EXAMEN.

Convening to Generall Councels, Synodes, &c. when need requireth, is a proper part of their Eccleſiaſticall 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 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 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 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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 before Exam. 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

The Knights, Citizens and Burgeſſes, ſit not there as ſingle men, but as the repreſentative body 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.

This Argument taxeth not Kings, but medles 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 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, 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.

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 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 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 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 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, wch 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 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 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 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.