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.

NOw the bond of the Kings oath, may be taken off two wayes; either by clearing the unlawfulneſs of it, that it was vinculum iniquitatis, and ſo void the firſt day; For qu • jurat in iniquum obligatur in contrarium. And if Prelacy in the Church be an uſurpation contrary to Chriſts inſtitution, then, to maintain it, is ſin; and all bonds to ſin, are fruſtrate. And truly, as Prelacy ſtood with us in England, ingroſſing all ruledom in the Church, into the hands of a few L. Biſhops, I think, it may be cleared to be an uſurpation, by this one argument.

That power that diſpoyls any of Chriſts Officers of any priviledg or duty indulged or injoyned them by the word of God; that power is an uſurpation againſt the word of God. But this did Prelacy, as it ſtood in England: therefore Engliſh Prelacy, was an uſurpation againſt the word of God.

The Major is cleer of it ſelf. The Minor is thus proved: Presbyters are by Chriſts warrant, in Scripture, indued with power to rule in their own congregations, as well as preach; See 1 Tim. 3.5. & 5,17, Heb. 13.17. 1 Theſſ. 5.12. Now as Prelacy ſtood in England, the Presbyters were not onely excluded from all ſociety of rule; but, which was more prejudicial to the dignity and liberty of the miniſtery, were ſubjected to a lay-Chancellor; and was not here uſurpation againſt Gods direction?

Now what ſaith Dr. Boughen? you ſay true (ſaith he) that the oath which is Vinculum iniquitatis is void the first day, &c. And hitherto your argument is good; and in it, he will joyniſſue, &c. Cap. 2. Parag. 1. See what a work this paſſage hath on the Doctor, taken together, and conſidered when the blood was down; now all goes current; yet this is the place, for which he ſpit ſo much poyſon of aſpes in his Epiſtle to the Reader. I hope, the Reader will obſerve; and by appealing from the Doctor in paſſion, to the Doctor out of paſſion, ſee how injuriouſly he hath traduced me, for one that blaſphemes and ſpits in the face of authority. Well now, upon this the Doctor will joyn iſſue, and will readily acknowledg, that if Prelacy in the Church be an uſurpation against Christs institution, then to maintain it, is to ſin, and all bonds to ſin are frustrate; but yet Parag 2. He adds, he hopes I uſe no tricks, but by Prelacy mean Epiſcopacy properly ſo called. Doctor, I do uſe no tricks, a good cauſe needs them not; but I doubt, you will be found to uſe tricks preſently, and that poor ones; that is, to change the ſtate of the queſtion: For when I implead Prelacy as unlawful, I implead it not abſolutely; but as it then ſtood in England. But the Doctor proceeds, and thinks that my medium is an arrow for his bow; and makes a triple aſſay to hit me with it, but is unlucky in all, as will preſently appear; firſt thus, If Supremacy in Parliament be an uſurpation contrary to Chriſts inſtitution, then to maintain it, is to ſin; But ſupremacy, &c. ergo it is ſin.

The major you prove, by 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. Submit your ſelves to every ordinance of man, whether it be unto the King as ſupream, or unto governours, as thoſe that are ſent by him. I anſwer, the Apoſtle gives no other ſupremacy to the King here, then I give him Pag. 9 of my caſe; that is, to be the Supream Magiſtrate, from whom all power of execution is legally derived; and this is competible with that ſupremacy which I give the Parliament. Oh, but ſaith the Doctor, every rational man cannot but understand, that there cannot be two ſupreams in one Kingdome. But Maſter Doctor, Rational men will ſee a difference between a Supremacy, and the Supremacy; that is, Supremacy abſolute, and in a kind. There be more Supremacies ſecundum quid, in ſome reſpect, though not more in one kingdome abſolutely; and this I ſhall make you confeſs to be my meaning, in aſſerting more then one ſupremacy in a kingdom, and to be a truth, or I ſhall make you deny, not Reaſon onely, but your own words, when I come to anſwer your laſt Chapter.

His ſecond Argument is againſt Ordination by Presbytery, but in that he begs the queſtion, and therefore he refers us for the proof, (that Ordination by Presbyters is againſt Chriſts inſtitution) to another place, where we ſhall meet with it.

Thirdly, He argues, If Epiſcopacy in the Church be no uſurpation, but Chriſts inſtitution; then to endeavour the extirpation of it, is ſin. But Epiſcopacy is Chriſts inſtitution, ergo. This he doth but propoſe here, and endeavours to prove hereafter, where his proofs ſhall be examined.

He proceeds, parag. 3. "That you, your Aſſembly and Parliament, have made and taken an Oath to extirpate Epiſcopacy, is too notorious to be denyed.

Sir, your are the confidenteſt man, not onely in uncertainties, but falſities, that I have heard. It's neither true, that I made the Covenant; nor notorious, that I have taken it: neither is it true, that the Covenant is to extirpate Epiſcopacy; but onely, (according to my argument,) Prelacy, as it then ſtood, that is, by Arch-Biſhops, Arch-Deacons, and the reſt, in your &c. Oath, as is plain by the expreſſion of the ſecond Article. And therefore you muſt prove, not onely (as you ſay) Epiſcopacy, but Epiſcopacy as it then ſtood, not to be contrary to the inſtitution of Chriſt, before you can prove the Covenant in that clauſe to be a bond of iniquity; or exempt the Kings oath from unlawfulneſs in that clauſe, if it binde to maintain Epiſcopacy as it then ſtood.

But ſay you, The Order of Biſhops is Chriſts inſtitution. And yet ye have ſworn to up with it, root and branch.

The former you endeavour to prove; and the latter you take for granted, which is very falſe, for there is no ſuch expreſſion, nor hint, in the Covenant, as root and branch.

But Chriſt you ſay, was the root of Epiſcopacy, who is called the Biſhop of our ſouls, from him it takes its riſe. You are good at affirming, but where's your proof? Why, its evident in the Apoſtles, ſtrictly ſo called, who had their orders immediately from Chriſt, parag. 4.

A goodly argument, as though an Apoſtle, and one of your Lord Biſhops were birds of a feather: Whereas toto caelo differunt; An Apoſtle was an Officer extraordinary, immediately called and inſpired of God, and his office to indure for a time, and your Biſhop is an ordinary officer, called by man, who you would have to endure for ever. But to them, ſay you, he gave power to ordain Apoſtles. Falſe and Atheological. An Apoſtle cannot be created but by God, and had his knowledg by inſpiration from God; this is confeſt by Divines on all ſides. See Bilſon perp. Govern. chap. • . pag. 106.

But you will prove they had power to ordain Apoſtles, Mat. 10.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Greeks underſtand thus; a gift ye have received, a gift give.

But what Greeks? Will they underſtand things againſt the letter of their natural language? The Engliſh of the words to every ſmatterer in greek, is, freely you have received, freely give; and the meaning is plainly, that they ſhould not make merchandize of their gift of miracles; For the whole verſe runs thus, Heal the ſick, cleanſe the lepers, raiſe the dead, caſt out devils; Freely you have received, freely give. But what is this to power to create Apoſtles? which ſpeaks onely of their diſpenſing their gift gratis. And ſo the Authors in your margent, ſuch as I can meet with, for the moſt part, take it; ut ſit miniſtratio gratuita muneris gratuiti, that there might be a free adminiſtering of a free gift, Hil. in Matth. Can. 10.

Ergo ne quid in miniſterio noſtro venale ſit, admonemur; Therefore we are admoniſht, that nothing in our miniſtry be ſet to ſale. Ego miniſter & Dominus abſ que pretio hoc vobis tribui, & vos ſine pretio date, ne Evangelij gratia corrumpatur, Hieron. in Mat. 10.8.

Now what are theſe to your purpoſe? Only Gennadius from this proves ordination ſhould be without price; but this muſt be but by way of alluſion. For do you, Mr Doctor, think that the Apoſtles had power to create Apoſtles, given them here, whilſt Chriſt was alive? I hope your ſecond thoughts will be wiſer. That Chriſt renewed the Commiſſion of the Apoſtles, Joh. 20.21. As my father ſent me, ſo ſend I you, is granted: but that they (as you affirm) upon the ſtrength of this commiſſion ordained ſome other to be Apoſtles, conferring on them the ſame honor and power which they had received from Chriſt. Is an aſſertion, I know not whether fuller of boldneſs, or ignorance; yea, in part a very Bull. For firſt one part, and one of the principleſt parts of their honour, was, to be called immediatly by Chriſt; which they could not confer on others, unleſs you can make Chriſt and the Apoſtles individually one, which is impoſſible. Beſides, that there were many other honours peculiar to the Apoſtles themſelves, not communicable to their ſucceſſors: You may read in Bilſons perp. Govern. chap. 9. pag. 106.

But you ſay, this is evident in S. James Biſhop of Jeruſalem, Epaphroditus Biſhop of Philippi, and in Apollos Biſhop of Corinth. But for S. James, that he was an Apoſtle Scriptures witneſs indeed, Gal. 1.19. but that he was ordained of the Apoſtles, in that Scriptures are ſilent; nor hath Jerome any ſuch words, but that he was called an Apoſtle; illud in cauſa eſt, omnes qui dominum viderunt, & eum poſtea praedicaſſent, ſuiſſe Apoſtolos nominatos. He was therefore called an Apoſtle, becauſe all that had ſeen the Lord, and afterwards preach't him, were called Apoſtles, Jerom. in Gal. 1.19. But to make a man truly and properly and Apoſtle, was required ſomewhat more, ſcilicet, immediate inſpiration and miſſion by Chriſt, as may be gathered from S. Pauls proving his Apoſtleſhip from theſe, Gal. 1.11, 12, 15, 16, 17. And James was an Apoſtle truly, and properly, yea, a chief Apoſtle, Gal. 2.2.9. And ſo he is mentioned in the Scripture, as an Apoſtle in Jeruſalem, not a Biſhop of Jeruſalem. See Act. 15.2, 13, 23. Here Iames is contained under the name Apoſtle, with the reſt, without any hint of precedency there, as Biſhop. And therefore, whereas he is called Biſhop of Ieruſalem, ſometimes by the ancients; that is to be taken but in an alluſive, not a proper ſenſe, becauſe he exerciſed his Apoſtolical function there, while others exerciſed theirs elſe where; and ſome of the Apoſtolical power was emulated in the Fathers times by Biſhops. But a Biſhop there properly he was not, for that were to degrade him: an Apoſtle being an office extraordinary, and ſo higher then the ordinary office of Biſhop. And ſuch degradation is not onely injurious. But if the reſolution of the Chalcedon Counſel be true, cited by Bilſon, pag. 280. To bring back a Biſhop to the degree of a Presbyter, is ſacriledg; Then certain, to bring down an Apoſtle to the degree of any ordinary Officer (as a Biſhop is) cannot want guilt. "And for Apollos, if he were Biſhop of Corinth: I pray you, why did not Saint Paul write to him, when he blames them for not excommunicating the inceſtuous perſon? and blame him for that neglect of diſcipline, and enjoyn him to ſee it done, and not the Church? Or why doth he ſay, that the cenſure was inflicted by many, 2 Cor. 2.6.? if Apollos were their Biſhop, who alone had power of excommunication; If he be contained under the title of Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 4.9. (which Calvin approves not;) yet is he called Apoſtle, in a large, not ſtrict ſenſe, as contradiſtinct to other Church-officers, Epheſ. 4.12. For Epaphroditus, indeed he is called, in the Epiſtle to the Phlliippians, Your Apoſtle; but that is moſt generally taken, as Walo Meſſalinus confeſſeth, by Greek and moderne Interpreters; to hint, not the name of a Churchofficer, but a meſſenger from the Church to Saint Paul, as our laſt tranſlation takes it; and the words following, imply part of his meſſage; he that miniſtred to my wants. And though Walo Meſſalinus diſſents, yet he confeſſeth his expoſition not to agree ſo well with propriety of ſpeech. But theſe (you ſay) are confeſſed to be Apoſtoli ab ipſis Apoſtolis ordinati. Firſt, this is falſe; for neither Calvin, nor Meſſalinus, ſpeak of their Ordination. And the very phraſe, an Apoſtle ordained of Apoſtles, ſhews, that the title, Apoſtle, is taken improperly.

But Parag. 5. you ſay, Apostles they were at that time called, but afterwards the name Biſhop was ſetled on them. For this you cite Theodoret. The ſame perſons were ſometimes called, both Presbyters and Biſhops; but thoſe who are now named Biſhops, were then called Apoſtles; but in proceſs of time, the title of an Apoſtle was reſerved to thoſe that were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Apoſtles properly and truly ſo called. And the name of Biſhop came appropriated to thoſe who were lately called Apoſtles.

For anſwer to this, Firſt, I obſerve you have given us a clear confeſſion out of Theodoret, that Biſhops and Presbyters were all one, divers names of the ſame office.

Secondly, thoſe that Theodoret affirms, that being in his time called Biſhops, were formerly called Apoſtles, were not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Apoſtles truly, but onely called ſo, becauſe they had preheminence over others in his times, as the Apoſtles had over others in the firſt time of the Goſpel.

Thirdly, he gives us no proof, that thoſe that are now called Biſhops, were formerly called Apoſtles: and his conjecture is not infallible; Nay, is it not apparently falſe, that the name of Biſhop came appropriated to thoſe that were lately called Apoſtles, (but were not ſo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ?) for was not the name of Biſhop continued common to Iames, Peter, and others that were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Apoſtles truly ſo called? Continued. I ſay, by the Fathers, calling them Biſhops, alluſively. But though the name of Biſhop was given to Apoſtles, by the Fathers: It cannot be ſhewen, where thoſe that are now called Biſhops, were called Apoſtles, (as Apoſtle ſignifieth a Goſpel officer) by the Scripture. If they were, let the Doctor produce the place, where in Scripture any ordinary officer was ſtiled an Apoſtle; which if he cannot do, Theodorets aſſertion, in one part, contrary to the plain expreſſions of the Fathers: and in the other, without ground of Scripture, cannot have much force on any unprejudiced Reader.

The Doctors inference is obſervable, Hence is it, ſaith he, that Timothy and Titus, are called Biſhops and Apoſtles. Biſhops in the poſt-ſcripts of the Epiſtles which were written to them by S. Paul, but Apoſtles by Ignatius, Theodoret, and many others. Whence plainly it appears, that the poſt ſcripts of the Epiſtles, were not Saint Pauls, but ſome other, later then Ignatius and Theodoret: And ſo have no force to prove Timothy and Titus Biſhops.

Parag. 6. You add, Biſhops then they were called, &c. That is, They were ſo called by men, that ſpake of officers in the Scriptures, according to the ſtile of their own times, but in Scripture-ſence, they were a degree above Biſhops, Apoſtles, or Evangeliſts; and in that ſence ſpeaks Walo Meſſalinus, whoſe name you abuſe.

Parag. 7. You argue, They that have the ſame name and office with the true Apoſtles, are of the ſame order with the true Apoſtles. But Biſhop Timothy, and Biſhop Titus, and Biſhop Epaphroditus, have the ſame name and office with the true Apoſtles.

This argument you ſeem to glory in, but with how little reaſon, the Reader ſhall ſee. For whereas you ſay, Biſhop Timothy, and Biſhop Titus, and Biſhop Epaphroditus, had the ſame name and office with the Apoſtles: This is manifeſtly falſe. Firſt, for the name, neither have Timothy, nor Titus, the name of Biſhop, or Apoſtle, given them by Scripture; and for other authors, as Ignatius and Theodoret, that call them Apoſtles; you muſt remember Theodorets diſtinction, of ſome that were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and others that were called ſo only alluſively. The true and proper Apoſtles, were the twelve, and Saint Paul, and ſuch like, that had extraordinary miſſion and inſpiration.

Now in this proper ſence, Timothy and Titus were not called Apoſtles, but by way of alluſion: and to have the ſame name, and not in the ſame ſence, argues nothing. For your proof from Salmatius, for Epaphroditus being called Apoſtle, (beſides, that in giving ſuch a ſence of Phil. 2.25. he differs from many others, whoſe opinion is more probable) he onely calls him an Apoſtle, alluſively, not properly: and as you fail in the proof of the ſame name, ſo fail you more, in proving they had the ſame office; for this you prove, onely from one part of Apoſtolical power, Ordination, and Juriſdiction: Which they had from the Apoſtle Paul, in particular places; whereas the Apoſtolical office had power immediately from Chriſt, for ſuch juriſdiction, all the world over, Matth. 28.19. And whereas, the Apoſtle, makes Apoſtles and Evangeliſts diſtinct offices, Epheſ. 4.11. and bids Timothy do the work of an Evangeliſt, 2 Tim. 4.5. The Apoſtle ſhews plainly, that Timothy was in that rank. And thence it's clear, that Timothy and Titus, had not the ſame office with Apoſtles, but were in an inferiour order of Evangeliſts. So your argument falls to the ground.

For your cloſe, "that Biſhops, and onely Biſhops, ſucceed the Apoſtles in ordination and juriſdiction: It's true of Scripture-Biſhops; but for your Biſhops, we ſhall not believe it, till you better prove it.

Parag. 8. You proceed, Since then Apoſtleſhip and Epiſcopacy, are one and the ſame office; He that is the root and Author of the one, is the root and Author of the other.

But I have, in part, ſhewed already, (and ſhall more fully hereafter) that Apoſtleſhip and Epiſcopacy are divers offices. Epiſcopacy, if it hath any place in Saint Pauls Catalogue, Epheſ. 4.11. being under Paſtors, which is two degrees below an Apoſtle: but you further infer, in covenanting to take away Epiſcopacy root and branch, you have done no leſs then covenanted to take away Jeſus Chriſt.

Anſw. Were Chriſt the ordainer of Epiſcopacy, as he is not, your inference is but a childiſh miſtake; for neither doth the Covenant ſpeak of root or branch, nor, if it did, would it follow, that Chriſt ſhould be rooted up; for there is a root, properly of Propagation, and a root metaphorical of Inſtitution, which is by appointment the original of a thing. Chriſt, if all were true that you ſay, is but a metaphoricall root, a root by Inſtitution, whoſe eradication cannot be inferr'd, if Biſhops, root and branch, be pluckt up. If a man undertake to take away all the trees in an Orchard, root and branch, will it follow, he muſt root up the Maſter that planted it too? Nothing leſs; ſo, nor in this caſe.

After this you fall a raving, ſhooting arrows, not caring where you hit, telling of Parſons and Ʋicars, ſequeſtred by my inſtigation. Which is a raſh, if not a wilful ſlander. And now I hope its clear you have done little to diſcharge the Kings oath of ſin, or to prove the Covenant a bond of iniquitie.

Is this your boaſted of affection and loyaltie? This ſhews what you pretend love to the King for; to uphold your own greatneſs, not his, further then it upholds yours.

Parag. 21. You conclude, that if the Biſhops knew themſelves guilty of the difference between the King and Parliament, God forbid but they ſhould part with all they may, &c. And if they will remember the beginning of it in Scotland, with the occaſion, they may ſee guilt enough, eſpecially he that called it, Bellum Epiſcopale, who, it is to be feared, ſpake the minde of the reſt. "But yet they cannot give up what is Gods, nor would I have them, but for God, and to God; for his glory, both to promote a bleſſed peace, and to ſet in its proper ſphear Presbyter-Biſhops of his own appointing, and ſupport more able of them to feed the flock of God, that may live divers years without one Sermon, for many a Dioceſan Biſhop.

Nor is every diverſion, (as you ſay, Parag. 5.) a turning • out of the right channel? But out of the former channel; and the latter may be better, and ſo righter, in regard of the chief intentions of the Donor. And this done, by the unqueſtionable authority of the Land, will I doubt not be approv'd by as wiſe, and as honeſt men, as you. Do not you your ſelf, pag. 119. ſay, concerning Abbies and Pryories; That good and pious men have wiſht that the abuſes had been pruned off, and that the land had been diſpoſed of, according to the Donors intentions? Whats that but diverſion from the corrupt way of Abbeys and Pryoryes, to ſupport other pious, and charitable uſes?

Parag. 6, 7, 8. You tell us a ſtory of the antiquity of endowing Churches, and the riches of them. And that the uſe and Dominion of Church-goods, belong'd to Biſhops, and this not onely by cuſtom, but by Canon: But withal you ſay, at his charge, as it were, the Presbyters and other Clerks of the Church Were fed.

Sure, you have told a good tale for your ſelf; for by it, it appears, that the wealth wherewith the Church was endowed, was not given to any perſons, but the Church, in which the Biſhop had no propriety, but power of uſe, for what he himſelf needed, and of diſpoſing the reſt to Presbyters, and other Clerks; which now the Biſhop neglecting, and many Pariſhes in his Dioceſſes wanting preaching Presbyters, for want of maintenance, and many that preach'd wanting ſubſiſtance; and the Biſhop, who you ſay, ſhould maintain them, maintaining Princely I my ſelf once ſaw the Biſhop of Yorke, riding towards London, with fourty five men in his Livery. And I wondering at the number, was told by one of them, that there was above twenty left behinde, that wore their Lords Livery. State, a number of Serving-men, &c. To divert a great deal of the maintenance to preaching Presbyters, would be a returning of it into the old channel, by your own confeſſion.

But Parag. 9 The Biſhops followed the ſteps of the Apoſtolick Church, for Act. 4. we read that the well minded, when they ſold their lands, laid the prices at the Apoſtles feet, not the Presbyters. How could they, when there was, as yet, none ordained? But after, by the Apoſtles direction, there were Deacons ſet over this buſineſs of Church-treaſures. Good, and thoſe Deacons continued, and diſtributed Church-goods; ſome to the Paſtor, ſome to the poor, ſome to other pious uſes; but when your Prelates grew Lordly, the, like not that, and therefore by little and little they changed the Deacons office, and made themſelves proprietaries of the great revenues, and thereby great Princes; and you can abuſe Scripture to confirm it, as the Papiſts do to exalt the Pope. But Paul, ſay you, commanded Timothy, that the Presbyters be well provided for, 1 Tim. 5.17. And to what purpoſe was this charge, unleſs he were to provide for the Presbyters of his Church? For very good purpoſe: as the Apoſtle ſhews you himſelf, 1 Tim. 4.11. Theſe things command and teach. He was to teach it, others to perform it; for though he ſet Presbyters on work, in ſome ſenſe, yet it was not for himſelf, but Chriſt and his Church; and they who reap'd their ſpirituals, were to pay them temporals, 1 Cor. 9. And you dream, when you talk of Timothyes table, or allowing maintenance. Alas, he had no Palace then, he kept no Princelike table to feed his Presbyters; theſe fancies will be ridiculous to learned men, eſpecially to Biſhops, to lay the charge on them, to maintain all the Presbyters in their Dioceſs. Yet you ſay, in thoſe times, Biſhops and Presbyters were uſed to live in the ſame houſe: What, all the Presbyters in a Dioceſs? and in the Apoſtles time? Alas Sir, they were like their Maſter, they had no houſes, but what they hired, nor no tables, but where they ſojourned, as appears by Divine ſtory: With what face can you deliver ſuch improbabilities?

But Parag. 10. You enquire, Whence the want of maintenance for preaching Presbyters ariſeth, and you anſwer, it is from the appropriation of tythes, at the diſſolution of Abbeys. This is true in part, but not in the whole; for I believe, the greater part of Appropriations are held of Biſhops, and Deans and Chapters; and if the Biſhops be to maintain the Presbyters, and withhold the tythes, who is the thief now? At leaſt, thus far, the attempt is juſt to reſtore their impropirations: And I muſt tell you this too; That there was ſcarce any Gentleman of any ingenuitie or affection to religion, but he made a far more conſiderable addition, out of his impropriation, to the incumbent, then either Biſhops, or Deans and Chapters; Though the one purchaſed them, when the other ſwore they came into them freely: Nay, ſome Gentlemen reſigned their impropriations freely: I can hear of no Biſhop that hath done ſo; though you ſay, they are bound to maintain their Presbyters. You cloſe with a jeer, but therein diſcover your ignorance: Impropriations were injurious, you confeſs; and if they be not valid in law, why do not you ſupply the cure of ſome great impropriation, and recover the tythes in a legall way? if you cannot, my poſition is truth; and ſo not diſſonant from the God of truth.

Parag. 11. You bring my words, that if Biſhops Lands were beſtowed on Presbyters: This would be, not ruine, but to rectifie the devotion of former ages, which you ſay, is ſomewhat like Cardinall Woolſey's pretence, who diſſolved fourty ſmall Monaſteries of ignorant Monks, to erect two goodly Colledges for the breeding up learned, and induſtrious Divines; was not this to turn impediments into helps? was not this as fair a pretence as mine? yes, the very ſame, and I think, few godly and rationall men will diſallow it: But you would prove by the event, that this was not accepted of God, becauſe his Colledges were not brought to perfection. But vulgus res eventu metitur, its for vulgar capacities to judge of things by the event, not Doctors of Divinitie. And had Cardinall Woolſey, think you, no other ſins to make God blaſt his deſign, but this pious attempt? Sure, no man that knows his ſtory, will ſo judg; "but this gave occaſion to profuſe ſacriledg; but occaſions are not alwaies culpable of ill events, unleſs they becauſes alſo, as this was not, but the covetouſneſs, and igonrance, with other luſts, of ill-guided men.

Parag. 12. you enquire, what the meaning of theſe words is, this will turn pomp into uſe.

I anſwer not what you ſay; but ſo that wealth, which of late, ſerved for the uſeleſs pomp of one only Princely Lord Biſhop, would provide many able preachers for the uſe and edification of the Church.

But you proceed, and ſay, that the power of Biſhops, which were the main impediments to ſchiſm and hereſie, we have covenanted to root out, and have brought in all helps to irreligion and Atheiſm, &c. But this is but a falſe ſuggeſtion of yours; for though the power of Epiſcopacie (as Jerome ſaith) was firſt erected to prevent ſchiſm; yet amongſt us of late, as I have ſhewed, it was the great occaſion of ſchiſm, & the fautor of divers hereſies. That there have of late appeared more hereſies and ſchiſm among us then formerly, is not becauſe Epiſcopacie was pul d down, but becauſe we were ſo long without Presbyterie ſetled, which is yet but lamely done; for where that is ſetled, it would far better prevent the riſe and growth of hereſie, then Epiſcopacie; as King James demonſtrated to Mountague, Biſhop of Bath and Wells; demanding of him, upon the occaſion of Legatts Arrianiſm, what the reaſon ſhould be, that Scotland was ſo free from ſchiſm and hereſie, when England was far more peſtered with both. The relation out of a learned Author, you may take as followeth:

When Legatt the Arrian, and Weakman, Scoti paracl. contra Tileri praen: from the relation of a Courtier of good credit, lib. 1. c. 8 that affirmed himſelf to be the Holy Ghoſt, were put to death; Mountague, Biſhop of Bath and Wells, ask'd King James ſeriouſly, whence it was, that England did bring forth Sects, hereſies, ſchiſms, inſomuch, that many families, before we were aware, ſeparated from us, and fled away; whereas no ſuch thing was obſerved to happen in the Church of Scotland? To whom the King, as moſt skilfull in this cauſe, moſt wiſely anſwered; That ſuch was the Diſcipline of the Scotch Church, that it was impoſſible for ſuch things to fall out amongſt them: for firſt (ſaith the King) you muſt know, that every Church hath its Paſtor alwaies reſident, and vigilant in his pariſh; and this Paſtor hath joyned with him Seniors and Deacons, which every week meet together at a ſet time and place, for the cenſure of manners, that almoſt the whole flock is known by face to the Paſtor, and the conditions, diſpoſition, and religion of everyone, is made apparent: no hereſie therefore can ſpring up in a Pariſh, without notice taken by the Paſtor; and to prevent the rooting of any error in a Paſtor, They have every week their Presbyteries, compoſed of all the Paſtors in a Shrievalty, or Deanrie, in the chief City of that precinct; and this, not only to decide the more weighty queſtions touching manners; but alſo to try doctrine it ſelf: Here do propheſie at leaſt two; whereof the firſt doth only open the text and expound it: The ſecond doth give the uſe, exhortation, and application: This finiſht, the reſt meet together, and the two ſpeakers go aſide, untill the Moderator of the Presbyterie asketh every ones opinion of the doctrine delivered. And if (to ſay no worſe) they do but ſmell out any thing, either its forthwith buryed by common ſuffrage, or if the Presbytery be divided in any queſtion, yet at least, the whole matter is huſht in ſilence untill the next Synod, which come twice a yeer. Hither come all the Paſtors of the whole Province, accompanied with their Elders, as the ſtate of every Church requires.

The Moderator of the precedent Synod begins with a Sermon; and then, either a new Moderator is choſen, or (which ſeldom falls out) the old is continued. The queſtion refer'd to the Synod, is either compoſed, or huſht up again in ſilence, and refer'd to the National Synod, held once every year. Hither come, not onely the Paſtors, but the King, or his Commiſſioner, and uſually ſome of all degrees, ſufficiently furniſht with judgement and authority to compoſe any controverſie; ſo Hereſie is ſtifled in the very birth. So you may ſee, that Presbyterie is a better way to keep out, or under Schiſms and Hereſies, in King James his judgement, grounded on experience, then Epiſcopacy: For what you add, That the Pulpits and Preſſes, are lock'd up to all Orthodox men; Is falſe: if to any, it is my grief: I am not to anſwer for others faults.

Parag. 13. You ſay, Its true, and not true, that by Parochial Paſtors, the work of the Miniſtery is chiefly to be performed. True you ſay, it is in the Fathers ſence, not in mine. But my ſence, I ſhall prove to you, is Scripture ſence: For Paſtors in my ſence, are ſuch as were ordained, Act. 14.13. and Tit. 1.5. in every Church, and were by the Holy Ghoſt, made over-ſeers of them to feed them, Act. 20.28. This you confeſs; for theſe places you underſtand of Presbyter-Biſhops. And I hope you will not oppoſe Fathers to Scriptures; if you do, you know who muſt fall, Gal. 1.8. Its true, that the place of a Biſhops juriſdiction, was ſometime called a Pariſh; But that Pariſh was uſually not ſo bigg as ſome Pariſhes in England now; If they were, how could ſix Biſhops be aſſembled to the cenſure of every Presbyter, as the Canon was: ſure thats above the number of all the Biſhops that are in one of our Provinces, which grates hard on your Dioceſans, ſhewing, how unlike they are to ancient Biſhops. 'Nor are the ordering of the Church, or ordaining of Presbyters, without the ſphear of Presbyters, by any law of God, but humane cuſtom: No, nor are theſe the chief works of the Miniſtery; No Doctor: Preaching, and ſound Doctrine are the chief acts of the Miniſtery, which deſerve moſt reward, as you may ſee, 1 Tim. 5.17. and 1 Cor. 1.17. and therefore, when Saint Paul reckons up Miniſters, and their Miniſterial acts, governing comes behinde teaching, 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.6, 7, 8.

But Parag. 14. You think to prove, 'That your Biſhops do the chief work, virtually, from an axiom in philoſophy, propter quod aliquid eſt tale, illud ipſum eſt magis tale. But herein you ſhew your ſelf as bad a Philoſopher, as Divine; for doth propter quod, note out an efficient cauſe, or the final cauſe, think you? You are therefore miſtaken in your axiom, which is falſe, being as if you had ſaid, Presbyters are made Preachers, propter populum, for the people: ergo. the people are more Preachers: A wiſe concluſion. We have a rule indeed, quicquid efficit tale, eſt mag is tale. And I will grant, that they that ordain Preachers, ought to be more Preachers themſelves; but that, you know, is falſe in experience, in moſt of your Biſhops; therefore you ſhould know, that ſuch Axioms, are true onely in natural, not in voluntary cauſes, as the Logicians will teach you. Neither are the Biſhops the total cauſes of Preachers: Alas, at the moſt, they give them but Commiſſion to uſe their gifts authoritatively, which gifts they have from God, and are the fundamental cauſe to make them Preachers. Nor can Biſhops alone ordain Presbyters; that I have proved before. And what if I ſhould prove it now by an axiom of philoſophie? Generare ſibi ſimile, To beget his like, is the affection of a living creature; And Preſbyterie, you know, is a living office, ergo, Presbyters may ordain Presbyters. I believe, you will ſweat to give a rational anſwer to it. What you add about ordinary Courts of juſtice, and Parliament; Sir, though I count the Parliament the ſupream Court, yet juſtice is chiefly done by inferiour Courts, becauſe it ordinarily lies on them, and the Parliament is onely to ſupply and rectifie their errors.

But you proceed, and Parag. 15.16. Compare the Miniſters to ſouldiers in an Army, and to Mariners in a Navy, and your Biſhops are as the General, they are as the Admiral. So then, the people are no part of the Ship or Army, or elſe you level the Presbyters with the people, whom the Holy Ghoſt calls their guids ſet over them: Such ſimilitudes you uſe to make. But every Preacher is not fit to be a Biſhop: thats your judgement; but the Holy Ghoſt ſaith none ſhould preach, except he be ſent, and none ſhould be ſent, but ſuch as are fitted to take the care and over ſight of the Church, and thats the Holy Ghoſt's Biſhop: Whatever your opinion is, ſee 1 Tim. 3.5. Acts 20.28. Indeed, ſuch a Biſhop as you would have, Monarchically to govern a whol Dioceſs of a Shier or two, cannot be made ex quolibet ligno; but neither Scriptures, nor primitive times acknowledg any ſuch Biſhop; But ſuch a Biſhop as may joyn with others in the government of a Church: a meaner man may be without prejudice, for others maturitie in judgement, may help his want of experience.

What you object, Parag. 17. about the Levellers Doctrine is ſutable to this; Is but a capritious fancie of your own; for God hath comprized all ordinarie Miniſters under the ſame name of Paſtors; and therefore man can make no difference among them, but for orders ſake. Neither do I go about to level all Benefices: you know there is a difference, in a great diſproportion, which may be for men of different parts.

But Parag. 18. You exclaim, becauſe I ſay, there will be no danger of ſacriledg in my way. And firſt, you ſay, to overthrow Epiſcopacy, is to overthrow the Church, and for that its not enough for you to abuſe a Father, but an Apoſtle too; for when Saint Paul ſaith, we are built upon the foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, Epheſ. 2.20. Whats that, ſaith Beza, but Jeſus Chriſt? So the Apoſtle, who is the beſt interpreter of himſelf, explicates it, 1 Cor. 3.9. and adds, Planè eſt Anti-Chriſtus, quî ſibi tribnit quod unius Chriſti eſt: He is plainly anti-Chriſt, that arrogates to himſelf (or to any other) what is onely Chriſts. What think you of this? Again, thoſe that take the Apoſtles to be the foundation, is it in reſpect of their perſons, authoritie, or doctrine? Their doctrine, I believe Sir; and will you compare your Biſhops, for doctrine, to the Apoſtles and Prophets: Who, as ſuch, were infallible; Nay, do you not confeſs the doctrinal part of the Miniſterie to belong to the Presbyter, as well as your Prelate, and to be more performed by them? and have you not made a fine proof of the fall of the Church with Biſhops, out of this place?

But you add, Parag. 19. What, no danger of ſacriledg in robbing Father and Mother? But you anſwer for me, that it is no ſacriledg, becauſe the means ſhall ſtil be ſetled on the Church: and thats a reaſon which you cannot anſwer: For ſacriledg is an alienating of that which was juſtly devoted for ſacred, to civil, or prophane uſe; therefore change, ſo there be a continuance of holy uſe, is no ſacriledg: Nor ſhall we rob our Father; for, as you confeſs, holy treaſure was firſt given to the Church in general: The Biſhops had not propriety, but uſe of ſome, and with the reſt they were to maintain the Presbyters, which are wanting in many places, for want of maintenance. Now for thoſe, in whom authority lyes to take care for the edification of the Church: To diſpoſe the Churches Patrimonie, ſo as may be beſt for edification of the Church, appointing it to maintain preachers, not pomp, will be counted neither ſacriledg, nor theft, by rationall and good men. But you ſay, we rob the Church of her husband too; for though a Church have 1000 Presbyters, yet ſhe hath but one husband: ſo that great Counſell of Calcedon; but that Counſell ſpake according to the corrupt cuſtomes of thoſe times, not according to the tenure of Scriptures, who make all the Presbyters over-ſeers over their particular flocks, to dwell with them as men of knowledg, and to take care for them; and that's to be in your ſence husband, is it not? After you have made the Church a widow without a Biſhop, you add, while a widow, ſhe can bring forth nothing but a baſtard brood, conſider that; yes, I ſhall conſider it, but to your ſhame: what if a Church continue, as often it hath, through covetouſneſs and faction, long without a Biſhop, are all the Converts, begotten by the word of truth preach'd by Prebyters, baſtards? nay, what if Churches caſt off Epiſcopacie, are all her Presbyters baſtards? Do you thus gratifie the Papiſts, and abuſe all the Miniſters of our ſiſter reformed Churches? many of which far outſtrip you in all miniſteriall qualification; your aſſertion therefore is very conſiderable, to diſcover what a Popiſh ſpirit you are of.

For Parag. 20. Whether your concluſion will follow on the premiſes, or mine, I now leave to the judicious Reader. I would not have the King, for fear of the people, to do any unlawfull act: I diſclaimed it in the very entrance of my Caſe reſolved; but I only perſwade to what, for ought I yet ſee, I have proved lawfull; and that to reſcue a periſhing kingdom, and prevent the hazard of his Crown; which, that it may be free, and flouriſhing on his head, is my daily and heartie prayer, as thoſe that know me can very well witneſs, notwithſtanding your ignorant calumniations, to the contrarie.

I Proceed to the anſwer of your 16. Chapter, entituled, how far forth the King ought to protect the Church and Biſhops. You begin, it is confeſſed to my hand, that the King is engaged, to his power, to protect the Biſhops and their Priviledges, as every good King ought in right, to protect the Biſhops and Churches under their government. It is confeſſed, that theſe are the expreſſions of the oath, as it is ſet down by the Reviewer; but you ſhould conceive, that I propoſe theſe two clauſes, as limitations of the kings engagement, that is, 1. To his power. 2. only ſo far forth, as in right he ought; and I do not ſay, the engagement is put upon him by the Author, as you ignorantly ſuggeſt, but that theſe are the expreſſions of the oath, delivered by the Author; but he is not, in right, bound to protect their priviledges againſt an orderly alteration by act of Parliament, if any appear inconvenient to the whole body, for that is not right.

Parag. 2. You confeſs, the King is not bound further to exerciſe his power in protection of Biſhops, then he can do it without ſinning. And I after prove, he cannot ſo protect them, as to denie a Bill in that circumſtance of affairs he and the land were in, without ſin; what you anſwer to my proof, will be ſeen in the ſequel of this Chapter. How I have anſwered your proofs, that he cannot let fall Biſhops without miſchief to his people, &c. in your eighth Chapter, let the Reader judge.

In that you ſay, parag. 3. That the Kings interpoſing the power he hath, vexeth my confederacy; Is I doubt your wilful ignorance; for the frame of my Book might clearly enough hint unto you, that I, neither was of, nor liked any confederacie againſt the King.

Neither have I, as you ſay, parag. 4. Confeſt that what the King hath done, is right. Right it is indeed upon his principles: But I do not think, the King is bound in right to maintain Biſhops, in statu quo, in the ſtate wherein they were; and he is willing now to regulate them by their Preſbyters. But whatever I confeſs in juſtification of the King, is not (as you ſay) the juſtification of an enemy; unleſs he that pleadeth, prayeth, ſuffereth for the King, and his juſt and Kingly libertie, be his enemy, becauſe he is againſt the uſurping power of Biſhops.

Parag. 5. If after all this, he muſt perforce let the Biſhops fal, you and your ſchiſm have much to anſwer for. Still a Slanderer; its none of my ſchiſm, to force the King to let them fall; for though I prove, he may let them fall; and that it is for the advantage of the Church, that they ſhould fall; yet I was alwaies againſt forcing him to it; for, I think, it is much more reaſon, that his conſcience ſhould be left free in its determination, then my own, or any private mans, in as much as God hath ſet him in ſo high a degree of eminencie in his Kingdoms.

But that you ſay, the ſword was never drawn on the Kings ſide, to maintain Religion eſtabliſhed: They never learn'd to fight for Religion; It is an ignorant ſpeech, misbecoming a D. D. For what juſter cauſe of War, or more weightie, then to maintain Religion eſtabliſh'd? Its true, we may not fight to ſet up a Religion (which is true) againſt the laws and authoritie of the land where we live; that were againſt the direction to Chriſtians, under Heathen Emperors, Rom. 13.1.2. But to joyn with authoritie to maintain Religion eſtabliſh'd, (ſuppoſing it true) with the laſt drop of our blood, is the moſt glorious quarrel; and ſo I doubt not, but the Royal partie learned, though not from you, yet from better Divines. For your clinch about good ſubjects; Its frivolous; for the War coſts blood on both ſides, and the King loſeth on both ſides, for all are his ſubjects, and I doubt not, but he hath good Subjects on both ſides, in regard of meaning, and intention, though its true, one ſide muſt needs be in a grand error.

Parag. 6. You confeſs, it is an hard caſe for one man to engage his life for the maintenance of anothers priviledges. But who did ſo? Not a man (ſay you) engag'd himſelf, but by the Kings command, which you after prove, and ſtate the queſtion us you pleaſe. But this is but to ſhuffle, and alters the ſtate of a queſtion, to elude the force of an Argument, which you cannot anſwer: That which I ſaid, was, it was not equal for the King to engage, by his command, the lives of ſome, to maintain the priviledges of others, which I ſpake upon this ſuppoſition; That if the King had condeſcended in point of Epiſcopacie, the War would have been at an end, Laws reſtored to exerciſe, &c. For both City, and the Scotiſh Nation, would have cloſed with him: and for this cauſe alone, viz. to maintain power of Biſhops, I ſay, it would not have been equal to have engaged the lives of others; nor were they willing, as I have been informed, Nobles, nor others. It may be, the King thought condeſcention in this, would not have ſet him and his people, in quiet poſſeſſion of their rights; but I cannot but wiſh, that it had been tryed, that nothing lawful had been omitted, by which there was any hope to have ſaved a great deal of miſery, that his Majeſtie, his Royal relations, and the whole Nation hath ſuffered.

But Par. 7. You deny them to be others priviledges, and affirm them to be the peoples, becauſe they reap ſpirituals from them. But truely I muſt tell you, that the people reaped but little in ſpirituals from many of the Biſhops, who ſeldom preached themſelves, and rob'd many people of their ſpirituals, by ſilencing their Miniſters; and though there were no Biſhops in England, the people may reap ſpiritual things from the Clergie, as plentifully, if not more, then ever they did; as well as without them, they do in other reformed Churches. But what you add, "That in the ſuffering of the Clergie, all Families ſuffer, you ſubſtitute Clergie for Biſhops. Other of the Clergie may be in better condition by the removall of Lording Biſhops; but in your proof that one of the Tribe of Judah, of the moſt remarkable Family, turn'd Prieſt: That is ſo groſs an overſight, that it is moſt unbeſeeming a D. D. for its expreſly ſaid, that young man was a Levite by birth. And the argument of Micah, plainly proves him ſo, or elſe he had been in no better caſe with him, then with one of his own ſons, whom he had conſecrated, if that would have made a Prieſt. See Judg. 17. v. 5.13. The Levite indeed turned Prieſt, which was his wickedneſs; for a Levite was not to do the Prieſts office. There is indeed an ambiguous expreſſion, touching this Levite, v. 7. A young man of Bethlehem Judah, of the family of Judah. But if you had conſulted Interpreters, you would have found them generally agreeing that he was a Levite, though differing in their opinions, how he was of the family of Judah. Some ſaying, by his Mother, ſome referring it to the City, to diſtinguiſh it from another Bethlehem in Zabulon, &c.

You add, parag. 8. What if Magna Charta do obliege all to ſtand up for the due obſervation of theſe priviledges? then we muſt acknowledg that we are bound to obey his Majeſty commanding, &c. Still you alter the queſtion; for the queſtion is, Whether it can be ſuppoſed equal, that the King ſhould ſtand bound to engage the lives of many, for the priviledges of a few Lord Biſhops. I hope, you think it not the meaning of Magna Charta, that every one ſhould engage their lives for every paltrie priviledg of another. But its well you can now confeſs, that Magna Charta is a great and juſtly magnified Charter. If you and your Prelates had been of this minde formerly, and not been ſo deep in breaking, and countenancing the breach of it in others, by illegal impriſonments, impoſitions, fines, both of Laytie and Clergie: England might have ſcap'd this cannenſem calamitatem, this mine-threatning calamitie, under which it is readie to expire; to which the breaches of Magna Charta gave the firſt occaſion, and the faireſt colour.

Parag. 2. You make an objection touching Abbots and Priors provided for by the ſame Charter, yet ſince taken away by act of Parliament, which you confeſs. But firſt, you you would have us obſerve, how they proſpered that did it. Secondly, that Maſter Beza and my ſelf call it ſacriledg. We do ſo, and that we judge the cauſe why they proſper'd not that did it, becauſe they did it with that ſinful circumſtance of devouring holy things, which ſhewed alſo their want of ſinceritie in it. Thirdly, you ſay, that they are for it ſtiled enemies of our Sovereign. But they did not hear it, they were born long after the Statute of 25. Edward 3. Fourthly, you cite the Counſel of Chalcedon, that no conſecrated Monaſtery may be turned to a ſecular dwelling. I anſwer, Counſels may erre, and ſo may that of Chalcedon; if the profit of the houſe had been imployed for pious uſes; I ſee no ground of complaint or cenſure. Fiftly, you ſay, you hope I will make a difference between our Saviours inſtitution, and mans invention. Truely I do, and have proved Dioceſan-Biſhops to be no inſtitution of Chriſt, but man, in the foregoing Diſcourſe. And laſtly, I joyn With the wiſhes of thoſe pious men, and move (as you know) not a devouring but a diverſion of Chathedrals maintenance; (Beſides what is requiſite to maintain needful preaching there,) to procure and encourage able Parochial Paſtors (who are the undoubted Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt) all the Land over.

Parag. 10. You do but beat the ſame buſh again, in citing again Magna Charta. I confeſs, the kings engagement to maintain the Priviledges of the Clergie, ſo far as he is bound by right; nor is any act of the king, or the Houſes without the king, valid againſt it; but king and Parliament joyning, they may over-rule ſome parts of it, and upon juſt ground warrantably, as appears in all experience, as in paring Epiſcopall Canonical priviledges, niminiſhing their juriſdiction by the high Commiſſion annext to, and ſet over Biſhops, &c.

Parag. 11. You enquire, Whether it be equall to engage the lives of ſome, to deſtroy the honours of others? This is impertinent to my Caſe, and though I count not your Biſhops, plantations of Gods right hand, yet ſith they had footing by law, it hath been my grief, that force hath been uſed to pluck them up, for me they ſhould have ſtayed for his day; who hath ſaid, every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted, ſhall be plucked up; but when I have made complaint of this, it hath been replyed to me by many, that this was not the cauſe of the engagement in war, though I believe the moſt conſiderable part of the people had an eye on this; but this is on the by.

Parag. 12, 13. You take into conſideration my Caſe, of a Captain, engaged by oath to maintain the Priviledges of Townes-men, and keep a town to his power, whether he may not, notwithſtanding his oath, make his compoſition, (if he cannot defend it without the Townes-men, and they will not fight) without violation of his oath? I think, none will affirm it. You do not only deny it, but take the Name of God in vain, to make a jeer at it, doth that become a Divine? But let's hear your reaſon; becauſe there's no town in England can have ſuch a priviledg, as not to bear arms againſt the Kings enemies. Suppoſe it be ſo, I am no Lawyer; yet you know its not unuſuall in caſes, to ſuppoſe things that are not, ſo they be not impoſſible, as this is not; for the king may grant ſuch an immunitie if he pleaſe, that none ſhall be compell'd to bear arms, and therefore it was but a ſhift; that error in the Caſe may be eaſily mended, and it will pinch the Doctor as hard as ever it did; for ſuppoſe that ſo many of the ſouldiers in the town are ſlain, or taken priſoners, that the Governour can defend it no longer, then I hope Mr. Doctor will yield that he may make his compoſition; ſo was it with the king, at the publiſhing my ſmall Treatiſe; and now, notwithſtanding my former fails (as he ſaith Parag. 14.) for want of skill in law; the difficulty is returned on the Doctor, get out how he can.

I make an Objection, that though the king cannot in ſuch a ſtate uphold them; yet it is in his power not to conſent to their fall; this, I ſay, is the only exception. The Doctor ſaith, "its a juſt one, though not the only one; yet he ſhews no other: but then he is angry for the phraſe, peremptorineſs, in denying aſſent to the fall of Biſhops, uſed to the King as uncivil. I am no Courtier, (I confeſs) and may fail in phraſe; yet peremptorineſs in a candid ſenſe, is no more then reſoluteneſs, ſo I mean it: but I will ſtrive hereafter, even in expreſſions, to cut off occaſion from them that ſeek occaſion. But you ſay, his not conſenting to the fall of Biſhops, may keep him from ſin. But you beg the queſtion; for I argue by my inſtance, in a Governour of a town, that there is no ſin in reſigning upon compoſition; and your proof, that it is a ſin to conſent to aboliſh Epiſcopacie, becauſe an ordinance of Chriſt, waves the bonds of the oath, and argues from the thing; the vanity of which I confuted, when I met with it, Chap. 4.

Parag. 16. You anſwer, though the King cannot ſave your Mitres, but endanger his own Crown, yet (ſay you) he ſhall avoid ſin and ſave his ſoul, for without conſent, no ſin. Neither in conſent is there ſin in this caſe, as I have proved; and then a king, I hope, may do all that may be done, without ſin, to ſave his Crown: but in the mean time, the land may ſee how tender you are of the king, that rather then you will conſent to his ſigning a Bill when it may ſave his Crown, he ſhall loſe it. It's a ſign you love the Crown for your Mitres ſake; and if there muſt be no Biſhops, then let there be no kings neither. Rightlike him in the Tragedie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Parag. 17, 18. You examine, that I ſay in a naturall ſence, it is in the Kings power to conſent to the abrogation of Epiſcopacie, not in a morall ſence, becauſe he cannot now deny without ſin; the diſtinction you acknowledg, and ſay, it ſhould be the Kings care, that he incline not to ſin. I ſay ſo too, he muſt venture all, rather then ſin; and if I thought it were ſin, I ſhould chuſe death, rather then perſwade him to it; but you confidently conclude, the King breaks his oath, and ſins if he conſent. This I deny, the oath engageth not to diſſent in this caſe, as I have proved: yet were Epiſcopacie an inſtitution of Chriſt, I confeſs alſo, it were ſin to aboliſh it: but I have proved it a brat of humane power; and what man ſets up, you confeſs man may pull down.

But I prove, that the king cannot deny his aſſent to abrogation of Epiſcopacy now, without ſin, for elſe ſuch confuſion will follow, as is moſt repugnant to the weal of his people; this confuſion we have felt: but what ſaith the Doctor to this, Parag. 19. Thus ſhall ſin vary at your pleaſure, ſin it ſhall be now, that was none heretofore. Why Sir, is that ſtrange, that circumſtances ſhould change the morality of actions? I am aſhamed, that a D. D. of mine own mother Univerſitie ſhould diſcover ſuch ignorance in Divinitie. Was it not a thing unlawful in the Apoſtles time, after the Decree, Acts 15. to eat things ſtrangled, and bloud, where offence was taken; but cannot you without ſcruple, now eat a good blood-pudding, or a ſtrangled capon? truly, if you cannot, you would get more ſcorn, then followers, for ſuch a ſilly fancie.

But you proceed, Parag. 20. Where there is no law, there is no tranſgreſſion. Is there no law, for a King to tender the weal of his people? yes, ſure that that requires him to be honoured as a father; and therefore, if he withholding his aſſent, occaſion the keeping up confuſion, repugnant to the weal of his people, undoubtedly there's a law broken, unleſs there be ſome ſuperior law to check this. Oh, but Judge Jenkins ſaith, its againſt the oath of the King and Houſes, to alter the government for religion. But I pray you ask, the Judge whether it be againſt their oaths, to alter the religion, from Popery to Proteſtancie? and withall, whether is greater, the religion, or the external government of it? and if without perjury they alter the greater, why may they not the leſs? for the trouble, that the learned in law ſhall be put to on alteration: If you compare it with garments rolled in blood, let the Reader judg, whether you be a prudent eſteemer of matters.

But you retort, Parag. 21. If the King do conſent to abrogate Epiſcopacie, there will follow confuſion, repugnant to the weal of his people. Your reaſon is, that there are as many for Epiſcopacie (Common-Prayer is another buſineſs) as againſt it, though not ſo mutinous.

I anſwer, the danger of confuſion is not from the number or quality alone, but alſo from the power of oppoſers, which then was very great, and the adverſe party weak; therefore your retortion was feeble. I confeſs, the ſins occaſion'd by this confuſion endanger temporal and eternal weal of people; that's it that makes me ſo ſtudy the healing of it.

Parag. 22. You infer, that I mean to continue theſe diſtractions, unleſs Epiſcapacie be abrogated▪ But you are miſtaken in me; though I have no good conceit of Epiſcopacie, yet I had rather it had continued, though to my burthen and ſuffering, then have ſeen ſo much ſin and miſery by an unnatural war; but your expreſſions carry it, that your minde is ſo. Epiſcopacie may be held up: Scelera ipſa nefaſque hac mercede placent. You are as much miſtaken in objecting ambition, or avarice to me, as a cauſe of theſe evils: I have by Gods grace, followed the dictate of my conſcience, above theſe twenty years, againſt my civill intereſt: and I hope, I ſhall not now become ſuch a ſlave to luſt, to do ſuch a horrid thing, to ſerve it.

You cloſe this Chapter, Parag. 23, 24. with paraleling our preſent times with the conſpiracie of Corah; and when you can prove by Gods Law, ſuch a difference between Presbyters and Biſhops, as God made between Prieſt and Levites, it will give a pretty colour to the buſineſs; but as long as Gods Word tells us, that Presbyters are Biſhops and Paſtors, nor hath he left any diſtinct orders among Paſtors, you may pleaſe your ſelf, and credulous followers, with your conceit, but ſhall not convict thoſe of any guilt, that for peace-ſake, move, that man would aboliſh that difference of order which the wit of man made, and the corruption of man hath made hurtfull. God make the Scepter of the King flouriſh, but as for your Epiſcopall Mitres, they have been ſo ſtained by thoſe that wear them, that well may they get power, but I believe they will never get beauty and glory in our Iſrael again.

I Come now to your laſt Chapter, entituled, Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdom? But why not as wel, three? You know I make three ſupremacies, but two fitted your Bow better, which you had prepared to ſhoot your Arrows in, even bitter words: But I ſhal let you ſee, that as there is more vapour, ſo more vanitie and lightneſs in this, then in any other Chapter; and ſome of it againſt your own words, and I believe more of it againſt your own light. Firſt, you begin to tell me, That I blame them that ſet up two ſupremacies, and yet cannot ſee the beam in my own eye, and then calumniate at pleaſure.

Yet all is but winde: I blame them that ſet up two abſolute ſupremacies, that had power to make laws independantly one of another: onely the Clergie had the better end of the ſtaff; for the Laytie muſt be ſubject to their laws, but they would be exempt from the Layties. This I condemned out of Marſilus Patavinus, as an enemy to quiet, becauſe ſuch were alwaies apt, and uſually in act, claſhing one againſt another. But the ſupremacies that I ſpeak of, cannot croſs one another, ſo no danger of diſturbance. Again, Doctor, in ſober ſadneſs, do you not know a difference between a ſupremacy, and the Supremacie? A D. D. cannot be ſo ignorant. You cannot chuſe but have learned the difference between abſolute ſummum, and ſummum ſecundùm quid. Chiefs, in ſome reſpect, may be many, chief abſolutely, but one; and when I ſay, a Supremacie, did not that hint to you onely a Supremacie ſecundum quid, in ſome reſpect onely? and yet more expreſly, when I call it the ſupream Court, that is, ſupream, not abſolute: but in reſpect of judicature, there lies an appeal from all Courts to it by petition, but from it to none. Is not this a Supremacie? Nay, do not you your ſelf aſcribe as much to it, when you ſay, This I ſay, that the Parliament is Curia Capitalis, the ſupream Court of this Kingdom? Your own words, pag. 136. if Supream, there's ſupremacie, quicquid dicitur de in eſt in; it cannot be denominated ſupream, but there is ſupremacie in it, in ſome reſpect; denominatio fit ab inhaeſione; did you not then cavil againſt conſcience at a ſupremacie in the Parliament, and raiſe duſt to darken the light?

Parag. 2. After a light quirk, misbecoming a D. D. you ask Whether this be not againſt the oath of ſupremacy, Wherein we ſwear, that the Kings highneſs is the onely ſupream Governour of this Land, &c? How are my poſitions againſt this oath? Do not I aſcribe to the king, to be the onely Supream Magiſtrate? You that could play with ſummum, and ſupremus; Can you tell us a difference, between Magiſtrate, and Governour? If not, he that aſſerts the King the ſupream Magiſtrate, reacheth the ſence of that oath, which maketh him ſupream Governour. Therefore I need fear no humane penalties againſt perjurie, for this; No, Doctor, I hope once, the Lord will not hold him guilty, will more make me dread perjurie, then all other penalties.

Parag. 3. you ſay, I clip his Majeſties wings, and ſay that the ſupremum jus Dominij, which is above laws, figere, & refigere, is not in the King, to ſay it is in him, is in our State a manifeſt error. Whats become of the oath of Supremacy then (ſay you)? Safe enough ſay I, The King remains ſtill ſupream Governour; he is ſaid to be onely ſo in government, which notes execution of laws, and ſo doth the phraſes Eccleſiaſtical and Civil; but (you ſay) in your eſtate it is no error. Sure Sir, in King Charles his Kingdom of England it is an error; in which aſſertion, I ſhould not have been ſo peremptory at firſt, nor now, had I not received this light from his own pen, in his anſwer to the Parliaments 19. Propoſitions, ſent to him in York-ſhire; where firſt, he tels them, that the experience, Col. of Remonſt. and pag. 320. 321. and wiſedom of their Ancestors, hath ſo moulded our government, out of a mixture of all the three, viz. abſolute Monarchy, Ariſtocracy, and Democracy, as to give to this Kingdom, as far as humane providence can provide the conveniences of all three, without the inconveniences of any one, &c. And then a little after. In this Kingdom, the laws are joyntly made by a King, by an Houſe of Peers, and by an Houſe of Commons, choſen by the people, all having free votes and particular priviledges. The government, according to theſe laws, is truſted to the King, &c.

Have not I now followed my copy right? the ſupream power to make laws, is Ariſtocrati, cal in three States, free to vote, and the King the ſupream Magiſtrate to execute laws. One would think, if this would not make you bluſh for what is paſt, yet it may ſtop your mouth for future; and I need not ſay no more on this point; yet I will give a little touch to ſhew the vanitie of your flouriſhes.

Your Parag. 4. Is a meer flaſh, attended with the ſparkles of light calumnies; For I have not made one of two, I yet leave one abſolute Supaemacie, as you confeſs in the next parag. the Supremacie to make and unmake laws. This is neither in King, nor Houſes apart, but conjoyned.

Here then we are fallen back to one Supremacie. Why did you then trifle ſo much about two? But this (ſay you) is to skip from Monarchie to Ariſtocracie; juſt as his Majeſtie hath told you, in this government there's a mixture; its Ariſtocratical in Legis lation, Monarchical for execution; and therein is the excellency of it; the one being fitteſt for Law-making by ſolidity; the other for execution by celeritie; and yet this D.D. jeers, as though this was never ſeen before, becauſe he wanted eyes: But now comes a precious one. He believes it well appears, That ſupremacie over all Laws, to make or diſanul them, is in the King alone, at the Petition of both Houſes. Ridiculum caput; for its as much as to ſay, its in the King alone with the help of others; a notorious Bull. That power is in a man alone which he can execute without the concurrence of others; but this the King cannot do, without the Houſes manifeſting their conſent, and deſire by Petition. Beſides, have you forgot the ſtatute, your ſelf quoted, pag. 85? That no Act of Par liament be paſſed by any Sovereign of this Realm, or any other authority whatſoever, without the advice and conſent of the three Eſtates of the Kingdom, &c. Oportet te eſſe memorem.

But you will come to Scriptures, Fathers, and moderne Authors, as Parag. 6. 'Peter aſcribeth ſupremacie to the King, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. But that is clearly, as I have ſaid, as Supream Magiſtrate, to whom others are ſubordinate, and this admonition muſt be with limitation too, where Kings are ſupream. You do not think that the Apoſtle doth level all Kings, and give them all one equal ſupremacie; No, the Apoſtle had no power, nor would not attempt, to alter the conſtitution of Nations. Now Grotius will tell you; ſome Kings are not ſupream. Thoſe of Athens were under the power of the people, thoſe of Lacedemon, under the Ephori. See Grot. de jure bel. & pac. lib. 1. cap. 2. parag. 8. The ſentences out of Fathers, which you quote, parag. 6, and 7. ſpeak of abſolute Monarchs, which you ignorantly, or flatteringly, ſay ours is; but our King denies it, calling our government, a mixture of all the three, and a regular Monarchie, Collect. of Declar. &c. pag. 320. 321. And that ſentence cited by you out of Grotius will confute you; Thats the ſupream civil power, cujus actus alterius juri non ſubſunt. Whoſe acts are not ſubject to another mans cenſure; For thoſe acts that any do by the Kings authoritie, are the Kings acts; and the Parliament hath power to diſanul theſe acts, and puniſh theſe agents, as the King informeth, Collect. of Remonſtr. pag. 321. to ſhew, the compleatneſs of our government. Our Law indeed (ſaith the king) can do no wrong; that is, he cannot work, but by Agents: and the law takes no notice of him in it, but of the Agents, to puniſh them.

But you proceed, Parag. 8. I •• ow (ſay you) you relye more upon the laws of the Land then upon the Word of God. But I believe therein you ſpeak againſt your conſcience; what you produce, that the king is the ſupream Head, is no more then what I aſcribe to him, to be ſupream Magiſtrate, and in that he is alone, and the head one; and therefore the Bull of two Supremacies, you ſpeak of, is but a Calf of your own fancie.

What you ſay, Parag. 9, 10. 13. Touching the Parliament being ſubjects, and petitioning to him as ſubjects, and that Bills are not in force without him. I confeſs: but theſe onely denie that ſupremacie in the Parlament, which I never aſſerted: but do not aſſert the ſupremacy in the king, to make, or un-make laws, without them. Therefore all this is trifling.

Par. 11. You ask, What ſupremacie can be in that Court, that cannot lawfully Convene, till the King ſummonthem? There is this; The ſupremacie of a Court, as you confeſs, to be the ſupream Court; that is, there is no appeal from them, but appeals from all Courts to them: and you know, they can reverſe decrees in Courts, which the King cannot; he can pardon, not reverſe ſentences. They can reverſe Verdicts but not pardon offenders.

You add Parag. 12. The King is to regulate them for the time. I acknowledg it: this Parliament onely excepted, by a particular Statute, made in this Parliament with the Kings aſſent. And for the manner, The king himſelf ſaith, they are free, and have priviledges of their own. For the great Lawyers judgement, you ſpeak of, in Richard the 2. time, That if any in Parliament proceed upon other Articles, or in other manner then is limited by the King, &c. they are to be puniſhed as Traytors.

I wonder, you will mention it, ſith that great Lawyer was flattering Treſilyan, who by ſuch ill Counſel helpt to over-throw his Sovereign: and in a Parliament, held in the 13, year of Richard 2. was for this, by the Lords in Parliament, condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, which was preſently executed on him, as our Hiſtorians ſhew.

Your Collections, Par. 14. were diſproved before: what you ſay 'for the Kings regulating Courts of justice. You miſtake, the Law is their rule, and that regulates them, which if they transgreſs, he may puniſh them: but the law they are ſworn to follow, againſt any private inſtructions of his; thats clearly known.

You ſum up your arguments, Parag. 15. But they are all ſhort of your concluſion: for they conclude not againſt the Parliaments being a ſupream Court, which is all I aſſert, and you confeſs in the following page: Nay, in this page, parag. 17. and what you have, parag. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Are ſuperfluous: For they onely concludet he King to be ſupream Magiſtrate, but exclude not the Parliament from being the ſupream Court: you ſay, but yet it is the Kings Court. I deny it not; I denie him onely to be above it, in the capacitie of a Court, though it ſit by his writ. Therefore all you do here, is, but lis de lana caprina, meer trifling.

And as captious a conceipt is that, that you conceive not They have power to make and alter laws at pleaſure; for there is great danger in altering laws without urgent cauſe. Who doubts it? What need you prove it? But to make up want of proof in things to be proved? Who knows not, that wiſedom and moderation in Law makers, is to regulate that power that they may put forth upon any, that they put it not forth, but upon juſt occaſion?

Parag. 22. You infer, If the King cannot do any thing againſt the legal rights of others, ſo nor Parliaments. True; they ought not to over-rule or alter the rights of other, but for the publike good; but for that they may; you know there were many had legal rights in offices in Star-Chamber, and yet for publike good, the King condeſcended to a Bill of abrogation.

Parag. 23. You tell us, 'The King is above law. That is, ſay you, Common-law. But this is your fiction; for the King ſaith, he is a regular Monarch, that is regulated by laws, ſo in a ſence, under them. The common cuſtom of our Nation is, that actions may be commenced againſt the King at the Common-law; therefore you ſpeak againſt experience, in ſaying, that the king is above the Common-law; which appears alſo, in that the Judges of the Common, as well as Statute-law, are ſworn not to denie, or delay juſtice to any, for any Letter, or Prohibition of the king. And though his taking the Parliament into the joynt aſſiſtance of making laws, makes not them ſupream: yet it hinders that ſupremacie of laws-making from being ſolely in him, ſith he can do nothing without them.

For Parag. 24. I would not brand you, nor delude the people, as you object; But onely ſeek to give a rational ſence of the kings oath, which they that oppoſe, brand themſelves. I did believe, what I expres'd in my good conceit of the preſent Biſhops tenderneſs to preſerve the King from hazzard; but if they be all of your minde, I ſee I am deceived for; let the Crown, or life of king, ſink or ſwim, he ſhall have no conſent from you to enlarge his conſcience, to conſent to aboliſh Epiſcopacie, for the ſafegard of either.

For Parag. 25. 26. I deſire no more, then that the king ſhould give every one his own, preferring the publike before any private. I confeſs the kings readineſs to confirm Bills, ſuch and ſo large, as never were the like; but yet I know, and you know, what danger the king and land hath been, and is in, for want of conſent to let down Epiſcopacie: And in this exigent wherein we are, by the corruption of man, I humbly give my advice, to promote Peace, and prevent much of that blood, and miſery, which for want of peace ſtill continues; and threatens worſe to the Church (I confeſs) then either the want or preſence of Biſhops.

But your Sun muſt ſet under a Cloud, and therefore, Parag. 17. you tell me, He that ſlayeth a Prelate, to whom he owes faith and obedience, its Treaſon: you amplifie, If it be Treaſon to kill a Prelate, then how much greater to kill Prelacy. Negatur Argumentum, egregie D. D. It follows not; for he that kills a Biſhop, kills a man, and he hath Gods Image ſtampt on him. But Epiſcopacy, as I have ſhewed, is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an inhumane creature; ſo he may be removed regularly, without any injury to God. Beſides, you conſider not that Biſhop is a concrete word, including a man and Epiſcopacy, Concretum relativum, as the Logicians call it. But Epiſcopacie is an abſtract: your ſimilitude onely holds thus, as it were worſe to kill the ſpecies, then one man; ſo to aboliſh Epiſcopacy, then to degrade one Biſhop; If either were evil. But, in a regular way, I have ſhewed you, both are good; therefore, as I fear not your law, ſo I doubt not of Gods approbation, being conſcious to my ſincere intentions, for the good of King and kingdom, in it.

For your Concluſion, Parag. Ʋlt. I muſt minde you, that it cannot be better then the Pr • miſes, Concluſio ſequitur deteriorem partem. Therefore I may conclude, That would the abolition of Epiſcopacy make our peace, put an end to blood, rapine, miſery: The king may with ſafety and approbation do it. But if God be not pleaſed to perſwade his heart ſo far; If that moderation that he would bring them to, would ſatisfie others: I think, as the caſe ſtands, they may do innocently, and commendably, to cloſe with him. Yea, I think, thoſe, who upon a ſerious conſideration of the over-flowing of all ſin, with an high hand, ſhall yield firſt; (that ſome government may be ſetled in the Church, Laws recover their power in the Common-wealth, ſin be prevented, Juſtice and amity revived) they will be moſt acceptable to God, and ought to be ſo with men.

Deo gloria. Finis