A consideration and a resolvtion first concerning the right of the laity in nationall councels : secondly concerning the power of bishops in affaires secular : prepared for the honourable House of Parliament / by Sr. E.D. ...

A consideration and a resolvtion first concerning the right of the laity in nationall councels : secondly concerning the power of bishops in affaires secular : prepared for the honourable House of Parliament / by Sr. E.D. ...

Table of contents

Title page

A CONSIDERATION VPON THE LATE CANONS.

THAT BB. OVGHT NOT TO HOLD SECVLAR POWER.

§

§

[Page]

A CONSIDERATION AND A RESOLVTION.

FIRST,
Concerning the right of the Laity in Nationall Councels. SECONDLY,
Concerning the power of Bishops in affaires secular.

Prepared for the Honourable House of PARLIAMENT.

By Sr. E. D. Kt. and Baronet.

[figure]

LONDON, Printed for F. Eglesfeild, 1641.

A CONSIDERATION VPON THE LATE CANONS.

[Page]

[Page]

THat the late Canons are invalidous, it will easily appeare, and that they are so originally in the foundation, or rather in the founders of them, I will assume upon my selfe to demonstrate, having first intimated my sence by way of preparative.

The Pope (as they say) hath a triple Crowne, answerable thereunto, and to support that, hee pretends to have a threefold Law. The first is, jus divinum, Episcopacie by divine right; and this hee would have you thinke to be the Coronet next his head, that which doth circle and secure his power. Our Bishops have (in an unlucky time) [Page] entred their plea and pretended title to this Crowne, Episcopacy by divine right.

The second is Ius humanum, Constantin's donation, the gift of indulgent Princes; Temporal power. This Law belongs to his second, or his middle Crowne; already also pleaded for by our Prelates in print.

These two Crownes being obtained, he (the Pope) doth frame and make his third Crowne himselfe, and setts that upmost, upon the toppe—This Crowne also hath its Law, and that is Ius Canonicum, the Canon law, of more use unto his Popeship then both the other—Iust so our Prelates from the pretended divinity of their Episcopacy, and from the temporall power granted by our Princes they would now obtrude a new Canon-Law upon us.

They have charged their Canons at us to the full, and never fearing that ever they would recoyle backe into a Parliament they have rammed a prodigious ungodly oath into them.

The illegality and invalidity of these Canons (as I conceive) is easily discoverable by one short question, viz. what doe you call the meeting wherein they were made? give it a name to know it by: who can frame his argument aright unlesse hee can first tell against what hee is to argue? would you confute the Convocation? they [Page] were a holy Synod? would you argue against the Synod? why they were Commissioners, would you dispute the Commission? they will mingle all powers together, and answer that they were some fourth thing, that we neither know nor imagine.

Quo teneam nodo mutantem Protea? unlesse they will unriddle thēselves, & owne what they were, we may prosecute, but hardly with concludent arguments. Yet I venture.

I have conferred with some of the founders of these new Canons, but I professe clearely, that I could never yet meete with any one of that assembly, who could (in behalfe of their meeting) well answer me the first question in the Catechisme, what is your name? Alas, they are parted before they know what they were when they were together.

The summe of the severall answers, that I have received, doth amount to this. They were a Convocationall—Synodicall—assembly of Commissioners, indeede a threefold Chimaera, a monster to our Lawes, a Cerberus to our Religion.

A strange Commission wherein no one Commissioners name is to bee found. A strange Convocation that lived when the Parliament was dead: A strange holy Synod where one part never saw, never confirred with the other.—But indeede [Page] what use or need of conference, if that bee true of these Canons, which I reade of the former ones, Notum est Canones formari Lambethae, priusquàm in Synodo ventilentur?

Thus farre preparatory. I proceede to my argument, whereby to manifest the invalidity of these Canons, not borrowing but avoiding what have formerly beene instanced by others.

I will neither inveigh upon them as unnamed Commissioners, nor infirme them as the worke of a dead Convocation; But will take them in the capacity of their owne affected title of a Synod. Such they bragged themselves to bee whilest they sate: Such they stile themselves in the Title-page of these (never to be Canonized) Canons—The words are—Canons treated upon in Convocation—agreed upon in Synod.

Thus treating in one capacity and agreeing in another: is a new mould to cast Canons in never used before. Canons bredde, in a Convocation, borne in a Synod. Thus although wee finde not one good father, here are yet two mothers to one illfavored child; never knowne before, nor imagined but of Bacchus, whom the Poet calls among other attributes—Solúmque bimatrem.

I proceede, if their meeting be a Synod, [Page] eyther it is so by Donation, by Election, or onely by Vsurpation.

Donation from the King, is this title and authority, indulged to them by his Majestie: Looke through all his highnesse Letters Patents, and they are not once saluted with the ambitious title of a Synod. Yet in the Canons they have assumed it seventeen times, it is their owne pride, their owne presumption.

The King hath not done it, (pardon me) no Prince ever did it or can doe it; no power Regall, Imperiall, or Papall did ever attempt it, to ordaine that William, & Richard, Mathew and Iohn, &c. and I know not who more, being met and assembled upon other summons shall by a Commission be on a sudden translated from what they were, into an unthought-of nationall Synod, without voyce or choyse of any man to bee concerned: this never was done, this never can be well done.

As for due election for such meetings, this indeede is or ought to bee of the true esse to a Legitimate Synod. But due election made up by voyces is so much a stranger to this Synod, that their fatherhoods will confesse that they were never trusted to this Synod, as a Synod by any, either of the Clergy or of the Laity.

Concerning the choise of a few of them, [Page] and but a few (about 50. as I guesse) chosen to the Convocation house, that will never render them a lawfull Synod, untill they can prove metamorphosis and Transubstantiation.—For the votes of all their chusers upon expiration of the Convocation house returned backe home to every mans bosome from whence they breathed. So that if you will en-live the same men to bee now Synodall, who were before but Convocationall, you must renew the old Pythagorean Transmigration, for they want the breath and life of an election. A new one you have not, and the old one is not to be had but by [...].

Besides I do affirme & shall approve, that the electors to a Convocation and to a Synod are not all one. The Clergie only doe, and of right onely ought to chuse unto the Convocation house. The reason; we of the Laity (so they will call us) have our houses of Commons where our Trustees by vertue of our voyces doe sit at the same time. But in the choice unto a Synod, wee who must be bound by the determinations of the Synod, ought also to be interessed in the parties determining. This is cleare enough in reason, and will bee better cleared presently.

Of Synods I finde five severall sorts, first a generall or universall Synod; secondly, [Page] Patriarchichall, Thirdly National, fourthly Provinciall; fiftly a Diocesan Synod. I passe by the two first and last, as not pertinent to this time and affaire. Concerning Provinciall and Nationall Synods a word or two; If I knew which to call their late meeting. They runne on in riddles: and I want Oedipus at every turne.

These Canons, were they forged in one Synod Nationall, or in two Proncialls?—were they two Provinciall Synods? how then come their Actes and Canons to bee imbodyed together? how comes it to passe that all the Canons speake in the singular number? The Synod; The holy Synod; The Sacred Synod. Sacred will now be hardly granted, unlesse as the Poet doth,—Auri sacra fames.

Was it then but one? was it a Nationall Synod? why the Provinces (wee all know) never did convene, they never met together. Looke on the representative body of the Commons of this whole Land: every one within the same walles hearing every ones argument, and thereupon mending, altering, and (as occasion is) correcting his own judgement, & afterwards ( [...],) joyning in unanimous consent. And if the able members of the North beyond Trent were divided frō the rest, there would be quickly found a want of their worth and weight, [Page] nor could their sitting at the same time at Yorke, make the rest a house of Commons here, for the whole Kingdome must be represented entire.

But as we have done the Title Synod, so let us give them the attribute Nationall, a Nationall Synod, and yet see how inconsistant and invalidous they are!

The very esse of every Synod doth subsist in a double foundation. Fundamentum materiale and fundamentum formale.—The due materialls of a Synod are the inteteriour qualities and indowments of the persons where of the Synod consisteth, not their externall dignityes and promotions. And therefore every man thus qualified is as capable to bee of the Synod, as any Deane or Archdeacon of them all.

The fundamentum formale, is Delegatio ab ecclesia & debita electio. A due choyce to be made by all that are or shall bee concerned in the determinations of the Synod: and this trust of choyce may fall upon another man, as well and as soone as upon Deane or Archdeacon.

I will not quarell the want of able parts in any the members of that late doubtfull dangerous meeting: I grant them the materialls of a true Synod, but will insist onely upon the second, want of forme, want of due election: which if they want the [Page] most virtuall and most obliging tye, and the most binding part is wanting.

That they had no such election, we need not goe forth to prove; No one man in the Kingdome can say that he gave a voice to the election of any one Deane or Archdeacon to sit for him in that Synod, nor were the Clarkes chosen by all who were to be bound. So then there remaineth only to bee proved this. That such election of persons, by all persons to be concerned in the Decrees, and Canons, is necessary to the constituting of a lawful Synod; which is all one as to say, that the elections to a Synod ought to by, both be the Clergy and the Laity.

I will trouble you but with one reason, and a very few instances, all br [...]ifely.

The Acts and Canons of every Lawfull Nationall Councell or Synod, ought to binde the whole Nation both Laity and Clergie: But this cannot bee reasonable and just, if the Laity bee excluded both from consultation and from choyce of consulters. The reason is plaine. It is ground in nature, and so confessed upon this very case by Dr. Feild, who hath it out of Occom—quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet. And this is so cleare a maxime, that in this very sence also; for the Laity to be present at Councells [Page] this very Aphorisme is used by the Pope in his own glosse upon the Canonist Gratian. Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet. Surely our Clergie are much too high, if herein they would outgoe the very Canons of the Papall Synods, and conclude that which shall binde all, where all are not admitted to treate; neither by themselves nor by proxy.

Now the benefit of this Law of nature and of Reason (as Dr. Field calleth it) we clayme. The present Canons doe concerne us. I may be a Church-warden, my sonne may bee a Master of Art; then must I present upon their yet unborne articles, and he must sweare their oath of Covenant—well, they were never trusted by us unto a Synod, and therefore ought not to tye us up un-heard, it is against nature and reason.

To second this Argument by instance in proofe of practice, I shall produce a few, and but a few of many examples and authorities: the originalls I cannot now Command, but must bee content to name a few extracts, which by way of transcript doe walke along with my vademecum.

The point that I would establish is this, that in Synods and Councells where Lay men are concerned in the Decrees, there the Laity ought to be present to consult [Page] if not also to decide the conclusions. I will but point, I will not enlarge to the vouching every place verbatim; Dr. Feild, Dr. Fulke, Goulartius, are cleare and positive in this point.

Our Statutes for correcting & gathering together the former Canons into a new body, doe clearely evidence this unto us; in all which there is an equall proportion mixed, sixteene of the Clergie and as many of the Laity.

The Author of the history of Trent is frequent in this point, adding this for a reason, that in a generall Councell, the universall Church cannot bee represented if the Laity be excluded. So by the rule a paribus: The reason holdeth the same, a Nationall Councell cannot represent a Nation if but one degree of men, men of one quality and capacity be onely present, and the rest altogether excluded.

Gratian, the Canonist doth allow the Laity to bee present, especially in such Councells as doe treate of faith, and for proofe doth vouch Pope Nicolas.

I will omit many proof [...]s of many Emperours being personally present and president in many Councells, by themselves and sometimes by their vicegerents, as Marcellinus, Candidianus, Martianus, &c. yet even this is argumentative for us, and a [Page] preservative of our right, for the Laity to be present.

The Greeke historians are so plentifull that I will but name them.

Theodoret. l 5. c. 9.

Eusebius de vita Constantin. l. 3. c. 9 & 10

Sozomen. l. [...]. c. 16. & 17.

Niceph. Callistus. l. 8 c. 15.

Socrates. l. 1. c. 5. & l 6. c. 2.

Among the Latine fathers Cyprian is very plentifull.

As for Councells, looke,

Nice. 1. vouched by Eusebius de vita Constantini—4 conc. Carthag. cited by Gratian.—The Councell of Eliberis in Spaine. Councell of Constantinople in Theodoret.—Councell of Constance; And the second of Nice.—where it is said of that imperiall Lady the famous Pulcheria Augusta, that ipsa persemet ipsam in sancta quarta Synodo sedit: which fourth Synod was with Martianus the Emperour.

To these I adde the very Ordo celebrandi concilia written by Isidor, and like unto the Modus tenendi Parliamentum.

Thus much for humane testimonie, I have done with my hasty notes, onely I adde this, and I beseech you to intend it.

Whilest we of the Laity had our power [Page] and voices to chuse our owne Ministers, and our owne Bishops, (which was our ancient right, constantly allowed & practised in the best Primitive times, whereof the proofes are yet evident enough) so long (I say) we might trust them in a Synod, whom wee first had trusted to direct and guide our soules in all the ministeriall function.—But to conclude us up now and shut us out contrary to the Law of Nature and Reason, contrary to ancient usages: not to admit us to determination, nay to exclude us from consultation, and after all to take from us all assent both in choyse and in refusall of Pastors to be set over us, and yet to binde us by decres so made, may prove (I feare) no lesse then soule-tyranny. I doe not presse the deserved right of our choyse of Pastors: but one thing more, lend me patience to adde as supreme Coronis to all that I have said for right of Laity in Synods.

Looke I beseech you in the first Synod that ever was held in the Christian Church and that for so great and singular a cause as never was occasion for the like in the world before or since: you have it in the first of the Acts of the holy Apostles, and it is for the choice of a new Apostle. There were in this Synod and of this Synod, [...]he eleven Apostles, Acts 1. 13. with the brethren[Page]of the Lord, verse 14. There were the Disciples, there was Turba [...] a multitude, of abovt a 120 names, ver. 15. Saint Peter tells them that out of that number one must bee ordained to be a witnesse of the resurrection of our Saviour; thereupon what doth the multitude of Disciples there present. [...] verse 23. they place or set two before the Apostles: And the same men viz. all the Disciples verse 26. [...] they give forth their lots, and thereupon, the lot falling upon Matthias, he was numbred (saith our Translation) with the eleven Apostles; but the Originall is more [...] communibus calculis annumeratus est, he was by common assent or by common voyces reckoned with the eleven. Now who were these common voyces, who were these 120 men? Evangelists, Bishops, Deacons, and Presbyters or Elders, as yet there was not one in all the world, the Apostles were but eleven, perhaps not numbred in this 120. The Disciples if you will say, that they were there and were Clergy men, yet they were but 70. So that here is no evasion: the Laity were present, and not passive only, they were active in this so originall, so weighty a Synod.

My second instance in this kinde, is out of the second Councell that ever wee read was held, and this is Acts 6. where the Apostles [Page] call a Councell for the choyse of 7 deacons. Then the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples to them, ver. 2. [...]. They being assembled doe not say, we have decreed, we have ordered and ordayned, and injoyned, but their language is verse 3. [...], brethren looke ye out, the word is the same as [...] both from [...] to oversee, doe you oversee among you, seven men of honest report. And the saying (as it is verse 5.) pleased [...], the whole multitude, there is a consent of theirs, more plaine in [...] they the multitude chose seaven, Stephen and Philip, &c. [...] whom they (still the multitude [...]) verse 6. did set or place before the Apostles.

The third and the last shall be the [...] the great and generall Councell held by the Apostles upon the dissention of the Church in point of Circumcision (and that is Acts 15.) there you shall againe finde present, [...] verse 12. All the multitude: but you will say and object that the next word is [...] the multitude kept silence. True, ergo what? Therefore they speake not at all in this Councell? nothing lesse. But ergo they had spoken before: for it is plaine by the word. Then all the multitude kept silence. If they had nothing there to doe but to be alwaies silent, this particle of time, Then might well have beene spared. [Page] This may perhaps be objected and therefore ought to bee prevented, for the further clearing whereof, observe (I pray) the next verse, v. 13. where in like manner, it is said of Paul and Barnabas [...]. And after they held their peace, ergo they had spoken. And therefore the Fryer who collected together a body of Councells (Peter Crabbe the German) doth even from this place inferre a consent of the people saying, Tacuit omnis multitudo Consentiens Petro.

But if you would have this more clearely evidenced beyond all exceptions, I pray take notice of the resolution of this Synod, verse 22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church. With the whole Church, what is that? The blessed Apostles and their fellow labourers did not engrosse, and (as our Church-men affect to doe) usurpe and monopolize the word Church, as proper onely to Church-men.—No you shall finde it even in the Epigraphe of the Canons and Decrees of this true, holy, and sacred Synod, that the despised Laity are in these Canons conjoyned with the blessed Apostles although Pope and Patriarch, Primate and Metropolitan, Archbishop and Bishops, yea even downe to Deane and Archdeacon: (I have heard it) doe dispise the thought of admitmitting the Laity. I do not say to decision, [Page] but even to Consultation, nay to the very choyce of consulters in Religion: nay lower even so much as to have a negative power, when a man of inabilitie, and of ill life is obtruded upon them; I proceed, for I would not orare but probare, looke verse 23. They that were present had voyce, They who voiced the Canons, joyned in the decree, and sending the decree unto Antioch. The words are thus, The Apostles and Elders, and Brethren send greeting to the Brethren which are in Antioch, &c. Here the Brethren at Hierusalem are (with the Apostles and the Elders) actors in and authors of the Canons in this Councell agreed. There is no evasion, no clusion, to be had, unlesse you can prove that all the Brethren in Antioch to whom these Brethren in Hierusalem did write, were onely Clergie men.

Which if you should affirme, our Clergy will hardly bee pleased with you, for they must then be of the multitude (not a speciall lot) for Barnabas and Paul did deliver this Epistle (being t [...]e decree of this Synod) to the multitude [...] as it is found in the 30 verse. And when they had gathered the multitude together they delivered the Epistle.

Thus much in way of pursuit for this one argument, that no Canons can binde the Laity where we have no voyce of our [Page] owne, nor choyce of the Clergie persons who doe found them, nor assent in the susception of them after they are framed. Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet.

It remaines as a wish that every member of that meeting, who voted these exorbitant Canons, should come severally to the barre of the Parliament house with a Canon booke in his hand, and there unlesse he can answer his Catechisme (as I call'd it) and shew what is the name of their meeting, and (unlesse hee can manifest that the Laity are no part of the Church) conceptis verbis in such expresse termes as that hovse should thinke fit, to abjure his owne ill begotten issue, or else be Commanded to give fire to his owne Canons.

FINIS.

[Page]

THAT BB. OVGHT NOT TO HOLD SECVLAR POWER.

[Page]

HOSEA 8. 4.‘ [...].’‘They have reigned to themselves, and not by me: they have beene princes, and I knew it not.’

[Page]

OVR Lord and Saviour (blessed for ever) being indeede a King, Pilate (his Judge) seemeth to start and bee in feare at that great title: Although our Saviour had told him (Iohn 18. 36.) saying, My Kingdome is not of this world: Pilate (still in feare) sought to release him (Iohn 19. 12.) but more in feare of Caesar (the King at that time of this world) he adjudged the Lord of life to death, yet honorably writeth his Title (Mat. 27. 37.) This is Iesus the King of the Iewes. This title he then was crowned withall, when life and death divided his soule and body asunder; that in a manner it may bee said, hee never was King indeede, [Page] untill he was out of this world.

If he who was our Lord and Master (Ioh. 13. 13.) had not this worlds royalty, whence commeth that the Pope is Crowned? and his Cardinall's in purple? whence have our Bishops their Lordships? and as themselves call it (Bishop Hall in his Episcopacy, &c. part § 2. p. 106.) jura regalia) their royalty and rites of Baronage?

It may prove a disquisition deepe and dangerous, yet I desire (without envy to their pompe or persons) to wade so farre as may satisfie a minde that loves Truth, and desires to be led by it: and this with all possible brevity. There hath beene a happie and blessed reformation of our Church, God send a better, and a more severe reformation of our Churchmen, or else our Church is now in danger to be deformed againe.

The state of this inquirie may bee this, viz. whether the Ministers of Christs Kingdome may receive worldly titles, and execute worldly offices and powers? or more generally thus: Whether a Clergy man may semel & simul, be both a Clergy man and a Layman, in power, office and authotity over other men in both kinds?

Goe we to the fountaine head (Luke 22. 24) There was a strife among them (the Apostles) which of them should bee accompted the [Page]greatest; which of the twelve soever beganne this emulation of power. Certaine it is that the two soones of Zebedee, Iames and Iohn with their mother first presumed (Mat. 20. 20.) to come and aske the highest places of honour (next to the very throne) in the Kingdome of Christ; which Kingdome was conceited by them shortly after to be raised in the splendour of this world: This is genuinely gathered from this very story, generally confessed, & clearely confirmed in the historie of the Acts, &c. where the Apostles doe aske our Saviour, even after his resurrection saying (Acts 1. 6.) Lord wilt thou at this time restore againe the Kingdome to Israel. Therefore to these two brethren and their mother, so much mistaken in the nature of his Kingdome he maketh answer (Mat. 20. 22.) yee know not what you aske. He presently sheweth the entertainement of his Kingdome, A cup to drinke of, that many were like to pray might passe from them; but they answer they are able to drinke thereof. This their answer as it proved true in all the twelve Apostles, so by the providence of God, one of these two brothers (Acts 12. [...]) Iames, was the first of all the rest, who dranke the cup of Martyrdome, and as some thinke Iohn was the last of the Apostles.

Equalls looke awry on the ambition of their fellowes. These two were vaine in [Page] their high request, and the other ten murmured at their presumption (Math. 20. 24.) They were moved with indignation saith Saint Matthew: (Mar. 10. 41.) They began to be much displeased, saith Saint Marke. But by this happie error of these two Apostles, our Saviour takes occasion to instruct them, and the other ten, and in them all other Ministers belonging unto him, how farre different the pastorall care of his Church, is from the power which governeth in commonwealthes.

Here upon the sonne of God calleth unto him all the twelve Apostles, saying, (Mat. 20. 25.) ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion, &c. (Mar. 10. 24.) ye know that they which are accompted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise Lordships, &c. (Luke 22. 25.) The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordships, &c. [...]. But it shall not be so among you. This is a statute not to be repealed. This is spoken authorative & definitivè, it is the determinate Law of a just authority. A Canon ordained and irrevocably fixed by the wisedome of God. Confirmed by an example above all argument (Mat. 20. 28. Mar. 10. 45.) For the sonne of man came not to be ministred unto, but to Minister. (Luke 22. 22.) I am among you as he that serveth. And before this hee had taught them, (Mat. 10. 24.) That the Disciple is not, above his Master. (Ioh. 13. 15. 16.)[Page]I have given you an example, that you shall doe as I have done to you, verily, verily, the servant is not greater then the Lord.

This ministry being thus performed in humility, and without worldly titles. The Ministers shall be then exalted. Our blessed Saviour in the expresse words following saith unto them (Luke 22. 29.) I appoint unto you a Kingdome (but addeth) as my Father hath appointed me. Now his owne Kingdome is spirituall, or as himselfe said unto Pilate, not of this world. Let them then renounce temporall, and they shall have spirituall honour. But some of the Clergy would (it seemes) confound both Kingdomes, being ambitious to inherit Glory in the Kingdom of Grace. I feare our Bishops doe not know how sublime a vertue Christian humility is! how full of Honour.

Every [...] must bee [...], let the greatest be (Lu. 22. 26.) as the youngest that is the way to be a right Elder, he must be [...] Luk. 22. 27. as he that serveth that is the way to be ministred unto. He must be [...] (Matthew 20. 27. Marke 10. 44.) a servant, that he may be [...] the prime or chiefe. He must be [...] (Mat. 20. 25.) a Minister that he may bee [...] a great one. These antitheses our Saviour hath placed in the text upon the former occasion.

From hence, may well bee argued as a Corollary, to these undoubted premisses, [Page] that no Minister of the Gospel can lawfully assume, hold, or exercise that power which by the Lord of the Gospel is inhibited to his Ministers. But our Saviour Iesus Christ (Lord and only head of his Church) hath inhibited all temporall Lordship, Magistracy & Dominion unto his servants. Therefore no Minister of this Gospel may hold or exercise temporall Lordships or dominion.

These words [...] &c. It shall not bee so among you, doe so straighten the Bishops miters, that they sit uneasie on their heads: to soften & as it were to line them for their ease: the Bishops that are and would bee both Papall and Protestant do quilt a gentler sence into these words then can beare analogy with the Text. They search the originall and pretend to finde another sence in our Saviours sentence.

This Text (say they) forbids not unto Clergy men, the use and exercise of worldly titles, power, offices, dignities, Commands, dominion, Lordships, &c. but the abuse of them: domineering and tyrannizing with them. This they pretend to make firme out of the greeke word [...]; which they would have so taken in the worst sence of exorbitant power, even for Tyrannizing. So then, they would teach us, that, Lord it they may, & Lord it they may not: Lord it they may with all Pompe, state, power; Lord it they may not, with [Page] pride, vanity, & oppression. But I shall easily prove this interpretation to be inconsistent with the scope & analogy of the Context.

Will they frame their argument from the verbe [...] to be a Lord, or to rule? or frō the preposition [...], added and united thereunto? neither will serve. And if the pompe of our Prelates cannot avoyd the power of this text, they are downe for ever. Let me therefore scan it to the full.

First [...] to be a Lord, or to have rule or Lordship, is never properly taken in that ill sence which they would he ere create, as having unjust, or oppressive power. It is derived from the usuall and most frequent title of our Lord and Saviour, whom the holy Scripture so often saluteth [...] Lord. Heere is no shaddow for Tyranny.

The true sence of [...] is authoritatem habens one that hath authority: beeing derived from [...] authority which is knowne to bee approved and ordeyned by God himselfe from whom all lawfull authority is derived. Marke how well this word is senced through all Authours: Demosthenes calleth the heads and cheife of the Citty [...]. A law in force and principall authority is called by Aeschines [...]. Gallen calleth the cheife and principall members of a mans body [...]: yet one member doth not tyrannize [Page] over another. Aristotle (6. Ethic.) hath [...] propria virtus, (that is) a vertue properly or principally so called. [...] is one that is Lord or master of himselfe, not one that domineeres over himselfe. [...] (Apoc. 1. 10.) The Lords day. [...] (1 Cor. 11. 20.) The Lords Supper. Saint Paul saith that (Rom. 7. 1.) The law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth, hee doth not meane that the law is a Tyrant, yet the word is [...] (Rom. 14. 19.) Christ both dyed, and rose, and revived, that he might bee Lord both of the living and the dead: [...]. From [...] Lord commeth [...] Lordship: foure times mentioned by the holy Apostles, but never taxed as a power tending to Tyranny, but to be obeyed in them who duly are therewith invested, as may be seene. (Ephes. 1. 21. Coloss. 1. 16. 2 Pet. 2. 10. and Iude 8.) Clearely then in [...] there is no print of usurpation or of oppressive and tyrannicall power. If there be, we are then well warned to beware of our Bishops, who not onely owne the title [...], but expressly pleade for it, as Bishop Hall in his late Episcopacy, (part 2. page 104.

Secondly, [...] the very word (used by Saint Matthew, and Saint Marke, in these before alleaged Textes) whereby our Saviour forbiddeth his Apostles to exercise [Page] Dominion or Lordship is a compounded word of two [...] and [...]. That is, to rule as one that hath authority. I may render it to be, or to behave one selfe ( [...] juxta, Secundum) according as one that hath authority.

This preposition in words compounded hath sometimes a signification of his owne, sometimes none at all as in [...], &c. clearely it hath no speciall signification in this [...], much lesse a force so exegeticall as to draw the lawfull power of [...] into the exorbitancy of a Tyranny. That it hath no force here, is by this apparent, for that the speech of our Saviour, recorded by the holy Ghost in Saint Mat. and S. Marke by [...] and by [...] are rendred by the same spirit in Saint Luke) [...] and [...]. So that plainely you must not pretend tyrannizing to be meant in the sence of one place except you can finde it also in both, unlesse you will come to this that he forbiddeth tyranny in one place, & worldly power in the other, which if you doe you grant the question.

This is enough alone, yet for a further interpretation of [...] looke in (1. 28. Genesis) where God giveth unto man in the time of mans innocency, the rule and dominion over all his creatures, even whilest they all were (Gen. 1. 31.) very good. The name and word of power in that great [Page] Charter granted is [...]. Now the time of this power granted, the person to whom it is granted, the creatures all good on whom it was to be exercised, & above all the goodnesse of Almighty God who granted it, do exclude all imaginatiō of a Tyrannicall power, and admit onely of a fatherly mastership over the new creatures of God.

If then the frequent and constant sence of both [...] and [...], bee onely to have power and authority, civill, temporall, and ordinary dominion, and that all such authority is forbidden them, how poore and weake is that evasion for our Bishops, who would have this speech of our Saviour taken in a forced sence different from all these other places? and would forge a new meaning, as if our Saviour did not here forbid [...] but only [...], not a Commanding Lordlines, but a Tyrannuos use of it; when as it is hereby evident, that Christ having ordained the Aristocracy of twelve, did therein and in his reprehension here take away those severall benches of honour, and that proud imparity of Temporall power which our Bishops doe swell withall.

That the former speeches of our Saviour, doth destroy the Lordlinesse of our Prelates, let us confirme it with a farther consideration, which is thus. Our Saviour Christ being (1 Cor. 1. 24.) the wisedome [Page]of God, must be thought to fit and suite his answer to the question and request made unto him by the two Apostles. But what Bishop in defence of his usurped power, dares affirme that two such admirable (Gal. 2. 9.) Pillars, as Iames, and Iohn, should aske of such a Master iniquam dominationem, a cruell dominion over their fellowes, as if the meaning of their request were thus. Master, gives us two leave to tyrannize over the other ten! He had taught them before, (Mat. 5. 5.) Blessed are the meeke and (Math. 11. 29.) Learne of me for I am meeke and lowly in heart: Can it then bee thought that the beloved Disciple and his brother, shall aske of the master of all Humility, a Tyrannicall power to oppresse their partners? No man hath such a heart of leade to think, yet there have not wanted foreheads of brasse to affirme so: Certainely, in that Kingdom of Christ, by them as then supposed to bee Temporall, they desired the honour to shine in civill dignity, & eminency of power and authority, which (no question) they intended to have exercised with all brotherly moderation, yet are they (and I wish our Bishops also were) answered with his reprehension, first (Math. 20. 22.) yee know not what ye aske, next with his absolute denyall and forbiddance, [...] &c. it shall not be so among you.

[Page] Will the practice of Saint Paul, and the Councell of Saint Peter serve for comment to this text? Saint Paul saith [...], (2 Cor. 1. 2. 4.) We Lord it not. Saint Peter (1 Pet. 5.) Himselfe an Elder to other Elders, exhorteth them to feede the flocke, [...] overseeing it: and that not by constraint [...], nor as being Lords. But as in the fifth verse, All of you be subject one to another.

Therefore my resolution stands cleare upon this vote; That it may bee declared that true and right Episcopacy is incompatible and inconsistant with secular power. They who give in their names to be labourers in Gods vineyard must not goe out of the doore, and thinke to returne at pleasure: their whole time they have vowed to the great Master of the Vineyard, and I find no wages promised but to them who enter and continue there to the last houre. No man putting his hand to the plough and looking backe, is fit for the kingdome of God. Luke 9. 62.

Let therefore this inhibitory statute against Bishops having temporal Lordships, stand (as it must stand) irrepealable [...]. It shall not be so among you.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

A consideration and a resolvtion first concerning the right of the laity in nationall councels : secondly concerning the power of bishops in affaires secular : prepared for the honourable House of Parliament / by Sr. E.D. ...

Dering, Edward, Sir, 1598-1644.

Edition statement

1641

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A35728

ID [STC]

Wing D1106

ID [STC]

ESTC R4300

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12788099

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12788099

ID [VID]

93918

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A35728)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 93918)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 253:E156, no 23)

Source

— A consideration and a resolvtion first concerning the right of the laity in nationall councels : secondly concerning the power of bishops in affaires secular : prepared for the honourable House of Parliament / by Sr. E.D. ..., Dering, Edward, Sir, 1598-1644..

Extent

32 p.

Printed for F. Eglesfeild,. London :: 1641.. (Attributed to Edward Dering. Cf. BLC.) (Reproduction of original in Thomason Collection, British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.