EXAMEN.

Convening to Generall Councels, Synodes, &c. when need requireth, is a proper part of their Ecclesiasti­call [Page 2] Office, and so cannot rightly be termed any hin­derance to their Ministeriall Function at all. For then, although they be enforced to be absent from their particular Congregations, they doe still move with­in their owne proper Orbe, for the more publike Service of the Church: and so they may with more reason expect a blessing on it. But when they Vote in Parliament, as Peeres, in Civill and Secular Affaires, touching Trade, Merchandize, and other particulars of State policy, they be Eccentrick, and out of their owne Sphere, and Calling. This there­fore must needs be not only some hinderance, but, a very great hinderance to the exercise of their Ministe­riall Function: because, to qualifie them to give such Votes, with judgement, they must necessarily bestow themselves most, if not altogether upon the study of, and searching into all those Secular matters which in Parliaments be, or may be debated and voted, and in the inquiry into all those princi­ples and deepe mysteries of State, wherein, all that vote in the House of Peeres, ought above all others to be most conversant; which cannot ordinarily bee attained, without spending most of their time and study thereupon: Si enim velit Episcopus, ut caelesti pariter & terreno Regi placeat, ad utrumque se officium dividere, certe Rex caelestis, qui sibi vult ex toto corde, tota anima, tota virtute serviri, ministerium divinum non approbat, non diligit, non acceptat. Nam nec terreni Principis ratiocinia quisquam dimidius sufficienter ad­ministrat; Matth. Parker Antiq. Britan­ni. in Huberto ex Wil. Nubrig. as a learned Archbishop of Canterbury, out of another grave Author, hath observed.

And sithence, to be able to give a Vote in the Lords House of Parliament judiciously, and for the bene­fit [Page 3] of the publike, requires such constant industry, daily observation, and no small experience of all kindes of secular affaires, with their severall casuall turnings, and vicissitudes: I cannot see how Bishops; voting in that House, can avoid one of these three evils, either they must give their votes ignorantly (and ignorance usually runs wrong;) or corruptly, to serve other mens turnes, be they right or wrong, or els they must necessarily bend most part of their lives to secular studies and imployments, to which they were never bred, from which their Ministeri­all Function should exclude them, and for which many godly Bishops and others, beside sundry Councels, in all ages have condemned them; many of those Ancients having alledged that Scripture, in 2 Tim. 2.4. (Nemo militans Deo, implicat se negotiis secularibus, &c.) to this very purpose.

For more expedition, I shall only name some of those Authors and Councels. Cyprian. Epist 66. ju­xta Pamel. Can. 6. Apost. apud Zonaram. Concil. Car­thag. 4. Can. 16. Concil. Chalced. Oecum. Sess. 15. Can. 3. August. Epist. 110. Greg. Magn. Dial. lib 1. Praefat. Excerpt. Egberti Can. 16. & Can. 57. Concil. Calchuth. Can. 10. Anselm. in Concil. Westm. ut videre est in Guli­elm. Malmsb. de Gestis Pontif. l. 1. Mat. Par. Hist. Angl. in the Cases of Walter B. of Durham, in time of Will. the Conq. and of Hubert Archb. of Cant. in Ric. 1.

Yea, we shall find this sharply condemned by po­pish Prelates themselves. Corp. Iur. Can. dist. 88. And Othobone the Popes Legate here, in Hen. 3. his time, censured it, and provided against it, as vitium horren­dum. Const. Legat. cap. Cum honest. But I leave them.

See also Tindall in his Tract of Obedience of a [Page 4] Christian. B. Hooper, on 8. Command. B. Latymer, Sermon called the Plough. B. Iewel, defence of Apol. par. 5. chap. 4. divis. 2. Mat. Parker, Archb. of Cant. Antiquit. Brit. in Huberto, where he is very large, sharp, and solid in this point. Take a passage or two, because his Booke is not in every hand. Neque enim, si verum judicare volumus, in Republica Christiana quicquam sani atque integri seculum illud (Richardi primi) tulit. Fictaque & adumbrata Religionis specie proposita, totus Clerus in sceleribus, muneribus, honori­bus, & rapinis, neglecto penitus verbo, impune voluta­bat. Hujus mali origo ab hoc profluxit, quod contra Or­thodoxorum Patrum decreta, Clerus nimium mundanis se negotiis immiscuit. Then hee goes on to shew a fearefull example of Gods vengeance upon one of them, who had beene advanced to a very high Of­fice in the State, which Relation he thus closeth up; Cujus generis exempla idcirco proferenda sunt, ut de­terreatur a vectigalibus Regiis, & Civilibus publicis­que occupationibus Clerus, & Evangelio propagando praecipue studeat ac incumbat. And how ever hee af­ter takes notice of somewhat which happened in the beginning of Henry 3. wherein he seemes to pre­ferre the fidelity of the Clergy to that of the Laity in administring of Civill Offices, yet he doth it not as allowing the Clergie to be so imployed, but ra­ther as secretly taxing the Nobility of that time for being so unfaithfull to the King and Kingdome, which surely is no warrant for the Clergie to step out of their own Calling.

It is true that anciently Bishops have beene al­lowed to intermeddle in some Civil affairs, at some­times. Constantine made a law to that purpose, in case [Page 5] of voluntary appeals from civil Iudicatories, Sozom. li. 1. cap. 9. And Valens added to it, in cases of Hos­pitals and Schooles. Hist. Counc. of Trent. Yet the mischiefs of such intermedling, were soone felt and groaned under. Hence Honorius and Arcadius made a Law against it, and Valentinian afterwards put it in execution even in Rome it selfe. So did other Em­perours, as appeares by the Corps of the Civil Law, in many places. Indeed some succeeding Empe­rours, gave relaxations, and inlarged the power and preheminence of Bishops so farre, that at length there was no reducing them to their ancient limits, till that once glorious Scepter was become so inglo­rious as to be wholly at the devotion, command, and dispose of the Mitre, to the perpetual ignominie, and irreparable undoing of that puissant Empire.

And whereas some urge that Statute De Proviso­ribus in 25. Edward 3. for Bishops intermedling in Civill Affaires, because it is there said, ‘That the ho­ly Church of England was founded in the estate of Prelacy within the Realme of England, by the Kings Ancestors, and other of the Nobility, to inform them and the People of the Law of God, and to make hospitalities, almes, and other works of Charity in the places where the Churches were founded, &c. and for this end, their Lands, revenues, &c. were assigned by the said founders to the Prelates, &c. And the said Kings in times past, were wont to have the greatest part of their Councel, for the safeguard of the Realme, when they had need, of such Prelates, and Clerks so ad­vanced &c.’ This last Clause doth only prove de fa­cto, that so it was used; but doth not legitimate the [Page 6] use; all stories of those times being full of com­plaints against the mischiefes which arose out of it. And that very Statute declares the prime end of ad­vancing the Clergy into an Hierarchy, was to coun­sell the Kings and others in the Law of God, not in Civill and Martiall matters. And so far is such inter­medling in Secularibus, from being countenanced by the Lawes of this Kingdome, that by the com­mon Law; (which is the most fundamentall Law of the Realme) all in holy Orders are so carefully exempted from such incumbrances, that if any Clergy man happen to be put into a temporall Of­fice, he must, upon the pleading of his Orders, have a Writ awarded him out of the Chauncery to dis­charge him. Regist. 187.6.

Therefore it was farre from the intention of the first Founders of our Hierarchie, to imploy them in Civilibus, but only to make use of their counsell in Spirituals.

There is yet one thing more, much insisted upon by some of the Prelates, to prove the law­fulnesse of their intermedling in Secular Mat­ters. And it is a passage of Saint Augustine, De opere Monachor. Cap. 29. where hee saith, It were farre more profitable for him to spend his time in reading and praying, Quàm tumultuosissi­mas perplexitates causarum alienarum pati de negotiis se­cularibus, vel judicando dirimendis, vel interveni­endo praecidendis; 1 Cor. 6. quibus nos molestiis idem afflixit A­postolus, non utique suo, sed ejus qui in eo loquebatur arbi­trio. Ergo, say some Bishops, they have warrant so to doe, yea a command from the Apostle, and from the Spirit of God himselfe.

To this it may be answered. 1. That in that very place St. Austin doth bemoane this, as being Eccle­siarum quibus servit consuetudo the custome of those Churches: and the practice began, after Constantine made a law to warrant it; for S Aust. there saith that Paul never submitted to it, nay rather he gave order to make them Iudges that were meanest, and had least to doe. And albeit St. Austin there addes that this toyle he undertooke, non sine consolatione Domini in spe vitae aeternae, ut fructum feramus cum tolerantia. Yet this was not spoken, as rejoycing in the imploy­ment, but as bearing it with more cheerefulnesse in hope of eternall life after it. 2. As for the imploy­ment it selfe, he complaines, violenter irruptum est, & non permitter ad quod volo vacare ante meridiem, post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneor. Epist. 110.Possidon. in vit. Augustini ca. 19. and Possidonius that lived with him many yeares, beares him witnes that hanc suam a melioribus rebus occupationem, tanquā angariam deputabat. Therefore it was, that (in Ep. 110.) he desired the people that they would suffer him to put over all those businesses to Eradius whom he had chosen to be his successor in his Bishoprick, which when the people had granted, the good old Father presently unburdened himselfe, Ergo fratres quicquid est quod ad me perferebatur, ad illum perferatur, ubi necessarium habuerit consilium, meum non negabo auxilium.

3. If this be not enough, let me answer Bishops,Treat. Of Chri­stian Subjection and Antichristi­an Rebellion. par. 3. by a Bishop, viz: by Bishop Bilson, who, being pres­sed with that place of Saint Austin, de opere Mon: by the Popish crue under the name of Philander a Iesuite, returnes this answer under the veile of Theo­philus an Orthodoxe Divine; a Truth it is, the [Page 6] [...] [Page 7] [...] [Page 8] Bishops of the Primitive Church were greatly trou­bled with those matters,And I have shewed before upon what oc­casion. Prefat. in Dial. not as ordinary Iudges of these causes, but as Arbiters elected by consent of both parties. ‘And I could requite you with Gre­gories own words of the same matter in the same place, quod certum est nos non debere, which it is cer­taine we ought not to doe. But yet I thinke so long as it did not hinder their Vocation and Function, though it were troublesome unto them, they might neither in charity nor in duty refuse it, be­cause it tended to the preserving of peace and love amongst men. And the Apostle had licensed all men to choose whom they would for their Iudges, no doubt meaning that they which were chosen should take the paines to heare the cause, and make an end of the strife. But it is one thing to make peace betweene brethren, as they did, by hearing their griefes with consent of both sides; and another to claime a judiciall interest in those causes, in spite of mens hearts.’

Thus he, and how home this comes to our Bi­shops, that will needs still contest and strugle to re­taine their Votes in Parliament in all civill causes whatsoever, undervaluing all the Reasons of the House of Commons, and contrary to the just de­sires of the whole body of the Kingdome, I need not use more words to declare.

To finish this point. All that hath beene said against the Clergies intermedling with Civill and Temporall affaires (other than for necessary and comfortable provisions for Lively hood) drives to this Conclusion, that if it be so great an hinderance to the exercise of the Ministerial Function to be im­ployed [Page 9] in temporall matters which are but ordina­rie, it must needs be a farre greater hinderance to that holy calling, for Bishops to Vote in Parliament, because they cannot doe it as it ought to bee done, without so much skill and dexterity in secular af­faires of all sorts that possibly can come within the debate and resolution of a Parliament, as must needs take up the greatest part, if not the whole of a mans time, study, strength and abilities bee they never so great and many, to fit him for that great service altogether beside (I might adde inconsistent with) his Calling of the Ministery.

EXAMEN.

Cujus contrarium, &c. What good they have done in Parliament, for the Church (unlesse to up­hold the Synagogue of Rome,) let all Histories speake, that have taken any notice of the acting and carriage of matters of Religion debated, and Vo­ted in Parliament, since the first entrance upon a Reformation in this Kingdome.

It is true that in the Reigne of King Henry the eight, one Cranmer was active in the cause of God, against those sixe bloudy Articles, which cost so many their lives. But, of all the Hierarchie, not one was found to joyne with him, but all op­posed, and he alone for three dayes together was [Page 10] faine to stand to it, and at length, by the malice, practice, and potency of the Prelates, hee was o­vercome, and the cause carryed against him, Acts and Monuments par. 2. page 1037. edit. 1610. This was in the yeare 1540.

When about foure or five yeares after, Cranmer, in two severall Parliaments used his best endea­vours to get that bloudy Law repealed, and had be­fore hand (as he thought) drawne over to his side the Bishops of Worcester, Chichester, and Rochester, who promised to assist the cause in Parliament; yet when it came to the tryall, all the Bishops forsooke him and the cause againe. In so much as the King himselfe, and the Nobility stood to him so farre, as to give way to a moderating of the former Law, when the Bishops would not abate the least part of the rigour thereof. Antiq. Britanni. in Cran­mero.

In King Edward the sixth his Reigne, it is true, a blessed Reformation was happily begun; but, by whom? By the Bishops? No verily, Cranmer only excepted. For he and the Protector were the men that advised the King, and went through with the worke. As for the great Bishops, Gardiner of Winchester, and Tonstall of Duresme, Bonner and others, they served to fill prisons, and diverse ran away. And in all Letters of the Lords for more particular Reformation, it was onely Canterbu­rie and the Nobilitie that did promote the busi­nesse. See Acts and Monuments in King Edward the sixth.

But in Queene Maries dayes, who but Bishops for the Masse, and all the grosse body of Popery, [Page 11] both in Convocation and Parliament? Cranmer, and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops were soone persecuted, and at length committed to the fire; while the Popish Prelates, being restored to their places, spared no diligence to promote Popish Ido­latry throughout the Kingdome, and that by their Votes in Parliament, whereby they might more plentifully shed bloud by a Law.

When GOD delivered this Kingdome from those Marian flames, and set up blessed Queene Elizabeth, it cannot be denyed, but that in the Bill for restoring all ancient Jurisdictions to the Crown and for reestablishment of Religion and ejection of Popery, the Lords Spirituall are named in the Act, because the bill being carryed by the greater num­ber of Votes, the dissenting party which was the lesse, are included in the rest, and it becomes the Act of all, in common repute, and esteeme of Law.

But little thankes to the Bishops for any of that Reformation which was then restored. We finde the Bishops of Winchester, Litchfeild, Chester, Car­lile and Lincolne appearing in open defence of Po­pery while that Parliament was sitting. Act and Monuments par. 2. page 1619. edit. 1610. But these were not all that stood for that cause: Wit­nesse the deprivation of Heath Arch-Bishop of Yorke, Tunstall Bishop of Durham. White of Winchester, Thyrlby of Ely, Watson of Lincolne, Baines of Co­ventry and Litchfeild, Bourne of Bath and Wells, Christopherson of Chichester, Oglethorp of Carlile, Scot of Chester, Morgan of Saint Davids, beside Bonner imprisoned, Pates of Worcester, Goldwel of [Page 12] Saint Asaph in exile, for the same Pseudo-Catho­like cause. None of all which can with any probability of reason bee imagined to have Voted for the restoring of the Truth, they being by vertue of that Statute deprived for opposing the Truth.

And albeit, I know nothing but by heare-say of the generall carriage of Bishops in Parliaments sithence, and so doe not charge them: yet how often they have with-stood bills against Non-residency,In 31. Eli­zabeth a Bill a­gainst Non-re­sidents passed the House of Commons, & being in the other House greatly appro­ved of & much spoken for by many of the Temporall LORDS, yet, through the earnest labour­ing of the Bi­shops, it could have 10 pas­sage there. Another Bill for reforming Ecclesiasticall Courts in King James his time, passed, till it fell among the Bi­shops, and there was stayed. Pluralities, and other evils and de­fects in the Reformation of Religion, and of their Courts, the world hath beene sufficiently infor­med; insomuch as the House of Commons hath already declared and resolved at a Generall Com­mittee of the whole House, Iune eleventh, 1641. That the Bishops have beene found by long expe­rience to bee great hinderances of a perfect Refor­mation, and of the growth of Religion. En majus bonum Ecclesiae produced by the Vote of Bishops in Parliaments!

And as their voting in Parliament, in matters of Religion, is ad detrimentum, potius quam ad uti­litatem Ecclesiae; so it cannot bee imagined how their Votes there, in Civilibus, should conduce more ad majus bonum Ecclesiae: Except the wilfull and incorrigible continuing in a course forraine and contrary to their proper Calling, and such as (being duely performed) is a very great hinderance to the exercise of their Ministeriall Function (as hath beene before declared) can redound to the greater good of the Church, which they seldome looke after, unlesse to receive the profits of it, and to plague [Page 13] those who are profitable in it, that themselves may more splendidly and securely (in Parliament; and every where else,) Lord it over the whole heritage of God.

EXAMEN.

Vnnecessarily? Boldly spoken: and were I sure that one of my fellowes or equalls had writ­ten it, I should without breach of good manners, pronounce it saucinesse little short of blasphemie. Was it not necessary that the Apostles should have a livelihood? And was the procuring of it by labouring with their hands (although I know none but one, after CHRISTS Ascension, that was put unto it) to avoyd the oppression of poore con­verts, or to prevent scandall among either poore or rich, converted or unconverted, an unnecessary thing? This may bee a straine of Policie pas­sable enough among Spirituall Lords of Parlia­ment, but was never knowne to bee good Divinity [Page 14] among such as desire to approve themselves unto GOD.

I have bin taught that Necessarium is put some­times pro utili & pro congruo & convenienti, as well as pro naturali seu debito, or pro violento sua coacto. And I have learned among the Schoole-men, that there is a necessitie not only absolutè & simplicite sic dicta, but also ex suppositione & conditione, when a thing not simply necessary in it selfe, becomes such in regard either of end, meanes, circumstances or otherwise. When Saint Iohn (1 Epist. 2.27. tells the Christians, yee need not that any man teach you, was his writing to them to instruct them further, unnecessary? When Saint Pauls abiding in the flesh was more needfull in regard of the Philippians, for their furtherance and joy of faith, Philip. 2. Shall any man be so hardy, as to avouch his abode in the flesh to be unnecessary, which yet was not simply necessary in it selfe, or unto him?

So, circumstances of time, place, and person, may make that necessary in some places, at some times, and among some persons, which yet of it selfe is not so. Thus was it in some of those particulars which are called these necessary things, Acts 15.28. yet were it no small presumption for any man to call those things, in reference to that very Text, without some distinction expressed, unnecessary. So it is here.

When Saint Paul saith, these hands have mini­stred unto my necessities, Acts 20.34. shal any man say, that ministration was unnecessary? If it bee said, it was so, in regard of his right to maintenance; it is true; but, when it is pronounced without such [Page 15] limitation, it is a contradicting and thwarting of the Apostles expression, as if hee wanted skill or care to expresse himselfe as became him, and a misleading of an uncautious Reader, to swallow downe an errour inferred from it. For what is hence intended to bee inferred, but this; That, as the Apostles did unnecessarily labour with their hands when they might have avoided it: So Bishops may according to that example, vote in Parliament, although the thing bee found unnecessary to a Bi­shop? Now this is a corrupt-inference from ambi­guous premisses, and the ambiguity lies in the word unnecessarily: for if the word bee spoken absolutely and without all limitation, it is absolutely false: if a limitation bee intended, it ought to have been expressed, and then any intelligent Reader would soone have beene led to consider and compare that act of the Apostle, with the present unnecessari­nesse of Bishops votes in Parliaments; and thereby have beene enabled to discover the weaknesse and unsufficiency of this unnecessary impertinent An­swere, because hee would easily have found great and wide differences betweene those two cases. 1. Working for a livelihood is a matter of necessity, when it cannot otherwise bee so well obtained without oppression or scandall, which was the Apostles case: But Bishops voting in Parliament, when no necessity at all, either of maintenance or scandall can bee feared, is a worke of supererroga­tion, and an unnecessary sinfull neglect of their owne Function. 2. The Apostles working with his hands might better consist with the exercise of his Ministeriall Office,Mat 10.19, 20 Ioh. 16.13, 14 because hee had his furni­ture [Page 16] thereunto by divine inspiration,Gal. 1.11, 12. whereas all men now must continually and industriously apply themselves to their Bookes and Meditations, to make them workemen that need not to bee ashamed. 1 Tim. 4.13. 2 Tim. 2.15. 3. The Apostles working with his hands was but for a season while the present necessity lasted, but the Bishops would willingly Vote in Parliament to the end of the world, although there bee no ne­cessity of it at all, but great inconvenience and scandall accruing to the Church thereby, and a Bil transmitted by the honourable House of Commons to the Lords against it, as many wayes inconvenient and intolerable.

It were easie to adde more differences, but these may suffice: So also may that which hath beene already said,1 Thes. 2.9. 2 Thes. 3.8. for the clearing of those other two Texts that remaine.

EXAMEN.

This is not an Answer, but a Question; and such as, if the first Answer bee true, little needed. But that which hath beene said in examination of that first Answere, may also suffice to satisfie this [Page 17] Interrogation. The hinderance lyes not so much in the expence of a short space spent in the Parliament House, as in the long time requisite to fit a Bishop for such multiplicity of weighty businesses as are proper for a Parliament: except hee thinke it e­nough to vote Bils by rote, according to the impe­tuousnesse of his friends, or the loudnesse of the cryes made for or against them.

Besides, Times and other Circumstances may, and often do so alter the State of the same matters; that, if even the ablest and most vigilant Satesman bee not more aware, Bils may be offered, which are per­haps most plausible in present appearance, and might bee very profitable too, at some other season, that would prove most pernicious in the issue, if now they were suffered to passe. Now, he that hath not his eyes in his head, or his head not constantly at worke (even out of Parliament) to observe and ponder the severall changes and windings of affairs and seasons, can never bee a judicious Peere in Par­liament; but (at his best) an Emperick, who, when his totall is cast up, is ever found more hurtfull than profitable, yea a very pest to the publike; unlesse, laying all other businesse aside, hee double his in­dustry to make future recompence for his present insufficiency, and by his diligence to supply the defects of his former education, as to this Calling, he having been first intended and moulded for another profession.

And, if Bishops take this course,1 Chro. 12.32 to become like the children of Issachar, men that have understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to doe, and to en­able themselves for Parliaments indeed; it is easie [Page 18] to conclude, what hinderance this not onely may bee, but cannot but bee to their Ministeriall Fun­ction. For, if the Levite take upon him Issa­chars Office, and fall to tampering so high in Tem­poralls,Gen. 49.14. hee will soone prove an Issachar in Spiri­tuals, and become couchant betweene his two bur­thens.

Againe, I hope it will very shortly appeare, that it will be farre from being necessary for Bishops once in three yeares, to attend the Convocation, as the frame of both yet standeth among us. Our Convocation is but a meere shadow, a plaine mockery. Synods were ordained for more use and activity, than to patter o­ver a latine Let any upon Wednesdays and Fridays, and to give so many Subsidies as it pleaseth his Grace to propound to the engaged and enthralled Clergy; or to passe a few illegall, seditious, Anti-parliamentary Canons, first cast in the mould of some brain sick Incendiary, that would needs be the Dominus fac totum, and the head of a pragmaticall, Papisticall, Atheisticall Sanction.

And, if Synods were (as I trust they wil bee) re­stored to their pristine course and extent, agreeable to the Word (without which, better we never saw Convocation more; as, I hope, wee shall not) there would be so much worke to doe in them, as would even tire out the most indefatigable spirits of the ablest men, to consider of errours in doctrine which daily creepe in to corrupt the truth; of explanations of Doctrine already established, when perverse men make use of the generality or ambiguity of the terms wherein they bee couched, to countenance their fancies and fanaticke opinions; of preparing [Page 19] platforme of Discipline agreeable to the will of God, and usefull for his people; of censuring such as bee too great for lesser Assemblies; and of Ap­peales from inferiour Synods to that higher Judi­catorie.

Then, would godly and conscientious Bishops finde so much to doe in Convocations or Synods, as would leave them little leasure for attendance in Parliaments, where the Peeres doe, or should sit every day (or they have little reason to Vote in those Bills and Causes there agitated, when they have not heard the debates;) and soone let them see, that all the time they could redeeme (although they sate every day, and sate out the day) would bee much too little maturely to discusse, and delibe­rately to determine all businesses of Synods. Ergo, it must needs bee a very great hinderance to the pro­per worke of their Calling, when, once in three yeares they must necessarily attend the Convocation (re­formed, and restored to the truly Primitive nature, and use) if they divide any part of that short time to the attendance of Parliament. Thus farre the Exa­mination of all the Answers, to the first Reason, which being the Principall, I have beene the lon­ger in it, aswell for the asserting of the Reason it selfe, as for examining the strength of the Answers that would, but cannot enervate or abate the vigour of it.

EXAMEN.

Mistaken, and quite mistaken? Why so? Be­cause the words are in the Bishops Exhortation, not in the Ministers Answer. But where hath the House of Commons yet said, that the words are in the Ministers Answer? Surely not in their second Reason, against which this Answer is directed. Therefore, this branch of the Answer to that Reason might have well beene spared.

The words are confessed by the Answerer to bee used at the Ministers Ordination. This is e­nough to justifie the House of Commons, and their Reason. And, what though it bee spoken by the Bishop, not by the Minister at that time? this doth not disprove his Vow. Little children utter no [Page 21] words in Baptisme; yet, doe they not enter into a Vow, when the Minister declareth upon what terms they be admitted, and the whole action is managed by others?

The Bishop speakes these words at the Ordina­tion of Ministers; We have a good hope that you have well weighed and pondered these things with your selves, long before this time, and that you have clearely deter­mined by Gods Grace, to give your selves wholly to this Vocation, whereunto it hath pleased God to call you, so that (as much as lyeth in you) you apply your selves whol­ly to this one thing, and draw all your cares and studies this way, and to this end.

All this the Ministers heare when they enter into holy Orders. The Bishop takes it for granted that they have done all this; that they have ful­ly resolved, and decreed it, (as the Latine hath it) long before, and that by invocating of Gods Grace for performance; which decree before­hand, with invocation supposed, and consent at present to bee admitted into Holy Orders upon this condition, by their silence witnessed, makes it to amount (materially, if not formally, quo­ad omnia) to a Vow, that is, to such an obligati­on as engageth them to undertake and make good what in this Reason is affirmed of them. For, I have learned so much out of Calvin, the Civi­lian, that sometimes Votum ponitur pro consensu. and no man denies silence, in such an action,Lexic. Incid. to bee consent. And more than this, the House of Commons say not: for they speake not of a for­mall Vow vocally pronounced by the Minister, in that action.

Howbeit, if I may utter my private opinion freely of this point, without prejudice to the House of Commons, and without engaging them further than themselves intended, I humbly conceive, that the Church of England, in her fifth Question pro­pounded by the Bishop in the ordering of Mini­sters, doth fully intend as much as is contained in those words of the Exhortation before rehearsed: and, to that Question, the Minister positively answereth, I will endeavour my selfe so to doe, the Lord being my helper. Ergo, hee formally voweth at his Ordination, what is contained in the Second Reason of the House of Com­mons.

To cleare this, I shall first set downe the words of the Question; Will you bee diligent in prayers, and in reading of the holy Scriptures, and in such stu­dies as helpe to the knowledge of the same, laying a­side the Study of the World and the Flesh? To this, the party to bee ordained answereth, I Will endeavour my selfe so to doe, the Lord being my helper.

Next, I must pray the Readers to consider, that the surest exposition of these words must needs bee found in that Booke from whence the words were taken, and set into the Booke of Ordination more briefly than in the Originall they bee expressed. All the learned know, that Bucer was the chief man, who at the request of Cranmer, censured the first Pub­like Leiturgie of Edward 6. whereupon it was redu­ced to a better forme.

In that first Booke, there was no forme of Or­dination prescribed: but in the 5. 6. Edward 6. it [Page 23] was added. This Exhortation and the Questi­ons and Answers to them, in our present Booke of Ordination, were not borrowed (as some suggest) out of the Romane Pontificall, but were Verbatim taken out of that grave and lear­ned Treatise of Bucer entituled, De Ordinat. Le­gitima Ministrorum Eccles. Cap. ult. extant in his Script. Anglican. Ergo, the full meaning and latitude of this Question must bee taken thence.

Now the Question is there propounded thus; Tempus omne quod vobis a sacris Ministeriis publicis & privatis, ac necessaria & frugali cor­poris cura superfuerit, id omne precibus & lectione Divinarum Scripturarum, iisque studiis quae cogni­tionem Scripturarum, & docendi facultatem adju­vant & ornant, rejectis a vobis cunctis mundi & carnis studiis & negotiis, feriis & ludicris, im­pendetis? The Answere, Impendemus, juvan­te nos Domino.

So then, the full latitude of the Question (which is contracted in the booke of Ordina­tion) extends to a solemne vow and undertak­ing on the Ministers part, when hee enters in­to Holy Orders, to bestow all his time, either in the exercise of his Office, or fitting himselfe further for it; and, to lay aside not onely the vanities and pomps of this wicked world (as hee vowed to doe in Baptisme;) but all secular businesses and imployments; necessary provisi­on for himselfe and family (which God him­selfe imposeth upon all) excepted. And all this, [Page 24] in his solemne Answere made to the Bishop at his Ordination, the Minister formally covenan­teth and voweth by Gods grace to performe. Which being so, there can no scruple remaine in any impartiall man, but that the second Reason of the House of Commons is true, solid, and con­cluding against the Bishops Votes in Parliament, quod erat demonstrandum.

EXAMEN.

And hope so hee cannot, if Bishops may still vote in Parliament. Because they cannot doe that, with profit or safety to the Common wealth, without giving their mindes not to some one other single trade or vocation only, but to e­very trade and course of life, so farre as to make them complete Satesmen, as hath beene shewed before. For, what Trade or Vocation is there to be found, which sometime or other makes not businesse for the Parliament? And how shall hee give a Vote in it with judgement, that hath not a good insight into all the Mysteries of it.

If it should (as possibly it may) bee objected, [Page 25] that by this strict rule, many of the Nobility, should bee excluded? I answere, that if they bee not throughly qualified and furnished for that worke, the more the pity, because the more the Common wealth suffers by their insuf­ficiency. Howbeit the ingenuousnesse of their nature and education, will make them lesse for­ward in speaking, and more diligent in hearing their ancients and men of more gravitie and ex­perience. Nor is it fit that for such insufficien­cies they should be turned out, but rather re­maine there as in a Schoole (as wee see some of the sonnes of the Noblemen doe) to traine them up to doe service there to the King and King­dome, it being an honour to which they were borne; whereas Bishops sit there but Precario, and are out of their Callings all the while.

But, is that all that the Bishop hopes, name­ly, that the persons to bee ordained will not take another Trade or Vocation upon them? Then be­like, if a Minister doe not professe the Trade of a Taylor, hee may yet spend part of his time in Tayloring. Hee may sometimes give himself to Brewing, so he set not up a Brewhouse, &c. But surely our Law is so strict in such cases, that it forbids Ministers to have so much as a Brew­house or Tan-house, although managed by o­thers, further than for the necessaries of house keeping; nor otherwise, to take to Farme or Lease, any Lands or Tenements, albeit the same bee occupied by some other persons, [Page 26] if it bee to the Ministers use. 21. Hen. 8 13.

And why so? Is it because the Lawes doe en­vie the wealth of Spirituall persons? That were an uncharitable surmise. The end was, that Mi­nisters might have no occasions of a vocation from their Studies and Ministeriall Function, but have more opportunity to bestow themselves wholely thereupon, according to what they pro­mised and undertooke at their Ordination, for the more quiet and vertuous increase and maintenance of Divine Service, and preaching and teaching of the Word of God, &c. as the entrance into that Statute doth expresse it.

So then, if we consider Bishops, according to what the Common wealth expecteth from them in her Lawes, as well as what the Church bin­deth them unto in their Ordination, as Ministers of the Church of England, they may not regu­larly, give themselves not onely wholly to any Trade, but not at all to any imployment but the Ministery, and to that which is necessarily requi­red to fit them for it, and support them in it.

EXAMEN.

If they by their Ordination bee bounded Mo­rally; the House of Commons will never, I pre­sume, trouble themselves about the Mathemati­cality of the Vow. Nor will I be so bold, to say of this distinction, of the words of the Exhortation in question, as the Author of the Holy Table, Name, and Thing, doth of a like subtile interpretation of a Rubrick, newly minted by his Antagonist, praying him to remember, Page. 54. that the Rubrick was written for the use of the English, not of the Gypsies or Egyptians. Yet this I suppose I may freely and truly say, that nei­ther Learned and Pious Martin Bucer, nor the plaine meaning Church of England, which borrowed that Exhortation from Bucer, ever so much as dreamt of the Mathematickes, or of that distinction here given, in those words of the Ex­hortation; but meant honestly and plainly to let all Ministers know, that, without distinctions or tricks, they are to bind themselves wholly and absolutely, Mathematically aswell as Morally, to that Vocation of the Ministery; further than the necessity of livelyhood enforceth them to spend some time to supply the wants and necessary oc­casions of them and theirs. And to this I may, I hope, without offence make bold to adde (because I have learnt it from the same Author, of the Holy Table, &c. page 52. as hee out of Aristotle, Anal. Post. Lib. 1. Cap. 12) [...]. You must not dispute in termes of Geometry; with those that verse [Page 28] not in Geometry; otherwise you will shew your selfe but a foule and sophisticall disputant, as that Author hath it.

But let the distinction bee as it will; thus much is clearely gotten by it, that the Answerer here­by yeeldeth, that, Morally Bishops cannot vote in Parliament, without crossing the expectation of, and condition propounded by the Church, in admitting them to Holy Orders; and that they vote there and imploy themselves in secular af­faires Mathematically only. Surely, if their vo­ting there (for that wee know is the thing to bee asserted by him in his Answers, because that is it which is opposed in the Reasons of the House of Commons) consist not with the Rules of Morality, it is no great credit for them to retaine that honour, nor will it at length bring in much comfort to them, when they must yeeld up their accounts to God, that they were never forbid­den it according to the strict Lawes of the Ma­thematickes, although indeed Morally they were bound from it.

And what, must they needs bee debarred from the just care of provision of their houshold affaires, if denyed votes in Parliament, and liberty unto secular imployments, to enable them so to vote? Nay, God himselfe not only allowes, but impo­seth upon all men a care of their family-businesse and government, Prov. 27.23. and he that is neg­ligent herein, is pronounced worse than an Infidell, 1 Tim. 5.8. God hath not divided this from any Calling, in ordinary course. And what hee hath [Page 29] joyned, no man may separate. Therefore, both the Church in her Ordination (as appeared by the larger expression thereof before out of Bucer) and the Kingdome, in her Lawes (as is also mani­fest in the Statute before alledged) excepteth this care of provision for their housholds, when yet both Church and Kingdome binde them to give themselves (in all other particulars) wholly to the Calling, study and exercise of the Ministery, which they have received in the Lord, Collos. 4 17 that they may fulfill it.

EXAMEN.

I put all these Answers together, because they will not need distinct Examinations, they being much what coincident, at least in the maine scope, which is; to keepe this third Reason out of the Court, as being no sufficient evidence in Law, to eject the Defendants out of their holds in Parlia­ment, against some of their desires.

It is acknowledged, that no Councels or Ca­nons, not confirmed by Parliament have, here in England, any power to bind the subjects ei­ther of the Clergie, or of the Laitie; as hath been clearly Resolved upon the Question, this Parliament, in both houses.

But whether the House of Commons referre to any Canons so confirmed, I may not take up­on mee to affirme or deny; because they have beene pleased to forbeare to cite those to which [Page 31] they doe referre. Nor can it bee, I thinke, deny­ed, that any Canons were in use within forty yeares before the Statute of 25. Hen. 8.19. (to which I conceive the Answerer hath relation) against Bi­shops votes in Parliament: and so, Bishops bee shot free from such Canons, if urged against them in that capacity, as binding Lawes.

But what neede the Answerer to have taken all this paines of multiplying of Answeres to shew that no Councels or Canons not ratified by Parlia­ments, bee binding to Bishops, in this or any case whatsoever? For, where hath the House of Com­mons so urged them? Surely, not here. They have not vouched them as Lawes to thrust the Bi­shops out of the House of Peeres, as sitting there a­gainst the Lawes already in being; but, as rationall Arguments and prudentiall Grounds, to induce the Parliament to use their Legislative power to ab­rogate the Lawes (if any be) for their sitting there; seeing that many godly Bishops in former Ages have made divers religious and wholesome Consti­tutions and Provisions against such exorbitant usur­pations of the Clergie. For however those Ca­nons bee not formally obligatory here, yet are they really worthy the Consideration of those who have a power to reduce Bishops by a binding Law to that which heretofore so many learned and pi­ous men of their owne Coat and Calling, have pro­nounced and decreed to be just and necessarie.

Further than this the House of Commons bee not engaged. And who knows not that the Bishops and their Officers have, and still doe urge divers Canons of forraigne Councels and domestique [Page 32] too, that never were confirmed by Parliament) up­on both Clergie and Laitie, when such Canons make for the Bishops or their Officers. And these must take effect, like the Laws of the Medes and Per­sians. And yet now, when they see such Canons tur­ned upon themselves, although not as Lawes, but as rationall arguments only, how witty they be in put­ting off all by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. which makes nothing at all against the House of Commons, or this Reason produced by them!

And what offence, or incongruity was it in the House of Commons, to urge Canons and Coun­cels against the Bishops in this particular, when no Divine that ever complained of such usurpations of the Clergie hath held it incongruous to presse the very same against them? I will not trouble my selfe or others with many instances; that alone shall suffice, which hath beene beforeExam. of the first Answe to the first Rea­son. alledged out of Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterburie. That Prelate taxing the excessive exorbitances, and scandalous courses of the Clergie, in the reigne of Richard 1. was not affraid to give this as the chiefe (if not the only) reason of all that prodigious break­ing out, Quod contra Orthodoxorum Patrum decreta &c. that contrary to the decrees of the Orthodoxe Fathers, the Clergie did too much intermeddle in worldly businesses.

If then, so great a Prelate did well in laying this home to the charge of the Clergie, that their not regarding the Decrees and Canons of former Councels, was the maine cause of all the evills committed by them; it cannot unbecome the House of Commons assembled in Parliament, and pas­sing [Page 33] a Bill against Bishops Votes in Parliament, to produce and use the Canons and Councels, of Bishops themselves against such courses, held on and maintained by our Bishops against the judge­ment, and solemne determinations of their owne Predecessors, in the Prelacy in all the Churches of Christ.

As for the Declaration of the Lords, that the Bishops Vote in Parliament by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme, I meddle not with it, because as I am ignorant of the Lawes and Statutes by which they vote, so am I not acquainted with what the Lords have declared thereupon. Only I have heard, that divers Abbots voted as anciently in Parliament as Bishops, yet are taken away. Yea, this Answerer, hath informed mee,Answer to Rea­son 7. that anciently the Bishops were assisted in Parliament; with a double number of Mitred Abbots and Priors. But Sir Edward Cooke could find no more in the Parlia­ment Rolles but twenty seven Abbots and two Pri­ors, Commentary on Littleton Institutes Sec. 138. Nor doe I know the difference of the Tenures of the one or of the other; or why in regard of originall right, Bishops should rather vote in Parliament than Abbots and Priors, so long as those Orders continued in being. That great Master of Law, before named tels us, that both Abbots and Bi­shops were called to Parliament by the Kings Writ, else, they came not there,Ibid. although they held of the King Per Baroniam. Witnesse the Ab­bot of the Monasterie of Feversham founded by King Stephen, who albeit hee held by Barony, yet for that hee was not called by Writ hee never [Page 34] sate in Parliament. And perhaps, it is not simply a Barony that gives all the Bishops a right to fit there, for I have read somewhere, that all the Bi­shops of King Henry 8. his foundation have not Ba­ronies annexed to them. Yet they are called by Writ, and vote as Peeres in Parliament.

But, bee their right what it will, I heare nothing from the Answerer how farre this right extended. The Lords have, I believe, declared, in this very Parliament, that the Bishops have no votes in causa Sanguinis; and, I thinke the Bishops have found it to be so. And to my ignorance it is a scruple, whe­ther they had originally any libertie of Votes in Ci­vill and State affaires, and were not restrained meer­ly to matters of Religion.

IbidThe reason of my scruple is, because I finde in the same Commentaries of Sir Edward Cooke (for I confesse, I aspire not so high as to looke into the Rolle it selfe) a transcript of an ancient Record for­bidding them to intermeddle,Rol. Pat. de An 18. H. 3. 1 16 17. upon paine of forfei­ting their Baronies, with any matters concerning the Crowne, the person of the King, his Estate, or the State of his Councell: the words are these; Mandatum est omnibus Episcopis qui conventuri sunt apud Gloucestriam die Sabbati in Crastin' Sanctae Kathe­rinae, firmiter inhibendo, quod sicut Baronias suas quas de Rege tenent, Vide Pol. Virg. in H. 3. [...] diligunt, nullo modo praesumant Concilium tenere de aliquibus quae Coronam Regis pertinent, vel quae Personam Regis, vel statum suum, vel sta­tum Concilii sui contingunt; scituri pro certo, quod si fecerint, Rex inde se capiet ad Baronias suas. Teste Rege apud Hereford, 23. Novemb. &c. This was in the 8. of Hen. 3. and, in a great Coun­cell [Page 35] or Parliament;In Hen. 3 ad an. 1234. not in a private Councell of Domesticks of his owne Court, as Polydore Virgil, and Matthew of Westminster would insinuate.

Touching the Kings Prerogative, it is too sacred to be handled by common or private hands. Farre be it from me to set bounds to it, or to wade farre in it. Only, I believe that the Kings Prerogative is for the good of his people: and, if any person unwor­thy and altogether unfit (and therefore uncapable) should, by the Prerogative Royall, be called to, and imployed in any place or office of trust, wherein the whole Kingdome is interressed, this were an abuse of the Prerogative, caused by Him that did misin­forme the King; and there is no doubt, but a just King who should be so abused, would soone upon better information, recall such a Grant, or Writ. If then the Bishops shall be found to be persons altoge­ther unfit for such high honour and trust (wherein all the Kingdome is so deeply concerned) I only ask (I determine not) what thwarting of the Kings Pre­rogative it could justly bee said to bee, to passe an Act with the Kings Soit fait, &c. unto it, that no more such Writs shall henceforth issue to any Bi­shop of the Kingdome.

EXAMEN.

It is very true, that Noble Gentleman, after he had faithfully and like himselfe discharged the trust committed to him by the House of Commons in writing, hee added a few words, in the close of that Conference with the Lords to this effect; that how ever hee was commanded to urge this Reason taken from Councels and Canons, yet the House did only borrow these Arrowes out of the Bishops own Quivers, to use them as weapons against themselvs; not with any purpose to bind the House of Com­mons or other the subjects by them.

This was not in any sort a desertion of the Argu­ment, but a seasonable explanation of the House of Commons in what sense they used it. And were it but Argumentum ad hominem, yet was it ad illos ho­mines whome it chiefly and most neerly concerned, to wit the Bishops themselvs, and had force enough in my apprehension, to silence them, if they should offer to open their mouthes in defence of holding their places and votes in Parliament, any longer. For, if they would but consider what so many fa­mous Bishops and Councels have said, and decreed against Clergie mens interposing in, and mingling themselves with Civill and Secular affaires (which yet be not of that import and consequence, as these in question bee) common ingenuity would make them to lay their hands upon their mouthes, and leave the discussion and determination hereof to o­thers who are not interessed in it, and therfore more likely to bee lesse partiall in resolving of it.

EXAMEN.

The Reason consists of two branches, dependency and obedience; both which render Bishops unmeet to vote in Parliament. For, where these two relati­ons meet, make but the Archbishops of a side, and it will be easie to draw the rest the same way. The Answer endeavours to take off both at one pull, be­cause there is neither dependance upon, nor obedience due to the Archbishops but in two points, Appeales, and Visitations, which no way concern Parliaments or the dispose of their votes therein, where they bee all Equals, and where the Vote is only a Secular Act.

To examine the truth of the Answere so farre as it denyes all dependency or obedience, but in Ap­peales, and Visitations, were not altogether imperti­nent; if it were a time of leasure, because it is with so much confidence denyed. Bee there no reser­ved Cases pertaining to the Metropolitane, no Pre­rogative wills, no Inhibitions that may runne, and command in the Diocesans Territories and Juris­diction, save onely in Cases of Appeales, and du­ring the time of Metropoliticall Visitations? Doth not the Archbishop command the severall Bishops, upon divers occasions, to publish divers things, whether decreed in Synodes, or received from su­preme Authority?

Hath the Metropolitan no power to correct and censure the delinquencies of the Bishops of his Pro­vince, and to command them, by vertue of their Canonicall Obedience, to be more vigilant and di­ligent, when hee findes them slacke in their Office; to enjoyne them silence and obedience, if they con­test and ruffle with his Grace &c. to give other sen­ses and interpretations of Rubricks and other mat­ters contained in the Liturgie, than the Bishop doth, so hee expound nothing contrary to the Booke; and is not the Bishop to bee concluded by it? It were easie to adde many moe particulars, which cannot bee reduced to Appeales or Visitations. Therefore here the Answerer came short in his rec­koning.

But hee that desires to looke abroad and to see more of this, may consult Lancelott. Perusin. Insti­tut. Iur. Can. Lib. 1. Tit. 5. De Episcopis & summo Pontif. Cap. Ad hos. in the addition of Io. Bapt. where [Page 39] it is said, in multiplicibus casibus Archiepiscopus in subditos Episcopos ordinariam habet jurisdictionem, ut in C. pastoralis de offi. ordin. & Sylvest. ponit duode­cim. And if these be not enow, hee may also see Hostiensis sum. li. 1. de offic. ordin. where there be more cases (even eighteene in number) expressed in certaine verses, which are there likewise inter­preted by the same Author of those summes Henri­cus de Segusio.

I forbeare to mention our owne Lindwood, and ma­ny moe. These may suffice to shew in how many things Bishops have dependance upon, and may be obnoxious to their Metropolitan, and how many wayes the Arch-Bishop can meet with them, if they go not his way in all things that he is set upon.

And were it true, that there is no dependency upon, nor obedience due to the Arch-bishop, but in Ap­peales, and Visitations, as it is a truth that these have in themselves no reference to Votes in Parliament: yet, who knowes not what influence an active and pragmaticall Arch-bishop hath into the Votes of all his Suffragans, whom hee can pleasure or displease as he listeth, as they Vote with him, or dissent from him, after intimation or insinuation of his mind in private to them?

Indeed, if we could imagine Bishops and Arch-Bishops to be so complete in sincerity and sanctitie [Page 40] as their high Calling bespeakes them, there were little strength in this Reason of the House of Com­mons. But, as the Prelates bee men, and not free from that which is humane, so the House of Com­mons conceived it not undecent or uncharitable to insinuate something more than is plainely expressed to such an Honourable and Intelligent Assembly of Lords: which reason as it is, hath force enough in it to weigh with rationall men; however, for the reverence they bare to the Ministeriall function, the House held it fitter to leave somewhat to be tacite­ly understood, than to speake all out that is couched under it.

EXAMEN.

No Reason? I am sure it reacheth twentie foure Bishops home enough although two Arch-Bishops should slip Collar, which one of them cannot, and I thinke the other shall not. And the Answerer may bee pleased to remember that the House of Com­mons brought up Reasons, Why Bishops ought not to Vote in Parliament.

It cannot be denyed but that in the maine body of their Reasons they included Arch-Bishops too. And it is true, this argument reacheth not to them. [Page 41] What then? did the House undertake to strike home even unto Arch-bishops, in every one of their Reasons? Where doth that appeare? It is e­nough that they have sufficiently done it in all the rest foregoing. If the Answerer thinke otherwise, hee shall be sure to meet with more Arguments a­gainst them, in the Reasons following. Here indeed he hath sufficiently confuted this fourth Reason, as to Arch-bishops; but it was not their good happe to get ought by the bargaine, because the House of Commons thought not fit to include them within the compasse of the Argument, which is bent di­rectly against Bishops onely: and it is the unhappi­nesse of the Answerer, to goe without his Trophee, even where he made himselfe sure of the Victory; for he hath fought with a shadow.

EXAMEN.

When the House of Commons saith, that Bi­shops are but for their lives, I conceive the House to meane, that Bishops have no right to place in Parlia­ment but what dies with them, (as to their heires,) without hope that their sonnes shall after succeed them in that dignity by vertue of their birth-right, or of the fathers sitting in Parliament before them. And that therefore,In the fourth of his Reigne, Case of Tenures. 35. a. Bishops being at first but casu­ally mounted to that height and extent of power, by William the Conqueror, the more to endeere and oblige them upon all occasions to serve him and his successors in Parliament, they cannot (rationally and according to the principles of Policy and State) be hoped to be so carefull and resolute in disposing of their Votes, and in maintaining the priviledge, and honour of Parliaments as Temporall Lords may well be presumed and expected to bee. For these being by birth-right and the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome, Lords of Parliament, and one of the Estates of the Kingdome (without whom a Law regularly cannot palse) they will bee more active and zealous for the good of their po­sterity that are sure to succeed them in the same place and Honour, and to share in the benefit of the prudent and faithfull dispose of their present suf­frage.

But now the Answerer, denying the Bishops to bee for their lives only, and affirming them to be for their successors, also, &c. waives the sense and intention of the House of Commons, and diverts his Reader from the strength of their Argument. For, hee tells us, that Bishops are for their successors, as a kinde of Corporation in Law. It is true that a Bi­shop is a Corporation to some uses, but that he is so, in respect of his place and Vote in Parliament, the Answerer hath yet neither made nor offered any proofe at all. The Bishop is called thither by Writ to counsell the King, upon presumption of his per­sonall sufficiency and fidelity: but ubi gentium, doth it appeare, that by vertue of the fundamentall lawes of the Kingdome, the Bishops must needs sit there as a Corporation, without which the Lords House cannot be full? Is it not only from Grace that Bi­shops were first allowed place there? And if so, they are not immoveable out of their places, and therefore they do not necessarily take up those places for their successors.

But suppose they sit there for their successors, yet will it bee very hard to suppose the next thing too, that Bishops are in the same manner there for their successors, in the Land and Honour that pertaine to their places, as the Earles and Barons are for their suc­cessors in their owne Lands and Honours. For, is there no difference betweene Successors that usually have no naturall legitimate relation to the present Bishops in any degree of consanguinity or affinity; and those of Earles and Barons, which are their proper heires at Law, and may claime and must enjoy the same Honour which their Ancestors have held before [Page 44] them, if not tainted in bloud? No difference be­tweene those that can no more bee denyed place in Parliament (without confusion of all,) than the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and the go­vernment thereof can be turned up by the Roots; and those who first crept in by favour, to serve a Conquerors turne, by taking off their dependance upon the Pope and fastening it upon himselfe, and can derive no higher for sitting (as now they doe) in the House of Peeres, than an Act of Parliament, if so high: and therefore by another Act of Parlia­ment, may be discharged?

Now, where the difference of the Title is so great, between a Bishop and an Earle or Temporall Baron, both to their Lands and Honours, and Votes in Parliament; I much feare that the Nobility and Temporall Lords will hardly in their House allow this doctrine, which yet is fitter for them to consider of, than for me to confute: and therefore I leave it: only with this; that, if the Lords shall find cause to reject this position as heterodox, and deny the Bishops to be in Parliament for their suc­cessors in Lands and Honours in the same manner, or upon as good and immoveable title as the Nobi­lity be for theirs; then, the Reason of the House of Commons doth stand yet good, as to Earles and Barons, and it is no way fit that Bishops should have the same Legislative power over the Honours, inheri­tances, persons, and liberties of Earles and Barons, as these have, or ought to have, over those of Bi­shops.

As for Bishops holding their Lands in Fee simple, I can say little to it, because my skill is very simple [Page 45] in Tenures. Only I have beene told that Fee-simple, Littletons Instit. l. 1. c. 1. 5. 1. Cokus in Little. ibid. Sect. 5. is called in Latine foedum simplex, & idem est quod haereditas legitima vel hareditas pura. So that to speak properly, Every man that hath a lawfull estate in Fee-simple hath it either by descent, or purchase: neither of which wayes, for ought I know, can the Bishop derive his Title.

But perhaps in some sense, wherewith I am not acquainted, the Bishops may bee said to hold in Fee-simple, as the word may be taken in a larger and lesse proper acception: Viz. Because he holdeth Lands in fee in right of his Church: but this is not properly Fee-simple, because he holds them not in his owne right; and the right he hath in them, dyes with him as to his heires. But I have heard, that ordinarily, he that is seized of any Lands in Fee, in right of his Church, his tenure is either that which the Lawyers call Tenure per divine service, when the Lands are given upon condition that the Donee per­forme some divine Service certaine expressed in the Gift, or the Lands to revert: or else, it isLittl. Institut. li. 2. cap. 6. en Frank annoigne, when Lands are freely given, with­out any divine service certaine to be performed for them.

And further; albeit the Bishops are usually said to hold of the King per Baroniam: yet this haply may be meant rather of the Honour affixed to their place, which works it up to a Dignitie, than of the Lands pertaining to them, which they al­so hold in Frank almoigne, as well as the inferi­our Clergy.Sir Henry Spel. Not. in Concil. v rolam. sub Ossa.

Hereupon it is, that in our Municipall Lawes, our Bishops, for that they enjoy their meanes and [Page 46] maintenance by the bounty and Almes of Kings, are called Barones Regis Eleemosynarij, The Kings Lords Almesmen, or Barons of the Kings Al­moignry, as the Almesmen at WINDSOR are called The Kings poore Knights: and the Reason is rendred out of Ranulphus de Glanvill, (that fa­mous Iudge in Henry the second his time,) quia eorum Baroniae sunt de Eleemosyna Domini Regis & Antecessorum ejus, De Legib. Angl. l. 7. ca. 1. in Calic. Because their BARONIES are of the Almes of the KING and his An­cestors.

Which being so, my conceit is that (what Rea­son so ever they have on their side, yet) at this time especially, this free and high language, (that they holding their Lands in Fee-simple may with as good Reason Vote in the Honours, inheritance, per­sons and liberties of others, as others may and doe in theirs) might have well beene forborne without prejudice to their Cause. For, if Almesmen bee admitted to Vote in Parliament, it will bee their wisedome, I take it, not to bee so much elated as to enter into termes of comparison with the high­est; not excepting their Benefactors, or Foun­ders themselves, even in one of the highest points of honour and power.

EXAMEN.

But have any (except Bishops) beene created Peeres for life, or otherwise, that were not men of great estates and inheritance, or at least of extraor­dinary birth and sufficiency? Of such eminency were the Earles of Surrey. But when you mention an Earle of Surrey, whom do you meane? Is it inten­ded of the Noble Family of the Howards descended from the Mowbrayes? If of these, you will hard­ly finde any such, that being an honour not so fre­quently communicated in former times. Indeed I I find it mentioned that Iohn Lord Mowbray (Sonne of Iohn, Grand-child to Thomas Duke of Norfolke) was, by King Henry the sixth in the life time of his Father, created Earle of Surrey, and was, after his Fathers death, Duke of Norfolke: but that he was a Peere of Parliament for, or in the life of his Father, I finde not. And I have beene told by a Noble branch of that Renowned stemme, and now a Peere, that there was no Earle of Surrey, made a Lord of Parliament upon such termes. But whether so or so, it matters not much; this being but one single instance.

And how ever you may perhaps instance (when you please) in others not so highly descended, who [Page 48] have had the honour to Vote as Peeres in Parlia­ment, yet they were such whose interests in the publike, and share in posterity must needs weigh downe any of those that the House of Commons desire to have removed out of the Lords House. For however, diverse of them bee well lined with wealth, yet the House of Commons are in Parlia­ment to looke upon them, as the Lawes doe; to wit, as upon Almesmen that are but for their owne lives: and surely I beleeve it will be very hard for the Answerer to give so much as any one instance of an Almesman that hath beene allowed to Vote in Parliament. Not, that my purpose is hereby to disparage any of that Order, in reference to their function, or present honours, but only to speake of them as the Law it selfe doth, meerely and only for bolting out of the strength of this branch of the Answer to the Reasons of the House of Commons a­gainst the continuance of the Bishops place and Votes as Peeres in Parliament.

EXAMEN.

The Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, sit not there as single men, but as the representative body [Page 49] of all the Commons of England; each of them give their Votes with reference to all those from whom they are sent. Besides, they are by the fun­damentall Lawes of the Kingdome to be there, qua tales, however the Election of the particular per­sons bee arbitrary and contingent. And although those very persons may never (perhaps) serve again, yet the right and inheritance of the Commons of England (whence every member of that House de­riveth) never dyes, so long as the Kingdome lives. Therefore who ever, for the time hath the ho­nour to bee a Member of that society, Voteth in right of the Kingdome, not of a particular man.

As for the LORDS, although they neither bee elected, nor doe Vote for any but for them­selves and their owne posterity, yet they have this priviledge from an higher Originall, than the Bi­shops can prove themselves to be descended from; namely (as wee said before) not precario from Grace and favour, but from the fundamentall Lawes and Constitutions of the Kingdome. Be­sides, their bloud, breeding, interest in the publike, and care for their posteritie borne to so high places, must needs assure us more of their wise, carefull and zealous managing of their Votes in Parliament, than can, by any prudentiall or morall grounds, be hoped from the Prelates.

EXAMEN.

Cokus in Litt [...]. Instit. Sect. 133.The Free hold of a Burgesse, is not by the tenure of Frank almoigne, (of which the present debate is) for no Lay-man can hold any Land in that tenure. Hee is therefore in that regard somewhat more ca­pable.

But however this may bee, yet that which was but a little before said to the next precedent Answer, will serve here also. A Burgesse doth not Vote in the House of Commons as a Free-Holder (although haply none but Free-Holders or Free-men be eligible) but as a person chosen by and for a Burrough which hath right to send Burgesses to Parliament; and being there, he Votes by the fun­damentall Laws of the Realme. Therefore it is not materiall whether his Free-hold bee for life, or for longer time. When Bishops shew the like warrant and Commission, or the like fundamentall consti­tutions of the Kingdome for their Voting in Par­liament; then, this Answer may be welcome to the House of Commons.

EXAMEN.

What exception hath beene taken to Bishops in other Kingdomes, is unknowne to me, and perhaps to the Answerer also: Unlesse he have seene all the Records and Journals of all those Kingdomes. Nor doe I believe that the House of Commons had any Reference to other Nations, nor doe intend to bee presidented by them. As if, because Bishops have this priviledge elsewhere, therefore this must bee a Reason sufficient for the continuing their possession of it here. Nay, every Nation hath its proper Lawes and Customes, and though it be no shame to borrow any thing that is better than our owne, for the publike Weale; yet it is no Answer to a Rea­son drawne from experienced inconveniency at home, to say that this Reason was never heard of in forraigne States.

But yet I thinke, if the matter were throughly examined, it will appeare that in those Kingdomes, Bishops have a kind of Soveraignty over their se­verall Territories, and are Temporall Governours as well as spirituall Pastors. And, by the fundamen­tall Constitutions of those several Empires or King­domes, [Page 52] those Bishops doe make one of the Estates of the Kingdome without which a Law cannot passe: Sure I am, it is so in Germany, and I beleeve so or the rest, although with some difference: for they may make a third Estate, and yet not bee secular or soveraigne Governors over their severall Ditions.

Now, all know that it is farre otherwise with the Bishops of England: and therefore this plea will not be of any force to breake the strength of this Reason of the House of Commons, till the Prelates can translate our Lawes and Government into that of those Kingdomes from whence these presidents are impertinently borrowed.

EXAMEN.

This Argument taxeth not Kings, but medles [Page 53] only with Bishops. It is true, Kings bring them in, and can be wise enough to serve themselves, if they meet with men that will put themselves to sale for preferment. And to speake plainely, the receding from the ancient way of Electing Bishops by the Church is no small occasion and meanes to byas them, and to engage them still to goe that way, which they perceive him that hath the power of electing, and of advancing them higher, to bee in­clined, so that, if a King should desire to draw them into a wrong course, they scarce know how to deny him, nor would many of them sticke much at it; for they being men, and sometimes none of the best, are not onely subject to like temptations and failings that others be, but more ready and officious to serve turnes than many times Princes do require.

And although the House of Commons doe not alwayes take the tune of Bishops Votes in every Parlia­ment from these dependances and expectances; yet, when they see how much Bishops, that have but meane Bishopricks, doe continually labour to ob­taine greater, and to get up higher; and then com­pare these ambitious practices with the tunes of their Votes in most things which concern the more per­fect Reformation of Religion and the Clergy, and the promoting of the power of Godlinesse, &c. they cannot but find to their griefe that Bishops Votes in Parliament, and their ambitious practices elsewhere, do too often consort and come too neere a perfect harmony; and that therefore, there is little cause to pronounce them faultlesse.

But wherein lyes the pith of this Answer, or, how takes it off the strength of the Reason? Must [Page 54] the Reason needs be false because it supposeth that, not which is impossible, but which in Civility is not fit to be spoken out in plaine language? The An­swerer himselfe doth not deny the thing to be possi­ble: therefore hee doth not Answer or overthrow the Reason, but only elude it by starting up a Capti­ous supposition which he thinkes none will dare to owne. The Reason then is never the worse for this evasion. Let us try his next.

EXAMEN.

Yet this answereth not the Argument, but only endeavours to render it odious to those that were to be Iudges of it, and so to doe what may be to bring a prejudice upon it. It is not, I confesse, impossible that the Nobility should be liable to the same temp­tation:Laudabilis enim vena suam ser­vit originem, & fideliter posteris tradit quae in se gloriosae trans­missione prome­nuit. Cassiodor. yet it is not probable they should so soone be borne downe before it. For, first, their Estates, generally are better, and so they have not that need to snatch at such beggars baits.

Next, their bloud and Honour mounteth their minds higher and fixeth their eyes on more Noble prize, not without disdaine to stoop at flyes. Lastly, [Page 55] their large share in the Publike, and the strong de­sire they have to lay a foundation for future glory to themselves, and happinesse to their posterity, will make them scorne such poore and base mercinari­nesse, unworthy of men borne to honour and striv­ing to purchase more by generous wayes, not by the sale of Noblenesse and conscience. Nobiles praemi­um, haud pradam petunt.

EXAMEN.

If it had appeared that this particular Reason was intended against the Arch-Bishops, The Answer had beene pertinent. But seeing the House had no meaning, to reach so farre at every blow, but con­tented it selfe that onely some of the Reasons came home to both of them also, that which was said before in examining the last Answer to the fourth Reason, is abundantly sufficient to hold up the repu­tation of this Argument against the aspersion cast upon it by this elusory Answer. And yet it doth reach one of the Arch-Bishops, by the Answerers good favour. An Arch-Bishop of Yorke would perhaps doe somewhat, in hope of a Translation to Canterbury.

EXAMEN.

I know not the Reason, but so it is, that the An­swerer hath here thrust together all hee had to say, into one Answer; although the particulars whereof it consisteth bee many, and of various kindes: whereas before he was pleased to branch out one Answer into many, when yet most of the branches were coincident. Not troubling my selfe to finde out the Mystery, I shall make bold a little to change my Method also to follow him, or rather to distribute his Answers for him, and then to take a distinct view of the severall limbes thereof a part.

EXAMEN.

If this Argument fights not against Bishops Votes in Parliament, why then is it said, in the end of this An­swer, that Bishops may justly feare, by this and the next Argument that the taking away of their votes is but a kind of forerunner to the abolishing of their Iuris­diction? For, what Votes are here meant, but those in Parliament? and what need any feare of that here, when it is confessed, that this Argument fights not against Votes in Parliament?

But, I p sse this, because contradictions in such a cause, and in an Answer of so much length, drop­ping out of some mens pennes, need be no matter of any admiration, or of much stay upon it.

But what will it availe the Bishops that this Ar­gument meets not with them in the Parliament House, so long as by his owne confession (although a modest [if] would a little modifie it) it findes them out so palpably in Convocation. There, in­deed, their guilt is of a double dye, for which they are now (upon examination and resolution of both Houses of Parliament) condemned as having voted and determined many matters contrary to the Kings Prerogative, Ex Archi. Parl. to the fundamentall Lawes and Statutes of the Realme, to the right of Parliaments, to the proper­tie and libertie of the Subjects, and matters tending to sedition and of dangerous consequence; And as for encroaching upon and invading the conscience, let that [Page 59] absurd, amphibolous, injurious, excerable Oath enjoyned in the sixth Canon of their late Holy Sy­node stand for a monument, to the eternall infa­mie of the Composers of it, and factors, in it.

Now, the Bishops do or oughtNulli sacerdoti liceat Canones ignorare dist. 38 cap. Nulli. to know that if a Iudge be once taken tardy and guiltie of cor­ruption and wicked judgement, hee is for ever presumed to bee corrupt, and therefore unmeet to bee trusted in another Court any more.

For, it is in Maxime both in the Civill, and Canon Lawes, which holds in all Lawes,Reg. juris. 8. Semel ma­lus semper praesumitur esse malus. And this presump­tion is not onely praesumptio hominis, or praesump­tio facti, but praesumptio juris too, quia jus sic prae­sumit ex facto, saith the Glosse upon that rule. So that, if Bishops have thus encroached upon the consci­ences and properties of the Subject, in Convocation, as tis now declared they have, they are unmeet and unworthy to bee trusted any more with Votes in Parliament, where they may doe as much again, or more, if opportunity bee offered: and there­fore this Reason of the House of Commons is in­vincible.

But have they not done as much in Parliament also? What meant the Statute of 2. H. 4.15. a­gainst the Lollards procured by Thomas Arondel Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the Pre­lates against diverse of the Nobilitie; for, they are not at all mentioned in that Act? What meant their struggling for the sixe Articles in 31. H. 8. 14. first concluded in their Holy Synod in spite of CRANMERS teeth? What meant their Con­spiracy to pull downe Religion in 1. Mar. after it [Page 60] had happily in great part beene reformed in King Edward the sixth his time? What need we any further proofe? Habemus confitentem, this An­swerer himselfe hath confessed as much in the close of his Answer to the next Reason following, where he roundly acknowledgeth the opposition of all the Bishops to the Reformation of Religion in 1. Eliz. But I must on to the rest of the Answer.

EXAMEN.

This Exception may save the Credits of those men who were present, and protested legally a­gainst such illegall and wicked proceedings; so as, they may have peace within, and with­out too, if after by post-fact they contracted not the guilt of Accessories, by administring those Ca­nons: But yet, in the account of Law, and in the estimate of Law-makers, before whom such lewd Canons bee arraigned, the Bishops doe know that it is another Maxime and Rule in Law, Refertur ad universos quod publice fit per majorem partem, That is justly imputed to all that was publikely done by the Major part. If they who dissented not, did not protest, in due forme of Law, or absented themselves because they disliked the businesse, but [Page 61] had not the courage and fidelity to oppose it as be­came their duty; they are justly involved within the number of the guilty, at least so far, as to be held unworthy to be any further trusted to Vote either in that place, or in an higher much more, because through negligence, incogitancy, cowardise, and the like, they did not their utmost to helpe the Lord a­gainst the mighty, and to oppose those wicked Ca­nons with all their might. I passe on to the next branch of the Answer.

EXAMEN.

What encouragement shall one, or some few private subjects hope to finde, when the whole House of Commons, by the labouring of some Prelates (lesse in number than twenty sixe,) can­not get passage for a necessary Bill grounded upon so many solid and weighty Reasons, against the Votes of Bishops in Parliament? And who can be assured that hereafter they shall not vote as Iudges in their owne Cause, when even now de facto, they have already done it?

Perhaps there is a secret in that clause [When they are legally charged] which I cannot discover. [Page 62] But surely, I thinke the meaning of it to be, that the Bill came not home to a legall charge that might ex­clude them from votcing in it, because the House of Commons would needs be so civill towards the present Bishops, as not to name them in the Bill; whereby, not their persons, but their Order onely was charged. And if this were the error upon which the first Bill miscarried, the House of Com­mons are wise enough to make use of this close wipe of the Answerer, and to finde out a way to avoyd the like fault in the next. The Answerer goes on.

EXAMEN.

If the Lay-Peeres (as he termeth them) were tenne to one, yet if but a few of those twentie sixe Bishops have a mind to be active (which, in their own cause, is not unlikely) they know wayes enough how to draw over to their party Noble and ingenu­ous natures apt to be more taken with reverence of their function and gravity, than willing to suspect their ends or to dispute their grounds, how often so ever themselves or their Ancestors have beene cir­cumvented and misguided by them.

But he will give you instances to the contrary, which may put all out of feare.

EXAMEN.

The Bishops (so assisted) could not hinder? Nay ra­ther they could not hinder the Lawes made against the Pope, & Strangers. For, the more the Pope en­croached, the more our Bishops smarted under those Vsurpations, and groaned under the many & continuall heavy taxes whereby all the Clergy of England were impoverished in their Estates, and the Bishops much curbed in their Iurisdictions. He should shew himselfe an egregious Igna­ro to the Stories of those times, that should require Instances hereof, there being so many, much elder than Edward the third: Matthew Paris and sundry other Historians abound herein. There­fore I will content my selfe with only one instance in the reigne of Hen 3.

In his time the exactions & pollings of the Cler­gy and Kingdome were found to be yearly 60000Antiq Britan. ex Mat. Paris. in Bonifac. [Page 64] Markes, which, at that time, exceeded the Kings owne Revenues. No benefice, or dignity belong­ing to the Nobility, Clergy, or Gentry, not many pertaining to the King himselfe could bee void, but the Popes Provisors were ready to seize on it instantly for some of his Creatures, Italians and o­ther forraigners. The Bishops fretted, but durst not complaine. When the King saw their timorous­nes, and the whole Kingdome heightned up to such a degre of discontent, that they threatned to cast off their obedience to the King, if he tooke not order to case them;The letters Articles are set downe at large in Math. Paris. in Hen. 3. pag 927. &c. edit. Lond. Anno. 1571. a Parliament was called; the King, the Nobility, Prelates, Commons, all complained of the unsupportablenesse of the burden; drew up their greivances into seaven severall Articles; foure letters were conceived and sent with these greivan­ces to the Pope; one from the Bishops, a second from the Abbots, a third from the Nobility and Com­mons, and the fourth from the King himselfe; but, to little purpose. The Pope still went on, although sometimes more favourably, and other times more violently, as the times would suffer.

No marvell then, if Bishops and Abbots in Par­liament were so willing to be over-borne by the votes of the temporall Lords in passing the Statute of Provisors of benefices, in 25. Edw. 3. and against suitors to the Popes Consistory, and receiving of Cita­tions from Rome in 38. Ed. 3 And against the farming of any Benefices enjoyed by Aliens by the Popes Col­lation, or conveing of mony to them. 3. Ric. 2, 3. And against Going out of the Realme to procure a Benefice in this Realme in 12, Ric. 2.15. And for confirmation of the Statute de provisoribus among the Statutes [Page 65] called Other Statutes made at Westminster. in 13. Ric. 2. ca. 2. The like may be said of the Statute of Pro­vision in 2. Hen, 4.4 of first fruites to Rome more than usuall. 6 H. 4.1 Of moneys carryed to Rome, and con­firmation of all Statutes against Provisors &c. 9. Hen. 4 8. To say nothing of that famous Statute in 26. Hen. 8.21. which gave the Pope a deeper wound than all the Acts that had been before.

Now, alas poore Bishops that they were so o­ver-voted that they could not hinder such Lawes as those, made in their favour, and for the rescuing of them from the Italian horse-leeches! No doubt the Bishops laboured stoutly to withstand these Acts: and therefore no marvaile that they be so carefully instanced in, or pointed unto by the An­swerer, to shew how easily Bishops may bee over-voted in Parliament and how soon emergent exor­bitancies of their Iurisdiction may be there curbed & redressed. Or rather indeed to shew how unable Bishops bee to withstand the passing of a bill which they desire with all their hearts may bee enacted, or which they know the King wil have to be enacted. But otherwise, I cannot understand his reason in vouching of them: unlesse he meant to make his Readers some mirth. See now how hee winds up this long Answere.

EXAMEN.

Indeed, if we take the scantling of the hurt done to their Votes, by the instances produced in this Answer, the hurt is so little, that the adventure will not bee great, if they meet with other Bills in Par­liament of like nature, wherin the Temporall Lords shall happen to over-vote them. In those Statutes before mentioned, I doe not finde the Clergy so much as named. It is probable, they durst not ap­peare for those Acts, for feare of the Pope; but ra­ther suffered them to passe, by the Temporall votes, that they might the better excuse it at Rome, and enjoy the benefit with more security at home, when the Temporalty alone were so ready to doe it to their hands.

Iust so it was in Henry the thirds time, when the Pope had compelled the Bishops to ratifie all the Grants of payments to Rome made by K. Iohn, whereby the Bishops were so cast betweene the mil-stones, as to be ready to be ground to powder, yet durst not appeare against their oppressor, they (Good men) were forced by the King and Parlia­ment much against their wills (Si placet) to be re­scued out of his hands without any labour of their owne; when, first the King professed se contra infir­mos illos et timidos Episcopos pro Regni libertate statu­rum, Antiq. Britan. in Bonif. nec censum deinceps ullum Romanae curiae praesti­turum. And afterward, when the whole Parlia­ment ordered the Bishops and Abbots to write to [Page 67] his Holinesse that which with all their hearts they would, if they durst, have done of themselves, for obtaining ease of the burthens that lay upon them, as hath been touched before.

So that now, this Argument doth little quell their courage, if they meet with no greater discou­ragements than by the answerer hath been set forth. Rather the Answere teacheth them the way how to prevaile by being overcome, and to bring about their owne ends and yet sit still, or seeme to be the greatest opposers of that which in secret they most desire, and underhand doe most labour for.

But truly, it is to me no lesse than a riddle, that there should be any just cause of feare (unlesse unto them who are apt to feare wher no feare is) that there is any thing in this Argument tending to the Abo­lishing of Episcopal Iurisdiction; when the Reason ex­presly supposeth no more, but a Bill to passe for the Regulation of their power upon any emergent inconve­nience by it. Verily there is more cause of feare on the other side, that if the mention of a bill for regu­lating the power of Bishops shall be interpreted a plot to ruine their Iurisdiction, which now is so ex­orbitant, their Case comes very neere to that of old Rome,Liv. Hist Dec. 1. which (as Livy observes) could noe longer stand under the vices committed in it, nor endure the remedies applied to it.

EXAMEN.

This Argument is expresly against their votes for maintaining their Iurisdiction, (to which by their Order they are all bound, as all other societies bee, to maintaine their Priviledges;) and it is not bent against Episcopacy it selfe. And yet this suggestion is a witty invention, both to winde out of the strength of this Reason, and to cast a blurre upon it at the farewell.

The House of Commons could not but see e­ven an impossibility of reforming by bill the ex­cesses and intolerable exorbitancies of the present tyranny of many Bishops (who dishonestly cal it by the honest name of Iurisdiction,) so long as the Bishops be suffered to vote in Parliament. For the Bishops bee themselves the greatest Offenders ther­in, either acting in it, or else (as Galba) wittingly permitting those to usurpe whom they ought to [Page 69] bridle, or willingly ignorant of what they ought to know. Therefore it was desired that their Votes in Parliament might be taken away, to make passage for another Bill that might regulate their Iurisdicti­on, as in the former Reason was plainely intimated. But the Answerer was willing to slide over that which was the life of the present Reason, (viz. the engagement of Bishops to maintaine their jurisdicti­on, id est, as now it standeth) and Lap-wing like to carry his Readers from the nest, to gaize upon the destruction of Episcopacy it selfe, which on my conscience was not then intended by the House of Commons, had that first Bill been quietly yeelded by the Bishops in the House of Peeres.

Nor did the House of Commons, I presume, by the instance of Scotland, and of those in England and Ireland intend, in this Reason, a purpose of Abo­lition of the Calling, but onely made use of it as an Argument a majore ad minus: to this effect: That, if the Iurisdiction of Bishops (as now they terme it) be found so greivous, that, in Scotland they would endure Episcopacy it selfe no longer; and, many in England, and Ireland have petitioned for the abo­lishing of it in these other Kingdomes; it cannot be thought unreasonable and immodest for the House of Commons to passe a Bill for a lesser matter, to witt, for taking away the Votes of Bishops in Parlia­ment; without which there is little or no hope that the Bishops will ever suffer an other Bill to bee ena­cted for the thorough Reformation and regulating of their Iurisdiction, so as to give ease of the many Greivances that still ly upon the subjects of both Kingdomes of England, and Ireland, and to sa­tisfie [Page 70] the Petitioners with Reason worthy of such a Parliament, at such a time of generall discontent, cheifly caused by the usurpations of sundry Bishops and of their domineering party.

What is in the Answer (with shew of modesty) said, that peradventure ten times as many desire the continuance of Episcopacy, as there be Petitioners against it, It might peradventure be so, before the Bishops procured that first bill grounded upon these Reasons, to be rejected above; and before the world was made acquainted with that Abstract of the An­swers given to them. But I dare say, that now, without all peradventure, (if we may judge of mens desires by their expressions) there is, scarce one of ten, who before were for Episcopacy reformed, but are now against it: the reason is, because they see there is no hope, that ever the Bishops will cheer­fully yeeld to a perfect Reformation of them­selves and their Order, and that if hereafter the Prelates should happen (against their will) to bee over ruled in it, such a forced Reformation will never doe good, nor secure the Kingdome against the Evills too long sustained under them, if the Calling it selfe be continued.

And verily, no one thing hath more alienated & exasperated the hearts of all sorts, than the appre­hended insufficiencies of these printed Answers to the Reasons of the House of Commons. So that, if Episcopacy happen to miscarry, I am perswaded, the Bishops will find Cause to ascribe the opening of so speedy a way to their destruction, not to any thing so much as to the unhappy Answers given to these Reasons of the House of Commons; if those [Page 71] Answers offered to the House of Lords were no o­ther, or better than they are presented to publike view in that more unhappy Abstract most unhappi­ly printed.

EXAMEN.

Mark here his Plea in Barre against the Bill, There were Peeres enough to curb the Court of Rome, in Edw. 3. and Rich. 2. when none were more glad of the curbing of that Court, than our Bishops them­selves. Ergo there will ever be found Peeres enough to reforme the Bishops jurisdiction. I will not say of this putting our Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction and the Court of Rome so neere together, Pares cum parihas facillime congregantur. But it will perhaps make sport to some to finde them in this Abstract so close one by another: yet can it not secure wise men, that because the Peeres curbed the Pope, Ergo there will ever be enough to curb our Bishops; unlesse the Bi­shops [Page 72] will yeeld themselves to hold of the Pope, or to be of the same stamp, and resolve to rise and fall with him.

As for those Cole-worts in Edw. 3. and Rich. 2. now a second time heated, I referre the Reader who desires a fresh taste of them, to the Examination of the former Answer. In the case of Premunire, in Hen. 8. who knowes not that (if any such had pas­sed in Parliament) the Clergie were not so much o­verborn by the Nobility, as overawed by that stern and stout King, with whom the proudest Prelate durst not to contest? But when wil it be proved that this passed in Parliament? Surely Holinshed & others tell me that the Bishops were called into the Kings Bench about it, but before their day of appearance, there was a Convocation, wherein it was concluded that the Clergie of the Province of Canterbury should offer 100000. pound for composition, w^ch was accepted, and a pardon promised to passe in Parliament to free them of the Premunire. So in 7. Hen. 8. the Convocation incurred a Premunire for citing one Standish to appeare before the Con­vocation, when they had not jurisdiction: which yet was compounded and no Act of Parliament passed on it: Nor needed there an Act for it, for the Bishops themselves confessed the thing and so it could not come to a contest in the Parliament. This is all that I know of this matter. And if the case be thus this instance is not to the purpose. But the last is of all other the most impertinent, and scandalous.

Impertinent, because all the world knowes that the Reformation of Religion was the designe [Page 73] of the Queene whom the Prelates might not crosse; such as did thwart were duely rewarded for their paines, as hath beene formerly touched. Therefore untill it can bee found that the Bi­shops were over Voted in a Cause wherein the PRINCE went with them, or expected their assistance, to Vote for him, the force of the Reason is not abated.

Next, what a scandall to Bishops is it, that even since the Reformation begun in Edward the sixth his time, the Bishops, all the Bishops should oppose the restauration thereof in the beginning of Queene ELIZABETH, after an interruption of scarce five yeares and an halfe! Surely, if Bishops can so farre degenerate in so short a time, they are hardly to bee trusted with Voting in Par­liament for any long continuance, especially in an age of such a postatising of the most, and warping of the best.

EXAMEN.

The first note is but a peece of mirth, which is but little Demonstration of any great Morality, in a Cause so serious. If all bee not proud that vote in Parliament, they have the more cause to be thank­full to God that keepes them humble in so great a temptation. Yet, usually, all be not humble who say they are not proud. Proud men of all others will be least knowne of Pride. The Reason doth not say, that all are proud who Vote, but only that such high dignity (not meet for them) occasioneth pride, and I hope it will not bee denyed by a Bi­shop to be a rule of Divinity as well as of Morall Philosophy, that apparent and experienced occasi­ons of sinne must bee avoyded as well as the sinne it selfe.

Besides, this Answerer takes no notice of the maine basis of the Argument, which is, that this setteth too great a distance betweene the Bishops and the rest of their Brethren. And to say truth, there [Page 75] was no great Reason why hee should, consider­ing the Principles of Prelates, which will never suffer them to subscribe to the truth of such a Pro­position. They never thinke the distance to be too great, betweene themselves, and the inferiour Clergie. And the neerer to parity, the neerer to Heresie. Yet, because this is an opinion not very fit to bee spoken out, it was good policy to passe over this branch in silence: and, it were superflu­ous, to labour in the asserting of that which the Answer doth not gain-say.

And though, all bee not discontented, that are not so imployed: for some of them are Chaplaines, Dependants, Expectors, Pretenders to the like places, and so cannot but rejoyce to see them on Cock-Horse, who will, they hope, one day give them the hand to lift them up behind them. Yet there bee many moe who have more cause of just discontent at the infinite clation, intolerable pride, and boundlesse passions of some of the Bishops, who looking up to their owne Lordly Titles, doe take it for a part of their honour to looke downe upon their poore brethren with so much supercili­ousnesse, as if they were not brethren but servants, yea slaves, ad servitutem natos, Tiberius, Tacit as Hee said of his subiugated fellow Senators of Rome.

Before this Lording in Parliament came up, the old Rule among Bishops was,Con. Carthag. 4. ca. 34. Episcopus in quolibet loco sedens stare Presbyterum non patiatur. But that Canon is now 1240. yeares old, and so may well be forgotten. Now, it is well if he may after long atttendance bee admitted into the presence of a Bi­shop, where he must stand bare headed, while the [Page 76] Bishop sits, or perhaps lyes along in State. And whereas before, they were not ashamed to call and honour them as Brethren, now they have other names for them, Dunce, Asse, Foole, Iack, Rogue, Scotish spirited rascall, any thing that a tongue set on fire of Hell can belch out.

Lo here the goodly fruit of Episcopacie ad­vanced to the heigth of Peerage in Parliament! and wel were it for many of them and their poore Cler­gie, if this were the worst and greatest cause of griefe and discontent administred by the Bishops to many grave, Godly, painefull, peaceable Ministers, whose heavie burdens are presented in multitudes of Petitions to the present Parliament, and there­fore I forbeare to relate them.

But where it is said that this Argument of the House of Commons fights only against their Title of Lords: the Answer misreports it: For it marcheth (not fighteth) against them as Lords of Parliament: now, if to be a Lord in Parliament, and to Vote as Peeres there be not the same thing, the Answer is worthy of Consideration: otherwise, it can expect no entertainment, but neglect. The House of Commons did purposely use this phrase here, be­cause the very Reason it selfe is grounded, partly up­on the Title, yet so, as that they consider a Bishop as a Peere admitted to Vote in Parliament. These two are convertible and equipollent expressions; He is a Lord of Parliament, Ergo, he Votes. He Votes in Parliament, Ergo, a Lord of Parliament. And this Lordship in Parliament is that which lifts him up so high above his brethren, as makes him to be, and they to fare the worse all dayes of his life.

Wherefore, to conclude all; such is my folly that I know not what wisedome, or good affection it were, for those Brethren to rejoyce much, to see any of their owne Profession to bee exposed to so great temptations, by being advanced to that place, which is so farre from rendring them capable or apt to doe good offices to either Church or State, as that it makes them more unapt unto, and uncapable of doing any good at all, either in Parliament, Pulpit, or Consistory. For it puts them out of their Cal­ling, unapts them for the proper worke of it, and is, not seldome, secretly followed, by the just judg­ment of GOD, with a spirit of coldnesse and be­numdnesse of those excellent parts wherewith ma­ny of them before abounded, with a spirit of gid­dinesse in point of judgment, with a spirit of con­tempt of those Ordinances which formerly they prized, in point of affection, with a spirit of pride over their brethren in point of behaviour, with a spirit of persecution of the power of godlinesse in point of jurisdiction, and with a spirit of opposition to the perfect Reformation of this whole Church, See the close of last prece­dent Answer. in point of Legislative power in Parliament.

ERGO, Bishops ought not to Vote in Parliament.