5. But suppose all this were nothing: It is clearly proved that it is not the Genus of Episcopacy, but the Species of English Prelacy (described) which the Covenant meaneth. And I have proved already that a specific alteration of this Prelacy is lawful; and whether also not-necessary let the impartial Reader judge. I have asked the most Learned of the Diocesan Party that I could meet with, this Question, Whether it be not lawful for the King and Parliament to take down Chancellors, and all Lay-Judges in Spiritual Courts, and Deans, Arch-deacons, Commissaries, and the Courts themselves, and to take down a Bishop of a Thousand or many Hundred Churches, and to set up a Bishop in every Market Town with the adjacent Villages, yea, or in every great Parish, to govern with his Presbyters, as it was in Ignatius his days (and in Cyprian's)? And never Man of them denied it lawful for them to make such a Change, if they saw it meet. I have asked them further, Whether they would not call this a Change of Government de specie, or according to the sense of the Act? And they all confessed it: (For if they did not, the Act and Declaration would herein do them no good†, but leave private Men to endeavour such an Alteration, which they know is all the Alteration that ever we desired of them; and for which they have called us Presbyterians). I have asked them further, Whether a Vow turn not a licet into an oportet? And they never deny it. Where then can you imagine any remaining difference? Why this was all that they said, That it was not this Species of Prelacy, but Episcopacy in genere which the Covenant meant, and consequently the Act meaneth2. Which I have proved to be most evidently untrue; there being no other Episcopacy but our Prelacy then existent, nor Episcopacy ever named in the Covenant in genere, but this Prelacy, being exactly described, and this purposely for the deciding of this very Doubt, by the means of Mr. Gataker, Dr. Burges, and many more in the Assemblies who renounced the extirpation of all Episcopacy, and the Lords having taken the Covenant in that openly declared sense: But suppose all this had not been so: Doth not a renunciation of the Genus contain the Species? And if any Man voweth against the Genus, mistaking it to be all sinful, will not his Vow bind him against that Species which indeed is sinful, though not against the others?
5. But suppose all this were nothing: It is clearly proved that it is not the Genus of Episcopacy, but the Species of English Prelacy (described) which the Covenant meaneth. And I have proved already that a specifick alteration of this Prelacy is lawful; and whether also not-necessary let the impartial Reader judge. I have asked the most Learned of the Diocesan Party that I could meet with, this Question, Whether it be not lawful for the King and Parliament to take down Chancellors, and all Lay-Judges in Spiritual Courts, and Deans, Arch-deacons, Commissaries, and the Courts themselves, and to take down a Bishop of a Thousand or many Hundred Churches, and to set up a Bishop in every Market Town with the adjacent Villages, yea, or in every great Parish, to govern with his Presbyters, as it was in Ignatius his days (and in Cyprian's)? And never Man of them denied it lawful for them to make such a Change, if they saw it meet. I have asked them further, Whether they would not call this a Change of Government de specie, or according to the sence of the Act? And they all confest it: (For if they did not, the Act and Declaration would herein do them no good†, but leave private Men to endeavour such an Alteration, which they know is all the Alteration that ever we desired of them; and for which they have called us Presbyterians). I have asked them further, Whether a Vow turn not a licet into an oportet? And they never deny it. Where then can you imagine any remaining difference? Why this was all that they said, That it was not this Species of Prelacy, but Episcopacy in genere which the Covenant meant, and consequently the Act meaneth2. Which I have proved to be most evidently untrue; there being no other Episcopacy but our Prelacy then existent, nor Episcopay ever named in the Convenant in genere, but this Prelacy, being exactly described, and this purposely for the deciding of this very Doubt, by the means of Mr. Gataker, Dr. Burges, and many more in the Assemblies who renounced the extirpation of all Episcopacy, and the Lords having taken the Covenant in that openly declared sence: But suppose all this had not been so: Doth not a renunciation of the Genus contain the Species? And if any Man voweth against the Genus, mistaking it to be all sinful, will not his Vow bind him against that Species which indeed is sinful, though not against the others?
- †I pray ask the Law-givers, whether they will excuse you from breaking this Oath or Promise, if you endeavour to extirpate the English Prelacy, but not to root out all Episcopacy.
- 2O for a Mind prepared and willing to know the Truth.
