniſters.
Sir (with Reverence may I ſpeak it) I think it had been very ſutable to the learning and gravity of this learned Aſſembly, to have laid down in this caſe of conſcience, ſome clear Reaſons for their conjecture of this Divine Right, and Apoſtolical Inſtitution and Eſtabliſhment: And the rather, for that Pope Nicholas hath affirmed, Omnes ſive Patriarchae cujuſlibet apicem, ſive Metropolean primatus, aut Epiſcopatuum Cathedras vel Eccl ſiarum, ſive cujuſcunque ordinis dignitatem, inſtituit Romana Eccleſia: That Rome appointed all Eccleſiaſtical Dignities of Biſhops, Arch-biſhops, Deans, Arch-deacons, &c. And Pope *Apud Gratian. Diſt. 22. cap. 1.Lucius and Clement, with whom agreeth Peter Lombard, and our own Hiſtorians, That King Lucius inſtituted three Arch-biſhopricks, and *Diſtinct 80. lib. 4. dif. 24. Brit Hiſt. lib. 4. pag. 126. Polichro. lib. 4. c. 16. fol. 163. Pagets Chriſtianography. Foxe ſaith 28. chief Prieſts, called Flammens; Acts and Monuments. p. 96. Fol. 59, 60.twenty five Biſhopricks in the room and ſtead of the three Archflamens, and twenty five flamens: And that Devotus, the Biſhop of Wincheſter, falling into the ſeat of the flamen thereof, had all the poſſeſſions within twelve Miles cmopaſs, containing thirty two Villages, conferred on him and his Clergy: And the Archbiſhops, Biſhops and Clergy of England, in their Inſtitution of a Christian man, dedicated to Henry the eighth, have told all the World, It is out of all doubt, that there is no mention made, neither in the Scripture, neither in the Writings of any authentical Doctor, or Auctor of the Church being within the time of the Apostles; that Chriſt did ever make or inſtitute any diſtinction or difference to be in the pre-eminence of Power, Order, or Juriſdiction between the Apoſtles themſelves, or between the Biſhops themſelves; but that they were all equal in power, authority, and juriſdiction; and that there is now, and ſince the time of the Apoſtles, ſuch difference among the Biſhops, it was deviſed by the antient Fathers of the primitive Church, for the conſervation of good order and unity of the Catholick Church; and that either by the conſent and authority, or elſe by the permiſſion and ſuffering of the Prince, and civil power for the time ruling, the ſaid Fathers conſidering the infinite multitude of Chriſtians ſo greatly encreaſed, taking examples from the Old Teſtament, thought it expedient to make degrees among Biſhops, and to limit their ſeveral Dioceſſes, bounds of Juriſdiction and Power: And then, Sir, this Form of Government will ſeem to be more Jewiſh, Papal, Paganiſh, or at beſt political and civil, than Apoſtolical; the laſt of which, the Statutes of our Kingdom do declare it to be, affirming that the Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, Arch-deacons, and other Eccleſiaſtical perſons have no manner of Juriſdiction Eccleſiaſtical, 26. Hen 8. cap. 26.31. Henr. 8. cap. 9, 10.37 Hen 8 cap. 17. 1. Ed. 6 cap. 2, 1, 5, 8. Eliz, c. 1.but by, under, and from the Kings Royal Majeſty; and Patrick Adamſon, Arch-Biſhop of Saint Andrews in Scotland, Anno 1591. in his Recantation at the Synod at Fife, profeſſed ſincerely, ex animo, That Biſhops and Miniſters are by the Word of God equal, and the Hierarchy or Superiority of the Biſhops, nullo nititur verbi fundamento: And I think it had been but Reaſon ſome ſatisfactory anſwer had been given to Gerſom Bucer his Diſſertationes de Gubernatione Eccleſiae; Didoclavius his Altare Damaſcenum; Cartwright's Exceptions; Paul Bains his Dioceſan Tryal, Smectymnus; and eſpecially Mr. William Pryns publick and poſitive Challenge, in the unbiſhoping of Timothy and Titus, which I think will be ad Grecas Calendas, before they think ſo of an Univerſity had been publiſhed as a ſtumbling Block to the peoples ſwearing of the Solemn League and Covenant, when thereunto called by Parliament.
But it may be, Sir, I run too faſt; methinks their think ſo of Divine Right and Apoſtolical eſtabliſhment, is aſſerted very faintly; and therefore it is reſtrained and limited with an Epiſcopal Ariſtocracy, hath a fairer pretenſion, and may lay a juſter title and claim to a Divine Inſtitution, than Papal Monarchy, Presbyterian Democracy or Independent: Yet I muſt ſay, fair pretenſion, and comparative claims are very weak props againſt Parliamentary Reſolves, and the power of an Oath; it muſt be plain and undeniable Divine Right muſt ſtand againſt them.
But what is that they call Epiſcopal Ariſtocracy; Are not theſe learned men miſtaken in their terms? hath not Englands Epiſcopacy been ever deemed a Monarchy? and of the ſame kind, but lower degree with Papacy! How can it be conformable to the Government of the Nation, which theſe very men tell us, is Merum Imperium, an Empire, Monarchy p. 11? and eſtabliſh that Maxim, no Biſhop no King, if it be an Ariſtocracy! Whoever deemed Presbytery a Democracy? Or on what colourable ground can it be ſo deemed? doth not this Form fix the Government in the ſeniores and illuſtrior pars populi: The Officers of the Church ordering all, and ruling the whole Church, excluding the Congregation from all Acts of Government: ſave a ſhewing their juſt exception to any Order, Office, or Cenſure? If Presbytery be a Democracy, what can Independency be judged? I find theſe learned men by the nicety of this diſtinction, at a loſs for its name, as well they might, and ſo I ſhall leave it, and ſuppoſe a willingneſs in the Univerſity of Oxford to aſſent to Doctor Whitakers Theſis, That Regimen Eccleſiae non est Monarchicum, nec Ariſtocraticum, nec Democraticum, ſed Democratica Monarchica Ariſtocratica; That the Government of the Church is a Formal Ariſtocracy, qualified with ſomething of Monarchy, which he means not to be the ſuperiority of Prelates, and Democracy; by which is not meant the ruling power of the people; let but this learned Doctor explain himſelf, and Mr. Thomas Cartwright expound, nay, tranſlate his words; and we ſhall find a Government which will lay a very fair claim unto a Divine Right, Si velimus Chriſtum ipſum reſpiſcere, fuit ſemper Eccleſiae Regimen Monarchicum; Whitak. oper. Tom. 2. de Rom. Pont. Queſt. 12. de Origin. Eccleſ. Cartwrights firſt Reply to Whitakers gift. page. 35ſi Eccleſiae Presbyteros, qui in Doctrina & Diſciplina ſuas partes agebant Ariſtocratioun; ſi totum corpus Eccleſiae quatenus in Electione Epiſcoporum & Presbyterorum, ſuffragia ferebat; ita tamen ut foreign, ſemper Presbyteris ſervatur Democraticum; which Cartwright thus renders, The Church is governed with that kind of Government, the Philoſophers have affirmed to be the beſt; for in respect of Chriſt the head (not his Vicar or Superiority of ſingle Prelates) it is a Monarchy; in reſpect of the Ancients and Paſtours that govern in common; (all the Presbytery) with like Authority among themſelves (not a Superiority over them) it is an Ariſtocracy; and in respect the people are not excluded, but have their interest (unto exception) in Church-matters, it is a Democracy: If then theſe men will take down the towring power of Prelates, and turn their Magiſterial Throne into a Miniſterial Chair; and bring into the Cathedral Council of Deans and Chapters, all the Presbyters, and let theſe lofty perſons ſtand amongſt their Fellows, till by common conſent, for common order one of them be ſet in the Chair to gather Suffrages, regulate the Aſſembly, declare their ſentence, and ſee to the execution of their Decrees, and ſummon them together, they ſhall conſtitute a Government, which I think will not only fairly pretend unto, but plainly appear to have an Apoſtolical Inſtitution and Eſtabliſhment; and there are very many, both ancient and moderne Authors of my opinion; and then we need no more diſpute the matter of extirpation of Prelacy; for in this ſenſe the Covenant will rather eſtabliſh it.
Their think ſo of Divine Right turns into an aſſurance of univerſal uninterrupted ſucceſſion of this Form of Government in all Kingdoms that have been called Chriſtian, for fifteen hundred years together, without any conſiderable oppoſition, ſave that of Aerius, which ſprang from diſcontent, and gain'd him the reputation of an Heretick.
This is, Sir, the old, only, and uſual guard of Prelacy; I will not deny Antiquity its due Reverence, though I put not on it, The Antiquity of Englands Prelacy obſerved.nor conſent unto it an authority equal with, or as the Papiſts Idolize it, above the Scriptures. I confeſs in matters of Fact, it may give a clearer conviction, than direction, and aſſert things paſt done, rather than that they ſhould be done and continue.
It is well if their certain aſſurance in matter of Fact, be any better bottomed, than their think ſo, in point of Divine Right. I know not what might be their undoubted teſtimony of ancient Records, and later Hiſtories, for they mention none; and therein their faith muſt be unto themſelves; but by ſuch Ancient or Modern Hiſtories as I have obſerved, it is very difficult to find this Form of Government (which muſt relate unto that to be extirpated by the Covenant, or elſe it is vain) to have been either univerſal, or uninterrupted in all Kingdoms that have been called Chriſtian, for half fifteen hundred years; for if they account backward from the time of their writing, they will find a violent interruption, and indeed extirpation of this Form of Government by Chriſtian the King of Denmark, in the year 1537. as contrary to Chriſt his Inſtitution; and then they will loſe more then one of their fifteen hundred years without interruption, and that in a Kingdom called Chriſtian; and this Sir was to ſenſe, whatever it was to reaſon, a more conſiderable oppoſition than that of Aerius; not to mention the interruptions and extirpation in Scotland; which I preſume may be to them of little weight, that people in their eye ſcarce appearing Chriſtian.
And if they will account forward, from the Nativity of our Lord, their fifteen hundred years of univerſal, uninterrupted, Epiſcopal Government by Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, will riſe very heavily; for let it be conſidered, that the diviſion and diſtribution of Churches into Pariſhes and Dioceſſes, came not into the world for more than two hundred and ſixty years; Polid. Virg. Invent. l. 4. c. 9.and untill that time, ſmall Towns and Villages had their Biſhops, and all Biſhops were before and after that choſen by the people, not by their Princes; and ſo long there could be no Metropolitan, Archiepiſcopi vero ſu Hibernia nulli fuerunt; ſed tantum ſe invicem Epiſcopi conſecrabant donec Johannes Papyrio Romanae ſedis legatus ad venit. Hic 4. Pallia in Hiberniam portavit.Archiepiſcopal ſeat, nor Cathedral Epiſcopal Dioceſs. And will they give an Iriſh man leave to tell them, that Saint Patrick ſent into Ireland by Eleuth rius, more than two hundred years after Chriſt, did conſecrate as many Biſhops, as he did conſtitute Churches in that Kingdom, three hundred and ſixty five of each? and that from his time, to the coming in of Johannes Papyrio, the Popes Legate, Anno 1152. Girald. Cambr. Topograph. Hiber. deſtinct. 3. cap. 17. Vid. The Religion profeſſed by the Ancient Iriſh in an Epiſtle to the late Primate Uſher, by Sir Christopher Sipthorpe, Knight, pag. 58.there were no Arch-biſhopricks in that Kingdom, and yet it was called Chriſtian; and if the inſtance may not offend them, I would mind them, that Biſhop Uſher, the late Primate of Armagh, in his Treatiſe, De Primordiis Eccleſiarum Britannicarum, pag. 800. doth affirm out of John Major, De Gestis Scotorum, That in ancient times, the Scots were instructed in the Chriſtian Faith by the Prieſts and Monks, and had no Biſhops, before the coming of Palladius, into their Countrey; and after that Palladius made Biſhops, they had no Dioceſs, untill Malcolme, the third King of Scotland; but every Biſhop did exerciſe his Epiſcopal Function wherever he came; who citeth alſo John Fordon, Scotichronicon. lib. 3. cap. 8. on the ſame account; ſo that then we ſhall not find this Form of Government by Dioceſan Biſhops, Cathedral Churches, and by Arch-biſhops, to have been received in ſome Kingdoms half fifteen hundred years; and what then becomes of the aſſurance of theſe learned men?
Moreover, though the oppoſition of Aerius ſeem in their eye on inconſiderable one, yet it is ſuch as ſtated a principle, which being once admittee (as it cannot be denyed) and obtained but liberty to be improved to the direction of the Government to be practiſed, will ſubvert the foundation, and pull down the ſuperiority of Arch-biſhops, Biſhop, Deans, and the like; for if all Miniſters, Presbyters and Biſhops be of the ſame order, office and authority; we cannot but infer, Who are ye that advance your ſelves in the houſe of God, and Lord it over your Brethren, and Gods heritage? and notwithſtanding that this principle be clouded by the occaſion on which it was divulged by him, the mans diſcontent; we muſt ſay that Diſcontent is a better Dictator than Judge; and God knoweth how to make mens grudges grind out the knowledge of his truth, mind and will; I hope it will be deemed but a poor defence of the Popes Supreamacy in England, to ſay that King Henry the eighth in a diſcontented humour did caſt it off, and was for it excommunicated; and here the Reaſon is the ſame; a great noiſe is made, and advantage taken, that Aerius was reputed an Heretick, for affirming the parity of Presbyters with Biſhops; and yet Sir, it would be well noted by whom, and by what authority he was branded as an Heretick; it was not by any Council, or Primitive Fathers; but by one only man, Epiphanius, though to be Reverenced in the Church; yet by this adminiſters little cauſe of regard: I think many in Oxford will be loth to have Arminian notions (more oppoſite to the grace of God, than Aerius notions to good order) publickly damned as Hereſie, which yet were condemned by the Synod of Dort; and though that were not a general Council, it wins more Authority than the cenſure of Epiphanius; Saint Auguſtine therefore repeating the opinion of Aerius, as recited by Epiphanius, doth more modeſtly denominate it Proprium Dogma; Auguſt. de haereſibus cap. 53.and others repeating the Hereſies of Aerius, make no mention of this among them; nor indeed was there Reaſon, if in the Council of Trent, Michael of Medina were deſervedly chidden, for ſaying, Hiſtory of the Council of Trent, p. 591.Hierom and Auſtin fell into the Hereſie of Aerius, and affirmed the degree of a Biſhop, was no greater than the degree of a Priest: I hope that is not Hereſie in Aerius, which is Orthodox in Auſtin, Jerom, and others; truly Sir I think the ingenuity of the Maſters and Scholars of Oxford, might have led them to have conſidered, and indeed publickly contradicted, *Collected by Mr. William Prynne, as an Appendix to his unbiſhoping Timothy and Titus.the Catalogue of teſtimonies in all Ages, evidencing Biſhops and Presbyters to be one equal, and the ſame in Juriſdiction, Dignity, Order and Degree; whereby in five ſeveral ſquadrons, Chriſt and his Apoſtles, Ignatius, Policarpus, Anacletus, Juſtin Martyr, and many of the ancient Fathers; Peter Lombard, Gratian, Hugo Cardinalis, and many other Canoniſts and Schoolmen; the Waldenſes, Alphonſus, Caſtro, Gerſomus Bucer, and a multitude of Forraign Divines and Churches; our own, Sedulus, Anſelme, Beda, Occham, Fulk, Juel, Reynolds, Whitaker, and almoſt who not, in every place and age, are produced, as thinking the ſame thing, which in A…rius is called Hereſie; for certainly ſo general a conſent to a concluſion ſo weighty, is a very conſiderable oppoſition directly repugnant to their confidence of an univerſal uninterrupted exerciſe of this Form of Government; for now had Epiphanius more warrantably, and on better grounds called this an Hereſie, I ſhould not much regard it; nor will their aſſurance of this Argument avail, to eſtabliſh this kind of Prelacy, or to anticipate the promiſe on Oath of a due endeavour to extirpate it.
We ſee, Sir, there is nothing of weight in the Government, either on the ſuppoſed Apoſtolical Inſtitution, or ancient univerſal uninterrupted practice, that could bar from taking, much leſſe bind unto the breaking of this ſecond Article of the Solemn League and Covenant; let us conſider what is in the ſtate of the Church of England, Oxford fourth exception to the ſecond Article of the Covenant.which may bind the perpetuation of this Government, or be of force to bar the extirpation thereof; and that in their fourth exception to this Article, wherein they tell us;
In reſpect of the Church of England, they cannot ſwear to extirpate this Government, for three Reaſons.
1. The Inconveniences which attend all change in Government; and in this is like to be great, it being deeply rooted in the Laws, and of ſtrong influence on the Civil State.
2. Repugnant to the Declaration of the Commons-in Parliament.
3. And a ſtriking at the foundation of this Famous Church of England.
Unto all which I cannot but briefly ſay, That the two firſt ſeem in my thoughts very little to reſpect the Church; for the alteration which might enſue in the Civil State, might conſiſt with, and conduce unto the being, and well-being of the Church; and the declared purpoſes of the Houſe of Commons might be contradicted without any great reflection on the Church.
2. Jealouſies of inconvenient effects, muſt not intercept a duty; Theſe effects may be accidental, the duty poſitive; and it is the prudence of Legiſlators to fore-ſee, and prepare againſt ſuch incoveniences, as may happen on the alteration of Lawes, and Forms of Government; I queſtion how far the care thereof lieth on private perſons or ſocieties; And if theſe jealouſies were of weight for continuation of Epiſcopacy now, why not at the deſtruction of Monaſteries and Abbies, and excluſion of the Popes Supremacy? (which was the root, to which Prelacy is but a Branch ſince continued) in conjunction with, and influence on the Civil State; by Magna Charta, the grant of the glorious King Saint Edward, and moſt of the ancient Lawes from which this Government doth at this day draw its ſap and ſtrength.
3. The Delaration of Parliament pleaded as a Bar to this extirpation, doth offer Reaſons for its alterations, which I think are of weight; (viz.) its ſtrenuous ſtudy and endeavour to effect a conjunction between Papiſts and Proteſtants in Doctrine, Diſcipline and Worſhip, being before agreed in judgement: its Tyrannical impoſing a Liturgy in Scotland, and enforcing it after an happy pacification by his late Serene Majeſty, with the Bellum Epiſcopale; its violence and cruelty to Religion, and Religious men, in the Star Chamber, and High Commiſſion Courts; and what themſelves obſerve, its influence on the Civil State, which made this Prelacy odious in all Ages, and was a very likely provocation to its extirpation in England, as in Denmark; and if they will but pleaſe to conſider, that ſinful ſuperiority over the Miniſters of the Gospel, which is the anima animans, very form of it, and cannot be capable of any remedy, but by its ruine; all which having been publiſhed in print, by many Petitions to, Speeches in, and Declarations from the Parliament, might have offered Reaſons for the extirpation to counterpoiſe, nay, weigh down all feared inconveniences which might ariſe, had theſe learned men pleaſed to have obſerved them; ſo that if the Houſe of Commons did any way declare the continuance of it, it was from their indulgence and willingneſs by all fair means, if poſſible, to regulate it, rather than any merit of the Government it ſelf.
4. But the ſuppoſed repugnancy of this branch of the Covenant, unto the Declaration of the Houſe of Commons, is not to me ſo viſible; theſe Gentlemen refer us unto the Remonſtrance of December the fifth, 1641. and tell us, That the Houſe of Commons Remonſtrated, that it was far from their purpoſe or deſire, to aboliſh the Church-government, but rather that all the Members of the Church of England ſhould be regulated by ſuch Rules of Order and Diſcipline, as are eſtabliſhed by Parliament: Which words, by the variation of the character I imagined, to be the words of the Remonſtrance, but on ſearch, and ſecond reading of the Remonſtrance, I find no ſuch ſentence in the ſame; ſome parts of the ſentence in the Remonſtrance, themſelves have tranſcribed in the Margin, and it is this, They infuſe into the people, that we mean to aboliſh all Church-government; which Text will not juſtifie or allow their inference; for it proclaims not the Parliaments purpoſe, but Malignants policy; not that it was far from their purpoſe or deſire to extirpate this kind of Government; but that the malice of their enemies did infuſe they would aboliſh all Government: Surely Sir, prejudice was very prevalent in theſe learned men of Oxford, which made them read inſtead of a complaint of grievance, a Declaration of purpoſe; and from the complaints of a general charge, to intend to aboliſh all Government, to infer a purpoſe of preſervation of this ſpecifical Government, as if all Government were included in it; had they pleaſed to have read the whole ſentence, they would have ſeen that the words were much more general, aboliſh all Government, and leave every man to his own fancy, for the ſervice and worſhip of God; which they might not do, and yet extirpate the Prelacy, and late Epiſcopal Government of England; no marvel that this miſtake makes them imagine, and inſert into the Reaſon, a rather that all the Members ſhould be regulated, &c. which deſire is not therein expreſſed, but only a profeſſion of their knowledge That His Majeſty was under God entruſted with the Eccleſiaſtical Law, to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by ſuch Rules of Order and Diſcipline, as are eſtabliſhed by Parliament: I think Sir, a profeſſion of his Majeſties Prerogative, is vaſtly different from a Parliamentary proportioning of the Prelates preheminence; and the Kings Supremacy may be acknowledged, when the Biſhops are degraded, and ſet among their proper Peers: And now Sir, this repugnancy between the Covenanted extirpation, and Parliaments purpoſe of perpetuation, appeareth a think ſo, of like nature with the Apoſtolical Inſtitution of this Epiſcopacy; and it would be enquired whether it be more malignity to ſuggeſt to the people a purpoſe in the Parliament by them never declared, and ſo make them obnoxious to the charge of ſelf-contradiction, or infuſe into the people the verity and plainneſs of their meaning, not to aboliſh all Government, but to extirpate this kind, which through the whole Remonſtrance they had declared to be ſo oppreſſive and dangerous; if they will evade the influence, compaſs and danger of the fourth Article of this Covenant in the firſt caſe, I dare ſecure them from it in reference to the ſecond.
5. But the main thing which concerneth the Church of England, is her foundation; which if it be removed, what ſhall the Righteous do? And theſe ſerious Caſuiſts do tell us, That the holy Church of England was founded in the ſtate of Prelacy, within the Realm of England, and they proved it by the Law; (for Goſpel without doubt they had none to prove it, that laying the Prophets and Apoſtles for the foundation, and Chriſt (an enemy to Prelacy) the corner ſtone) and in their Margin they cite the Statute of Carlile, 25. Ed. 1. Recited 25. Ed 3. on which they profeſs, They dare not by extirpation of Prelacy, ſtrike at the foundation of the Church, which they are bound to uphold.
Truly Sir, their care of the Church, and its foundation is commendable; but how comes it to paſs that this Form of Government muſt be made the foundation of the Church, without any danger of Schiſm by them, to whom Scotlands making their Diſcipline and Government the mark of a true Church, did ſeem ſo much tending to Schiſm? Muſt the Government of England be a fundamental point of Religion, the very eſſe of the Church? and may not Scotland make her Government a note of diſtinction? Turpe eſt doctori, &c. Sir, we cannot deny the proofs cited, and declaring the holy Church of England to be founded in the eſtate of Prelacy; but I cannot but ſtand amazed to find men making Apologies, propounding doubts, profeſſing a ſerious deſire to have conſcience ſatisfied; ſo much to content themſelves, and cozen their Readers with plain fallacies; ſuch Sophiſme as better beſeems the Logick, than Divinity Schools; and common Halls, than the Regent houſe.
Two things are to be explained. What they mean by holy Church? and what foundation this is, to which the Statutes relate?
Theſe learned men wel know, that by holy Church, in the acceptation of that Age, and of thoſe very Acts, the Statute of Edward the firſt at Carlile, and the Statute of Edward the third, was meant the Pompous, Popiſh Eccleſiaſtical State, whereof Abbies and Priories were no ſmall Members, as in Magna Charta, and other Grants of Kings, which had then ſuch influence on the Civil State, as that no Act of Parliament could bind, or be deemed valid, without the ratifying cenſure of holy Church, whoſe manner was by her authority, to curſe all that ſhould not keep ſuch Lawes as were agreed; I wiſh the Maſters and Scholars would ſpeak out, and tell us, whether they think they are bound to uphold this holy Church? or that the Church of Chriſt may not, yea, do not ſubſiſt in England, now holy Church is driven out; the Church ſimply Chriſtian, is very different from the pompous popiſh, holy Church.
Again Sir, the foundation mentioned in theſe Statutes, is ſutable to the Fabrick, Foxe, his Acts and Monuments. p. 22.holy Churches; viz. the temporal endowments whereby ſhe was made ſo pompous; the Lands, Mannors, and large Revenues given by the King, or Nobles of the Land, as the queſtion occaſioning the ſame, doth plainly evidence, which was, Whether the exactions of the firſt fruits of Churches and Abbies, and all Benefices in England, and the profit of vacancies by Pope Clement, were juſt? and as the very words and ſcope of the Statute of 25. Edward 3d. doth plainly declare; providing for the advouſance, and diſpoſal of all Benefices, and the profits thereof, in manner as the founders, that is, firſt donors had eſtabliſhed; and ſo the Prelacy, in which it was founded, is an Independency as to Rome, and a ſole Power and Prerogative which England had free, and within her ſelf, in reſpect of which, in the very words of the Statutes themſelves, it is ſaid, The Biſhop of Rome uſurping the Seigniores of ſuch Poſſeſſions and Benefices, doth give and grant the ſame to Aliens, which did not, and Cardinals which might not dwel in England; as if he had been Patron or Advowe of the ſaid Benefices, as he was not of right after the Law of England; ſo that this Prelacy is purely Political, and the foundation more profitable than pious; could theſe learned men be ſo abſurd, as to make the very being of the Church to ſtand on ſuch a foundation? were there not Churches of Chriſt before Patrons, Poſſeſſons and Preſentations? and may they not be when theſe large endowments are taken away from the places to which they are affixed? This Prelacy will determine the Church of England by the fall of Monaſteries to have been ſhaken in the foundation; and by vertue of this Political Prelacy, the Kings of England have given the poſſeſſions of Biſhopricks to their Chancellours, Treaſurers, Secretaries, Kinſmen, meer Lay-perſons for increaſe of their means, Pryns Catalogue of Teſtimonies for the parity of Preſbyters and Biſhops, p. 16, 17, 18.and have kept the Epiſcopal and Archiepiſcopal Seas void, for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 20. and ſometimes 30. years together; by what loadſtone do theſe learned men think the holy Church did ſubſiſt, when her Prelates her foundation in their ſenſe was wanting? or can they make us believe Denmark or Scotland have loſt, or the Reformed Churches never had the being of a Church of Chriſt, becauſe they never had or have expelled their Epiſcopal Prelacy? Eccleſiaſtical Prelacy (like the Petrae and Rupes, as in the time of King Henery the third) have ever been ſuch ſwelling foundations to the Church, and in the State, that they have conſtrained the Kings and Parliament of England, as of all other Nations, in all Ages, to exerciſe an high Prelacy over them by strict Laws and ſevere exactions to keep them within their bounds; and at laſt to Covenant the extirpation thereof; wherein the Oxford Reaſons would make us believe, we not only pull an old houſe about our ears, but deſtroy the very Church; if we have not wit enough to ſee how they would coſen us by the Law of man, inſtead of the Law of God, and a falſe gloſs on fair words.
Having found ſo little weight in what is urged from the Government by Epiſcopacy, of the eſtate of the Church of England, we ſhall not expect much in what is incumbent upon themſelves, againſt their Covenanting to endeavour to extirpate this kind of Government; yet that little we ſhall conſider, and it relates unto their perſonal capacities in their third exception, or more publick Obigations in their fifth exception.
In reference to their perſonal capacities, they ſay, They are not ſatisfied how it can stand with juſtice, ingenuity or humanity, to require the extirpation of this Government, Oxford Reaſons third exception againſt extirpation of Prelacy.unleſs it had been proved unlawful; what Sir, if it had been proved inexpedient? it would have been conſiſtent with Saint Pauls Juſtice, Humanity and Ingenuity; for to him, All things might be lawful, but were not expedient, was a Rule; but their Reaſons might reſtrain theſe learned men, and they are five in number.
1. They had by ſubſcribing the 39. Articles teſtified their approbation of that government.
2. Received orders from their hands.
3. Petitioned the continuance thereof.
4. Htld their Livelyhood under ſuch titles, and in the exerciſe of that Government, or ſome part thereof.
5. Had ſworn as Members of ſuch ſocieties to preſerve the immunities, liberties and profits of the ſame.
VntoUnto all which I ſhall ſay very briefly:
1 It is worth their enquity, whether they ſubſcribed the 39. Articles judiciouſly and judicially, and ſo gave their approbation to this Government; we grant, that in the 39. Articles commonly publiſhed, there is one (viz.) the 36. which relateth to the Book of Conſecration of Biſhops and Arch-biſhops, &c. But that it affirmeth that Book to contain in it nothing contrary to the Word of God; I find not, in either the Latine or Engliſh Copy of theſe Articles which I have ſeen; theſe learned men ſure read theſe Articles with the Parliaments Remonſtrance before mentioned, and ſo miſread them both; but ſuppoſe the Article had ſo affirmed; it had laid no bar to the alteration, or extirpation of this Government; for it might be (as indeed all our Stattues do ſuggeſt) a meer Political, Civil conſtitution, and ſo (though an Adiaphoron) not contrary any more than conſonant to the Word of God, and alterable at the pleaſure of Englands Parliaments: and then Sir with whatever judgment theſe Gentlemen ſubſcribed this Article, I am ſure there is not much in pleading it as a Bar to the duty enjoyned by Parliament.
Yet I muſt confeſs I am not ſatisfied that the Books of ordering Prieſts and Deacons, and Conſecration of Biſhops and Archbiſhops, did contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God; for I not believe, nor is it evident to me by Holy Scripture, or ancient Authors, that from the Apoſtles times there hath been theſe orders of Miniſters in Chriſts Church, Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons; for I find no Prieſts in the new Teſtament; and conceive Presbyters and Biſhops to be no more than different denominations of the ſame order; and make not different orders any more than Paſtours, Teachers, Stewards, Angels, Stars, and the like; and if there were theſe orders, yet it is I think contrary to the Word of God, to add a fourth, Arch-biſhops; and if they be not an order, how come they to have the ſame conſecration with Biſhops (a contended for order of the Miniſtry) and how come Biſhops to ſwear unto them obedience? neither the one, nor the other is common to a gradual preheminence; the Speaker of the Parliament, or Lord Chief Juſtice, hath no ſuch like Solemnity.
I queſtion whether the word will allow an Ordination to ſome part of the Miniſtry, and give Authority to apply one Sacrament or Seal of the Covenant, and not the other; nor am I clear the Deacons Office doth at all conſiſt in Miniſtry of Word and Baptiſm; and aſſiſtance at the Communion, the Scripture ſpecially points them to the poor, and to ſerve Tables.
I queſtion whether mute ſervice in a publick ſolemn Aſſembly be not contrary to the Word of God; where all, as well prayer as preaching ought to tend to Edification.
I queſtion whether a Magiſterial and Authoritative giving the Holy Ghoſt (peculiar to Chriſt, who did it in reality) be not contrary to the Word of God? or according to the words of the Article, Superſtitious and ungodly.
And whether Miniſters ſwearing Caronical obedience to the Biſhop, or Biſhops to the Arch-biſhops, be not plainly Papal and ungodly?
If theſe learned men conſidered, and were convinced of the conſonancy of theſe, and the like things with the Word, I hope they ſubſcribed this Article judiciouſly? yet I muſt enquire how judicially? I imagine the Satute of Queen Elizabeth will nos be produced as their warrant for ſubſcription to this Article; for the Articles thereby enjoyned, 13. Eliz. 13.do only concern the confeſſion of the true Chriſtian Faith, and Doctrine of the Sacraments; and this particle only; is excluſive to Diſcipline and Government, which by the whole current of our Laws are concluded to be Political in their nature, & only Eccleſiaſtical ratione objecti, & at the pleaſure of the Magiſtrate; and therefore could not be made an Article of the true Chriſtian Faith; I hope ſuch as leave this Article out of their Creed, ſhall not be ſhut out of the Chriſtian Church.
Now Sir; were there any force in this exception to the Covenant, I would adviſe that ſubſcription to be taken into ſecond thoughts; yet it is as ponderous as the next.
They received Orders from their hands, and ſhould ill requite them for laying their hands on them, to lay to their hands to root them up, and cannot tell for what.
That they ſhould root them up who had laid their hands on them, was not required; they might continue Men, Miniſters; it is like better Chriſtians, and more painful Preachers, when they were not Biſhops; I hope Prelates and Prelacy were not inſeparable; that the one muſt be ruined in the removal of the other; and our queſtion is of the thing, not perſon; in which degradation was the worſt they could do them; who had they been affected with the dream of Richard Havering Arch-biſhop of Dublin, The Annals of Ireland in Cambd. Britan pag. 169.That a certain Monſter, heavier than the whole World, ſtood eminently aloft upon his breaſt, from the weight whereof he choſe rather to be delivered, than alone to have all the goods of the World; when he waked, he thought this was nothing but the Biſhoprick of Dublin, and ſo forthwith renounced it. Or had they enjoyed the Spirit of Antoninus, Elected Arch-biſhop of Florence, who refuſed (on fear of hazarding his ſalvation) to accept it; and when thundred into it by the counſel of his friends, frowns of the Magiſtrates, and the Popes Bull, kept only eight perſons, no ſtately furniture in his houſe, no Coach and Horſes, and kept his uſual method of devotion in his Family, ſaying, They ſhould do him a ſpecial favour to thruſt him fram his Biſhoprick, wherein he continued with very great Regret. They would acknowledge a kindneſs done unto them; and yet were it an unkindneſs, theſe Gentlemen were acquitted from the ingratitude; they have petitioned their continuance, and were not able to withſtand the pleaſure of their Superiors, on whoſe pleaſure their whole enjoyments did depend; nor had they been without Parallel (if not a plea of Juſtice) For the Arch-Biſhops, and Biſhops of England (Rocheſter excepted) in the time of Henry the eighth, had voluntarily (without the command of the King or Parliament) ſworn to root up the Pope (the Apex of this Epiſcopacy) from whom they had received their Palls, Properties, Power; Foxe his Acts and Monuments. p. 564. 565 566, 567.I had almoſt ſaid Papacy.
Their third Reaſon I paſs as an expreſſion of their affection, only wiſhing it may have its dependance on right Reaſon; yet confeſs petitioning is every mans liberty.
And for the fourth and fifth.
That they held their livelyhoods by ſuch titles, and were ſworn to preſerve the immunities, liberties, and profits of the ſame.
I only ſay they held them at the pleaſure of the Parliament, whoſe power is over the enjoyments of all perſons, and publick (much more particular) ſocieties, againſt whoſe Laws, no Domeſtick Laws or Oaths could bind; and ſo their plea in this, amounts to no more than what might be ſaid for the Monaſteries and Abbies, (which I preſume they will not ſay were wickedly demoliſhed) unleſs they prove Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, to be built on a better foundation, which I would not adviſe them to ſeek in the Statute of Carlile, repeated in the 25. Edw. 3d. in which they are conjoyned.
Their fifth exception is,
In respect of their Obligation by Oath and Duty to the King, Oxford Reaſons, fifth Exception to the 2d. Article of the Covenant.and therein their diſſatisfaction doth ariſe from the
Oath of Supremacy;
Coronation Oath;
The benefit this Government brings unto the Kings Honour and Eſtate;
The …greeableneſs of this Government to the Civil Conſtitution of the Kingdom.
Unto which I anſwer briefly,
That the Oath of Supremacy doth acknowledge the King to be the only Supreme Governour in all Eccleſiastical Cauſes, and over all Eccleſiaſtical perſons; and that by the Oath of Supremacy, and the proteſtation of the fifth of May, they and we were bound to maintain the Kings Honour and Eſtate, and Juriſdiction, we freely grant; but in ſwearing to endeavour the extirpation of this Government by Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, &c. I ſee not the danger of diſloyalty or injury to the King, or double perjury to our ſelves, or contradiction to the Parliaments declared and profeſſed knowledge, that the King is entruſted with the Eccleſiaſtical Laws as well as Temporal; and therefore wiſh the nature of the Kings Supremacy may be well conſidered.
That the King is Supreme Head and Governour of the Subjects, diſtributively or particularly conſidered, no ſober man will deny; or that he is the Supream and Topmost Branch and Apex of all that Honour, Power and Authority, with which the Collective Body of the Nation, the three Eſtates in Parliament Aſſembled (in reſpect of which the Lords and Commons, Methodiet Majestatis cauſa, apply themſelves unto Him under the Title of Our Soveraign Lord) no Regular man will deny; and that he is Supreme in all Exhibition and adminiſtration of Juſtice; ſo that the Judges are by and from Him, and in His Name and Authority; and ſo all Submiſſion, Honour and Acquieſcency in Judicial Proceedings is to Him, no good Statiſt or Civilian will deny; and that He is Supream Head and Governour in things Spiritual and Eccleſiaſtical (Ratione objecti, or circa Eccleſiam) the Executive Adminiſtration about, not in the Church, within His Dominions, in oppoſition to all Papal and Forraign Power, no Free-born Subject, Good Chriſtian, or Proteſtant will deny; but that He is ſo Supream, as to have in Himſelf ſole Legiſlation to the Church in things Political, but belonging to the Church; ſuch as is the publick National profeſſion of Chriſtian Faith, in ſuch a Form and Method of Articles; ſuch a National uniform and publick method and order of worſhip, and ſuch a National Diſcipline and Government of all the Churches within His Realm; ſo as that the People in Parliament Aſſembled, may not debate, conſult, conclude concerning them; and ſedente Parliam…to, put in execution by preſent ſuperſedeas of former Acts, and by preſent Votes and Orders of Reſtriction and Regulation, as in other Affairs of the Nation, I think no Loyal Subject, Wiſe Politician, Good Stateſman, or True-born Engliſh-man will affirm; for that the Supremacy of the King is affixed by the power of Parliament; and in all Writs of Summons they are called to conſult the ardent Affairs of the Church, no leſs than of the Civil State; and the thirty nine Articles, Form of Common Prayer, and the Government of the Church, lay claim to Acts of Parliament for their Civil Sanction; and the Parliament in the Remonſtrance of December, 1641. owned and cited by theſe learned men, do declare the King entruſted with the Eccleſiaſtical Law; to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by ſuch Rules of Order and Diſcipline as are eſtabliſhed by Parliament; and the very Statute enjoyning the Oath of Supremacy, and the Admonition of Queen Elizabeth, in Her Injunctions appointed by Statute to be the Expoſition thereof, doth oppoſe the King to the Pope, and *That is to ſay, under God to have the Sove aignty and Rule over all manner of perſons, born within her Majeſties Dominions or Countries, of what Eſtate ſoever, Eccleſiaſtical or Temporal, as no Forraign power ſhall, or ought to have any ſuperiority over them. Admon. Enacted to expound the Oath of Supremacy, quinto Elizab. primo.Forraign power, not to the Parliament; and makes Him the executor of all Juriſdiction, Superiority and Preheminences by any Eccleſiaſtical power or authority which heretofore hath been, and may be lawfully exerciſed; which was always directed by power of the Parliament of England: And I remember the Lord Chief Baron Bridgeman, in his late learned Speech, concerning the Kings Supremacy unto the late condemned Traytors at the Old Baily, did declare the King to be Supream, that is, beyond the Coercive power of His people; but not to have the Legiſlative power in His own Breaſt, ſo as to Rule at His own Will; and the known Eſtate of England is to be Ruled (and the Coronation Oath binds the King accordingly) in all Eccleſiaſtical and Civil Affairs by ſuch Lawes, quas populus elegerit, as the people ſhall chooſe; ſo that His Majeſties Supremacy is not denied, when His Prerogative amplified by the Statute of 1 Elizabethae, Ca. 1. is contracted and abridged by the Statute of Caroli, 17. Or when the Parliament do ſee good by their Votes, Reſolves, Orders, or impoſed Oaths, to alter or extirpate the Government which the King was empowred to execute and adminiſter; His Supremacy being purely executive, and that ſubject to the Legiſlation of Parliament; upon which account the Peoples Oath of maintaining the Honour, Eſtate, and Juriſdiction of the King, may be voided as to this and that particular mode and thing; and yet the Parliament not take upon them to abſolve the People from that obedience they owe under God unto the King; nor is the limitation of the exerciſe of Supremacy, as to this or that particular, and in this or that species inconſiſtent with, or deſtructive to the Kings Supremacy rightly underſtood.
And on theſe Conſiderations let it be obſerved that the Kings Coronation Oath to grant, keep, and confirm the Laws, Cuſtomes, and Franchiſes granted to the Clergy, by the glorious King Saint Edward; and preſerve to the Biſhops their Churches all Canonical priviledges, &c. which theſe learned men do cite, is limited unto the Laws of the Land, which the People in Parliament aſſembled ſhall chooſe; according to which the King is bound to Rule; for otherwiſe this Coronation Oath will not only bind the perpetuation of this Government by Prelacy; but alſo to the Reſtitution of the Abbies and Monaſteries demoliſhed, and the Popes Supremacy expelled; all which were granted to the Clergy by the glorious King St. Edward.
2. But admit we theſe learned men the ſenſe they ſeem to put upon the Kings Supremacy; methinks the modeſt expreſſions of the Covenant might have anticipated this exception, it only binding us within our places and callings (which might be by humble advice and ſupplication to the King, by vertue of His Supream Authority to effect it) to endeavour the extirpation of this Prelacy; that is, the Government by Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, and the like; but ſuch was their affection to it, that they could not deſire; nay, they could not but beg of God that he would not ſuffer the King to aſſent thereunto, which affection we muſt not think to abate, untill their judgements be better inform'd.
3. As to the benefit which did redound to the Crown by the Collation of Biſhopricks and Deanaries, by their first fruits, and yearly tenths, and profits in vacancies, though ſome queſtion the Kings propriety, not in reſpect of the Law of the Land, but of the Law of God; I ſhall not inſiſt on that; only ſay, That the conſtant enjoyment of the full poſſeſſions of them, will make a much greater revenue, and maintain to the King a greater Honour and Eſtate, than the firſt fruits, tenths and profits of vacancies, although ſuch vacancies as the Kings of England have by vertue of this Argument continued for the ſpace of 5, 10, 15, 20. or ſometimes thirty years together, taking the profits to themſelves, or beſtowing them on their attendants; and undoubtedly there is the ſame capacity to extirpate the whole Government, as ſome Epiſcopal Seas; and to enlarge the Revenues of the Crown by the Reverſion of all the profits of the Government, and the aboliſhment thereof, as to continue ſo long vacancies; moreover, I would deſire to know what is in this Argument more prevalent for Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, and their Cathedral Churches, than for Abbots and Priors their Monaſteries and houſes.
4. As to the agreeableneſs of this Government in the Church to the Civil conſtitution of the Kingdom; I only ſay that I queſtion whether the Lord Chriſt, who declared his Kingdom not to be of this World, will allow, or do appoint the Governments of the World to be the ſquare of Government in his Church; and I confeſs I can hardly reconcile it to his Regal Power, and Faithful Adminiſtration in his Houſe; and I muſt have a better Comment on the Text than I have yet met withall, if it be not prohibited in theſe terms: The Princes of the Gentiles exerciſe dominion over them, and they are great, and exerciſe authority upon them, but it ſhall not be ſo among you; but whoſoever will be great among you, let him be your M niſter; and whoſoever will be Chief among you, let him be your ſervant, Matth. 20.25.29, 27. Mark 10.42, 43, 44. Luke 22.23, 24. The ſenſe whereof made Pope Gregory write himſelf Servus Servorum Dei; Whitehead, and others, refuſe, Coverdalle, and many others decline their Biſhopricks, as having in them aliquid commune eum Antichristo; I think the Clown his queſtion to the Biſhop of Cullen, were worth conſidering, What will become of the Biſhops, when the Dukes be damned?
Yet the agreeableneſs of Prelacy with Englands ill Government, hath not been ſo obvious to others, as theſe Gentlemen ſuppoſe; the vigilant eye, and ſtrong hand, wherewith in all Ages it hath been reſtrained; theſe Petrae, and Rupes Wincheſter and Rivallo in the time of King Henry the 3d. were judged very dangerous, when they conſtrained a Covenant without and againſt the Kings conſent, to remove them as evil Counſellours. Matthew Paris our old Hiſtorian, notes Biſhops to have ever been the Make-bates between the King and People, ſcrewing up the Kings Prerogative beyond thee onſtitutions of the Kingdom, and liberties, yea, ſafety of the Subjects; and chargeth all the Wars, Broiles, Miſchiefs and Evils of the Barons Wars, to have ſprung from, and been acted by the Biſhops: And when ngKi Philip lay on his death-bed, He charged His ſon, If He would Rule by his Nobles, He muſt keep his Biſhops low.
The premuniries by which they have ever been awed, and their late High Commiſſion, authorizing them to act any appellation, provocation, priviledge, exemption, proclamation, law, ſtatute, whatſoever notwithſtanding; and their bold Uſurpation in their own name and authorities, and under their own ſeals to iſſue forth Proceſs, Excommunications, Cenſures, and other Judgements, and their Imperial Canons in 1640. do beſpeak them prejudicial to the Civil Government and Conſtitution of the Kingdom; and I think a private ſociety ſhould with very much of modeſty affirm the agreeableneſs of this Government, after the Parliament on mature deliberation and debate, as moſt proper Judges, Vote of the 10th of Junehad voted this Government to have been found by long experience very prejudicial to the Civil State of theſe Kingdoms.
Now, Sir, as to the ſo often Canted Aphoriſme of King James, No Biſhop, No King; with which the Prelates and their Prieſts do too much ſtrive to rivet their Government unto the Crown; I muſt be free to ſay, that it is more politick than pious and of no more warrant or authority, than the Spaniards one univerſal Emperour, and one Pope, or univerſal Biſhop; and when the Scots loyal adherence to, and advancement of His moſt Sacred Majeſty, unto the Ruine of their Kingdom, Loſs of their lives and Eſtates, Exile and Impriſonment of their Nobles, and Conqueſt of their Land; together with the unceſſant ſtruglings of the Covenant Intereſt, under Sequeſtration, Impriſonments, Baniſhments, and death of many; not ceaſing till they had (by Gods bleſſing) effected the Happy and Honourable Reſtitution of King and Kingdom, be well conſidered, I hope theſe learned Maſters and Scholars of Oxford will ſee ſome proceedings that may at leaſt weaken their belief in this political Maxime.
We have ſeen, Sir, the ſtrength of theſe learned exceptions unto the ſecond Article of the Covenant, the great eye-ſore of our Age; and find little or nothing therein, to charge the matter thereof with falſhood or injuſtice? but that notwithſtanding the grudging of proud and profane men, it ſtands in this reſpect eſtabliſhed; they have herein been long, and conſtrained me to ſtay too long in conſideration of what they urge: but as they, ſo I ſhall be more brief and contracted in their following exceptions, wherein they ſuggeſt many to be great ones, but profeſs to take up with few, which we muſt needs imagine not to be of the leaſt weight.
Unto the third Article they except nothing as to the matter of the promiſe, Subjectio quinta. Oxford Reaſons, Exceptions to the 3d. Article of the Covenant. Sectio quinta. p. 12, 13, 14.only they ſtumble at thoſe words relating to the defence and preſervation of the Kings Majeſty, Perſon and Authority, in the preſervation and defence of the true Religion, and liberties of the Kingdom; which they conceive to be a limitation of our abſolute duty, by a condition not allowable.
Though ſome endeavour to juſtifie theſe words, as a condition put upon our duty by the power of Parliament, who may limit the Prerogative of the King, as well as extend it, and think it will abide a Diſpute, I am not of their opinion; for I do profeſs my ſelf convinced that our allegiance, and ſo the preſervation of the Kings Perſon and Authority is an abſolute duty founded in the Relation, without Regard to the Quality Piety or Impiety of the Perſon; who is bound alſo to His duty, but not on the condition of the Subj cts duty; both King and People owe a Reciprocal duty each to other, and are bound to God to perform it; but the duty of the one is no limiting condition to the other; and therefore in all thoſe conteſts for the Covenant in behalf of the King, which not only I, but other Miniſters have undergone in the oppoſition of the late ſinful Engagement; Vid. The Exercitation concerning uſurped powers. Vindication of the Oath of Allegiance by the ſame Authour. Lancaſhire and Cheſhire Plea for non-ſubſcribers to the late Engagement.Theſe words have been underſtood to be a predication of the capacity in which the Kingdom, Parliament and People then were, under the oppoſition of Malignants, who divided the King from the People; and ſo the meaning of it is thus, We being in the preſervation and defence of the true Religion, and liberties of the Kingdoms, ſhall endeavour to preſerve the Kings Majeſties Perſon and Authority. I wiſh therefore that it may be obſerved, That the words fall into a plain parentheſis; and the ſentence is entire without them, and they are fixed at the end of the Obligation, which relates unto the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, and liberties of the Subject, as well as the preſervation of the King, and yet theſe cannot be limited; and this ſenſe is not only conſonant to principles of right Reaſon and true Religion, but alſo the Declaration of the Parliament in their then proceedings; and the ſcope of this Covenant, and this very Article, which cloſeth with a moſt Solemn Appeal to the World, to bear witneſs of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts to diminiſh His Majeſties juſt power and greatneſſe; and I hope theſe ſerious Caſuiſts will grant, that where the words of an Oath, ſeemingly doubtful, may, they must be underſtood in a good and juſt ſenſe; and then their exceptions to ſuch a limitation in the Covenant, do vaniſh with the Hypotheſis on which they are built and inferred.
Unto the fourth Article of the Covenant, theſe Maſters and Scholars of Oxford do ſuggeſt ſomething in Politicks, which ſoundeth as ſtrangely in my ears, as their paſt Divinity; indeed they determine it not, but only deſire it may be conſidered,
1. Whether this Article lay not a neceſſity on the ſon to accuſe his father, and purſue him to deſtruction, in caſe he ſhould be an Incendiary, Malignant, or evil Inſtrument, as is in this Article deſcribed, which they conceive to be contrary to Religion, Nature and Humanity?
2. Whether the ſwearing this Article, do not open a ready way to children and husbands that are ſick of their fathers and w ves, by appeaching them of Malignancy, the letter to effectuate their unlawful intentions and deſignes?
To theſe I ſhould have only deſired it may be conſidered,
1. Whether all penal Statutes in point of Treaſon and Felony, open not as ready a way for children and husbands to be rid of their fathers and wives? and the danger of concealment be not a very fair Apology for the ſame; are they therefore contrary to Religion, Nature and Humanity? Have they never heard of ſuch wickedneſſe? know they not that there is an impoſſibility of fence againſt malicious accuſations miſchievouſly managed? Muſt therefore theſe Statutes be voided as wicked, and the like be prevented for time to come?
2. Did not theſe learned men take the Oath of Allegiance? and therein ſware, That they will to the best of their endeavour diſcloſe and make known unto His Majeſty, His Heirs and Succeſsors, all Treaſons, and Trayterous Conſpiracies which they ſhould know or hear of, to be againſt Him, or any of Them: May natural affection interdict this duty? or are natural Relations exempt from this diſcovery? may not miſchievous men find open a ready way to appeal ſuch as ſtand between them and their deſires? or did theſe Gentlemens learning and loyalty lead them to conclude the Oath of Allegiance is against Religion, Nature and Humanity?
3. May one time make contrary to Religion, Nature and Humanity, that kind of promiſe, which at another time, may be conſiſtent therewithall? Theſe Gentlemen pleaded the proteſtation of the 5th. of May, 1641. as a bar to the ſwearing this Covenant, and tell us often they ſware that, and therein they ſware in this Form of words; To my power, and as far as lawfully I may, I will oppoſe, and by all good meanes endeavour to bring to condigne puniſhment all ſuch as ſhall either by force, practice, counſels or conspiracies, or otherwiſe, do any thing to the contrary of any thing in this preſent proteſtation contained: will they pleaſe to tell us whether theſe words be not as directly contrary to the fourth, as the fore-going promiſe of this proteſtation was unto the firſt Article of this Covenant? or doth not this Proteſtation lay as great neceſſity, and give as fair an occaſion for the ſon to accuſe the Father, and perſue him to deſtruction; and ſo appear as much againſt Religion, Nature and Humanity, as doth the Solemn League and Covenant?
4. I ſhould have prayed the judgment of theſe learned men on that Law preſcribed by Moſes to Iſrael, in Deut. 13.6, 7. 8, 9, 10. If thy brother, the ſon of thy Mother, or thy ſon, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy boſome, or thy friend which is as thine own ſoul, entice thee ſecretly, ſaying, Let us go and ſerve other gods, &c. thou ſhalt not conſent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither ſhall thine eye pity him, neither ſhalt thou spare, neither ſhalt thou conceal him; but thou ſhalt ſurely kill him; thine hand ſhall be firſt upon him to put him to death; and afterwards the hand of all the people, &c. and all Iſrael ſhall hear and fear, and ſhall do no mere ſo wickedly; did not this Law bind to the ſame act? give the ſame occaſion? lay the ſame neceſſity which is laid by this Article of the Covenant? And was it contrary to Religion, Nature and Humanity?
Did theſe Gentlemen think we; expect to be preferred by this notion of Policy? or if they ſuggeſted this exception by a ſpirit of Prelacy, will it not beſpeak that Government prejudicial to the Civil State, which condemneth Conventicles in acts of piety, but admits Families, the Subjects houſes, the places and natural affection, to be the protection of Treaſonable, Seditious Conſpiracies?
But they adde againſt this Article, that it binds to ſuffering puniſhment by an arbitrary power, without Law or Merit, contrary to the liberty of the Subject declared for by the Houſe of Commons. Let us, Sir, but read the words of the Covenant, and that will evidence a contradiction to the Parliaments Declaration, of the ſame nature with thoſe we have before obſerved; the words are theſe, That they may be brought to publick Tryal, and receive condigne puniſhment, as the degree of their offences ſhall deſerve, or the Supreme Judicatories of both Kingdoms reſpectively, or others having power from them for that effect, ſhall judge convenient: If Sir, condigne puniſhment on publick Tryal, according to the degree of the offence, be without law or merit, and Judicatory, Supream Judicatory, be Arbitrary; High Courts of Juſtice, and their proceedings will be Juſt and Regular, and the liberty of the Subject; for I think them to be more Oppoſites, than the Proteſtation and Solemn League and Covenant.
Unto the fifth Article of this Covenant, Oxford Exceptions to the fifth Article of the Covenant.they profeſs a readineſs to confederate, but they pretend to a double Remora.
1. They do not ſee the happineſs of ſuch a bleſſed peace between the three Kingdoms, Ireland being at War within it ſelf.
To which I ſhould have ſaid no more than this:
Gentlemen, where are your eyes, and what obſtructs your ſight? when you ſware the Proteſtation, you ſware, By all juſt and honourable wayes to endeavour to preſerve the union and peace of the three Kingdoms, of England, Scotland and Ireland. Was not Ireland then at War within it ſelf? Or have you forgotten that it was ſo? or is not the Peace now concluded by both Parliaments, and confirmed by this Covenant, a greater happineſs of ſettlement than was then obtained! Sure ſome ſtrong paſſion acted theſe learned men, to make Mountains againſt the Covenant, what were Mole-hills wſſen they ſwore the Proteſtation.
But their ſecond Remora is, That no peace can be firm and well-grounded, which is not bottomed on juſtice, whoſe proper and adequate act, is jus ſuum cuique, unleſs the reſpective Authority, Power and Liberty of King, Parliament and Subject be preſerved full and entire.
To this I ſhould ſay no more then this; Specifie the defect of this Covenant, as to theſe particulars; for I cannot read or underſtand, if they be not all ſecured by the ſame; Suggeſtions without plain Demonſtration, do proclaim jealouſie and prejudice; but make no Argument or good Apology againſt required duty.
Unto the ſixth and laſt Article, Oxford Exceptions to the ſixth Article of the Covenant.being an Obligation of adherence to this Covenant againſt all oppoſition; they ſay no more then what muſt be expected, that untill they be ſatisfied in the Premiſes ſtated in the foregoing Articles of the Covenant, they could not ſu ſcribe to this Concluſion; which we muſt needs admit them, hoping that a more cool & ſerious ſurvey of the Covenant, & ſecond thoughts on their Exceptions thereunto, may ſatisfie their conſciences, and lead them to bewail their unhappineſs in throwing ſuch ſtumbling blocks before their weak Brethren, under the Name and Authority of a Famous and Learned Univerſity; and for their groundleſs diſſent and refuſal of an enjoyed duty, relating to the Honour of God, Reformation and defenct of Religion, Honour and Happineſs of the King, Peace and Safety of the Kingdoms, in a Solemn League and Covenant; which, Sir, we find, notwithſtanding theſe ſo much admired Exceptions, approves it ſelf lawful, in reſpect of the matter therein ſworn to be preſerved or purſued; and will the better ſtand under all defects and miſcarriages in point of manner and form of making it; which is the next thing to be conſidered.