I Have formerly spoken of the present Church government, by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. Declaring the corrupti­on and unsoundnesse thereof, and how farre degenerate, if not contra­ry to the pure Primitive▪ Apostolicall institution: Also I have touched a little of the other parts, as how unlawfull it was for them to intermeddle in temporall affaires, to use civill power, or to sit as Iudges in any Court, much lesse in the Court of Parliament, where they passe censure and judgement not onely of our lives and liberties, but on the Estates and inheritance and blood, as of us, so of our poste­rity: And as this is unlawfull by the Divine Law, so by the Canons of the Church, yea of this Church, and Acts of Par­liament of this Realme, (whereof I shall further enlarge myselfe in my [...]ing discourse:) So hath their sitting there beene prejudiciall and obnoxious to Kings and Subjects. Now I desire briefly to declare when and how the Bishops came to be members in the Parliaments in the House of the Lords, and by what meanes they continued their sitting there; because prescription is much insisted upon; although long usage (as King Iames truly delivereth) confirmeth no right, (if unlawfull originally, or at convenient times in­terrupted.) And whereas it hath beene demanded why the first of our reasons, viz. that it hindreth Ecclesiasticall vo­cation [Page 2] was not urged 600. yeares agoe. I answer, There was then no cause; for the first beginning of Parliaments was not 74. yeares after. But if this had beene delivered of the lawfulnesse and conveniency of their intermedling in temporall affaires, I should have replyed that it hath beene declared not onely 600. but 1600. yeares agoe, and in each century since. But supposing and granting that it was meant of such Parliaments as were before the Conquest, you shall finde that above 600. yeares agoe the Prelates are charged (by their intermedling in secular affaires) to neglect the office of Episcopall function. For this we read: The Cler­gy Hollinshead. altogether were unlearned, wanton, and vicious, for the Prelates altogether neglected the office of Episcopall fun­ction, which was to tender the affaires of the Church, and to feed the slocke of Christ, lived themselves idle and cove­to [...]s, addicted wholly to the pompe of the world, and vo­luptuous life, little caring for the Churches and soules com­mitted to their charge.

And if any (saith Higden) told them that their lives ought Rand. Higden Policron. lib. 6. cap. 24. to be holy, and their conversation without covetousnesse, according to the sacred prescript, and vertuous example of their Elders, they would scoffingly put them off with a

Thus, saith he, they plained the roughnesse of their doings with the smoothnesse of their answers. Briefly, they were so loose and riotous (saith Gervasius of Canterbury) that Gervasius D [...] [...]oberne [...]s [...] ▪ they fell so fast to commit wickednesse, as to be ignorant of sinfull crimes, was then held to be a great crime it selfe.

And the Clergy (saith Malmsbury) contenting them­selves William Malmsbury. with triviall literature, could scarcely hack▪and hew out the words of the Sacrament. Robert was then Archbi­shop of Canterbury, who instigated King Edward the Con­fessor against his mother queene Emma, charging her with incontinency with Alwyn Bishop of Winchester, (observe how one Locust stings another) which she washt away, W [...]ll. Malms­bury. and cleared her selfe of by a sharpe tryall of fire, Candentes [Page 3] ferri, being put (according to the Law Ordalium) to cleare her selfe, by passing nine Plough-shares, glowing red hot, bare-footed and blind-folded, which she did without hurt. And as this Bishop had charged the queene his mother with incontinence, so did he likewise the queene his wife Edith or Egith with adultery; but no lesse untruly and unjustly, then maliciously and enviously, as saith Malmesbury, shee being a Lady incomparable, as for beauty, so for vertue, in whose breast there was a Schoole of all liberall Sciences. And the like testifies Ingulphus, that had often conference with her, that as she was beautifull, and excellent well lear­ned, so in her demeanour and whole course of life, a virgin most chaste, humble, and unfainedly holy, milde, modest, faithfull, and innocent, not ever hurtfull to any. And doe we not reade that about the yeare 1040. that Bishop Alfred had his hand deepe in the murder of Prince Alfred, who, having his eyes inhumanely put out, lived not long after, in torment and griefe: Some say he died by a more horrible kinde of cruelty, as his belly was opened, and one end of his bowels fastned to a stake, his body pricked with sharp W. Caxton [...]. poniards, till all his entrailes were extracted, in which most savage torture he ended his innocent life. These Bishops little regarded Ecclesiasticall vocation or function, but worldly pompe and courtly rule. They cannot bee at as­semblies of States and Parliaments, but their neglected flock must be starved; these feed not their hungry sheepe, but hunger to feed on them; and this care of the world volves them in a world of cares. What hath beene spoken of those Bishops, I wish had not been delivered of other latter Pre­lates, wherein I crave leave to speake what others write. That they are growne to that height of idlenesse (the mo­ther of ignorance and luxury within themselves) and by reason thereof, in contempt and base estimation with the people, that it is thought high time that blood should bee drawn from their swelling veines: I will not (though per­haps I might) say with them, that the Commonwealth hath little use of such (I mean of over Lordly Bishops) out for that they are so far degenerated from the Primitive institution, I [Page 4] wish there were reformation, I speake not of demolishing▪ but of amendment and restitution, and untill it appeare that the whole is unsound, I shall not assent to utter extirpation or eradication. Thus much I have made bold to deliver, though not in due place, nor in any purpose to plead against those or any of them that have declared themselves to bee of contrary opinion: I am not ignorant of my disability to enter the lists with any, or to contend with such Worthies in this or other argument: but I hope there will not be de­nied to me leave and liberty to declare the cause and reason of my vote in this house, in which I have the honour to sit as a member: and if I have erred, I have beene mis-led not onely by learned Fathers and Divines, by Synods and generall Councels, but by great Lords and Barons, yea by the whole Peerage of these Kingdomes of England and France: Peter Lord Primandy and Barree, who writ the French Academy, and dedicated the same to Henry the 3. King of France and Poland, in that booke and chapter of the causes that bred change, saith, that Bishops and Prelates neglecting their charge to bestow their times in worldly affaires, grew to misliking and contempt, have procured great offences, and marvellous trouble, which may more easily be lamented then taken away, or reformed, being such abuses as have taken deepe root. And what he affir­meth did the Peeres of France unitely deliver, That Bishops should follow Saint Peters steps, to winne soules, and not to meddle with wars, and murder of mens bodies.

But to come neere and to speake of this Kingdome of England, let us heare what the English Lords did declare; we read that they did decree in the time and reigne of King John, that Bishops should not intermeddle in civill af­faires, or rule as Princes over their Vas [...]alls, and the reason is [...]enderd; for Peter, (say they) received no power but onely in matters pertaining to the Church: and further en­larging themselves, use these words: It appertaines not to Bishops to deale in secular affaires, since Peter onely re­ceived of our Saviour a power in matters Ecclesiastic all: what (say they) hath the Prelats to entermeddle with wars, [Page 5] such are Constantines successors, not Peters, whom as they represent not in good actions, so neither doe they in au­thority: Fie on such Rascal Ribaulds, the words in Paris are Marcidi Ribaldi, how unlike are they to Peter that usurpe Peters place? But this point of intermedling in secular affaires (though I have often digressed) and intermingled with the former parts, is proved in its proper place to bee unlawfull ( viz.) in that part that treateth therof, craving pardon for this deviation, I will pursue the present argu­ment (the obnoxiousnesse of their sitting in Parliament) and come to the points I intended to insist on ( viz.) the entrance of Bishops into the Parliament house, and by what meanes they came there and continued: That they have sate there from the first Parliament to this is not de­nied: But as we are not now to consider an suerunt, but an profuerunt, so are we not to debate and discusse an factum, but an sieri debuit, for it was the argument of a Pagan ( viz.) Symmachus to the Emperor Theodosius recorded by Saint Amb. servanda est tot saeculis fides nostra, & sequendi sunt ma­jores nostri qui secuti sunt faelicitur suos. Our religion which hath continued so many yeares is still to be retained, and our ancestors are to bee followed by us who happily traced the steps of their forefathers, but (with Tertullian) nullam v [...]lo con [...]uetudinem defendas, if good, no matter how short, since, if bad, the longer the worse; Antiquity with­out truth (as saith Cyprian) is but ancient error. The first Parliament (as I reade) began 1116. or thereabouts, and in the sixteeneth or seventeenth yeare of King Henry the first, who being an usurper, brought in by the Bishops to the disherison of Robert his elder brother, admitted the said Bishops to be members of the said high Court, partly in­gratefulnesse, but rather for that he durst not doe otherwise: for was not Ralfe the then Archbishop of Canterbury so proud and insolent a Prelate, that was read of him, that when Roger Bishop of Salsbury was to celebrate the Kings Coronation by reason of the palsie of the Archbishop, this [...]holerick outdaring Prelate could hardly be intreated by the Lords, to withhold his hands from striking the Crowne [Page 6] from the Kings head: Of such spirits were these spiri­rituall Eadmerus. Prelates, and the jealousie to lose their pom­pous preheminence of honors, yet had he no other reason Matth Paris [...]no 1119. for this his sau [...]ines and bold attempt, but for that Roger did not this by his appointment. At the same time T [...]ursto [...] was Archbishop of Yorke, who, though a disloyall and perjured man by breach of his oath to the King, yet was hee highly [...]. [...]7. c. 15. favoured and countenanced by the Pope, and put into that See by him, in dispite of the said King. And as hee, so the rest of the Bishops (not lesse guilty, nor much lesse potent) were likewise admitted members of that high Court; and to speake plainly, how could he spare their being in that house who were to justifie his title to the Crowne?

▪Now passe we to King Stephen, another usurper, nephew [...] Stephen. to the former King Henry, him (though he had an elder bro­ther, and before them both the title of Anjou by his wife Maud the Empresse, as also of his son Henry to precede) the Bishops did advance to the Royal Throne, no lesse persidi­ously Matth. Paris. then traiterously, having formerly sworne to Maud the Empresse. We are also to understand, that the Bishop of Winchester was his brother, a very potent man in the State; and it is worthy our noting, that the Bishops did endeavour to salve their disloyalty and perjury, by bringing in the Sa­licke [...]. Hunting­ [...]n. Law to this Kingdome, traiterously avowing, that it was basenes for so many and so great Peers to be subject to a woman: Nay, it seemeth the Bishops did not intend to be true subjects to him, though a brave and worthy Prince, (had his title to the Crowne been as good as the Prelates at his election did declare:) for read we not that the Bishops of [...]nd [...]ver. Salisbury, Lincolne, Ely, and others, did fortifie Castles a­gainst him, and advanced to him in armed and warlicke manner: nay, did not his brother, the Bishop of Winchester forsake him, and in a Synod of Clergie accursed all those [...]is. [...]lmsbury. that withstood the Empresse Maud, blessing all that as­sisted her. Surely this curse ought to have fallen on him­self and the Archbishop, who did trouble the Realm, with fire and sword. Sure as these were too great to bee put out of Parliament, so were they very dangerous therein. Vnto [Page 7] Stephen succeed Henry 2. In this time Thomas Becket was H. 2▪ Archbishop of Canterbury▪ what his demeanour toward his Soveraigne was, and what mischiefe was by him occa­sioned to the Kingdome, would take too much time to de­clare; and though some Papists that adore him for a Saint, Caesarius Di­al. lib. 8. c. 69. will say, he resisted on just cause, yet I will deliver what I read, and render him with the Chronicles, an Arch-traytor, and tell you that the Doctors in Paris did debate whether B [...]le B [...]. Cent. 2. he were damned for his disloyalty, Rogerus the Norman avowing, that he deserved death and damnation for his contumacie toward the King, the Minister of God. From him I passe to his sonne Richard the first, who had two bro­thers R. 1. that were Bishops, the one of Duresme, the other of Lincolne, and after Archbishop of Yorke, and going to the holy Land, appointed for Governour of the King­dome, Fox [...] 289▪ William Longchampe chiefe Iusticiar, and Lord Chan­cellour of England, and Papall Legat.

This Viceroy, or rather King▪ (for so Paris calles him) Pa [...]i [...] ▪ Hove­don, & [...]ll [...] ▪ Guil. Nu [...] ▪ [...]. 4. [...]. 14. Hovedon. Nub. l. 4. c. 17. Hovedon p. 399. Rex & Sacerdos, had joyned with him Hugh Bishop of Du­resme for the parts beyond Humber. This Kingly ▪Bishop (as Authors deliver) did use incredible insolence and intol­lerable tyranny, and commit a most sacrilegious and barba­rous out-rage upon the person of Ieffery, Archbishop of Yorke, and naturall brother to K. R. the first; for which afterwards (being taken in a Curtesans apparrell and attire, velut delicata muliercula) hee was banished the Realme. Now as it was very difficult to turne such Papall Bishops and Regulos out of Parliament: so certainly such Lord Bi­shops did there worke no little mischiefe to Regall power, the subjects liberties, and the weale publick▪ Certainly this was not the duty and office of a Bishop; surely the Silke and Matth. Paris. Hollin. [...]n [...] ▪ Scarlet Robes of Princes and Iusticiars, were as undecent for these Bishops, as was the coat of Iron of the Bishop of Beavois, taken prisoner by this King, which hee sent to the Pope, with a vide an tunica silii tui sit, an non: to which hee made answer, That he was not his sonne, nor the sonne of the Church. For hee had put off the peaceable Prelate, and put on the warlicke Souldier, tooke a Shield in stead of a [Page 8] Cope, a Sword for a stole, a Curac [...] for an Albe, a Helm [...] for a Miter, a Lance for a Bishops staffe, perverting the or­der and course of things. Thus we see that a Bishop must destroy mens lives either as a Iusticiar in Court, or as a Souldier in Camp. Qui si non aliqua nocuisset mortuus est, they will doe any thing but what they ought to doe ( Feed the Flocke;) they desire rather to sit in Parliament then stand in a pulpit, accounting preaching (according to B. Iuel) so far below their greatnesse, as indeed it is above their good­nesse. We neither deny or reject Episcopacy or Church go­vernment it selfe, but the corruptions thereof: and we say, that the Bishops who stiffely maintained those corruptions, have inforced this our distaste.

When Iacob was forced to depart from Laban for ill u­sage, I conceive that the breach was in Laban, not in Iacob.

So also those that did forsake Babylon (God comman­ding to depart from it) lest they should be partakers of their punishment, as they were guilty of their crimes, did not oc­casion the schisme or breach, but the sinnes of Babylon: And we confesse, that true it is, that we refuse and forsake the present Church government, but no further then it hath forsaken pure and primitive institution, therefore let none say that wee are desirous of innovation: for I thinke we may boldly with the sore-named reverend Bishop Iewel, af­firme, Nos non sumus novatores.

From K. R. I come to K. Iohn, an usurper likewise, who John. was advanced to the Regall Throne by Archbishop Hubert and the Prelates. This lewd Bishop unjustly declaring this and all other Kingdomes to bee elective, and that no man hath right or fore-title to succeed another in a King­dome, Paris. [...]. major. but must be by the body of the Kingdome thereunto chosen, with invocation of grace and guidance of Gods ho­ly Spirit; alledging further, and that (most plainly) by example of David and Saul, that whosoever in a King­dome excelled all in valour and vertue, ought to surmount all in rule and authority; and therefore they had all u [...]an [...] ­ [...]usly elected Iohn (first imploring the Holy Ghosts assi­stance) [Page 9] as well in regard of his merits, as royall bloud. And thus the Bishops blanch their disloyall assertion with sacred Writ, and their lewd devised plot with the holy Ghosts as­sistance. Hereby they rejected the just Title and heredita­ry succession of Arthur his elder brothers sonne. And as he did this disherision unjustly and disloyally, so did hee this election lewdly and fraudulently, as himselfe after con­fessed, when being demanded the reason of his so doing, he replied, That as Iohn by election got the Crowne, so by e­jection upon demerit▪ he might lose the same; which after he did endeavour to his utmost, and at last effected by depri­ving him of life and kingdome. Let me not be misconcei­ved, I know Hubert died eight or ten yeares before him, Matth. Paris. R. Hovedon. Girald Car [...]. who called him, Principio [...]aenum. but what he did begin and forward, was furthered and pur­sued by Stephen Langton, and other Bishops and Prelates, too long to rehearse. His other brother being Archb. of York, a strange example, saith Malm. to have a King ruled by two brethren of so turbulent humours. Many of their trea­sonable acts and disloyalties, I will omit, and passing by as well particular Bishops and Prelates, as Stephen Archdea­con of Norwich, and others, as also of them in the generall, I will onely relate one villanous passage of traiterous dis­loyalty; whereof (as good Authours deliver) the Archbi­shops and Prelats were principall Abetters and Conspirers. The King being at Oxford, the Bishops and Barons came Paris. thither with armed multitudes without number, and forced him to yeeld, that the government should bee swayed by twenty five selected Peeres. Thus one of the greatest Sove­raigns was but the six & twentieth petty King in his owne dominions, &c. To him succeeded his sonne, K. H. 3, who H. 3. being at Clarkenwell in the house of the Prior of S. Iohns, was told by him no lesse sawcily then disloyally (if I may not say trayterously) that he should be no longer King then hee did right to the Prelates. Whereto hee answe­red: What? doe you meane to deprive me of my King­dom, and afterward murder me, as you did my Father? And indeed they performed little lesse, as shall hereafter appear. But now to take the particular passages in order. In this [Page 10] Kings reigne Stephen then Archbishop of Canterbury, as we read, was the Ring-leader of disorders both in Church and State; and no better was Peter Bishop of Winchester. But not to speake of them in particular, but of them all in generall, and that in Parliament at Oxford thus wee read, To the Parliament at Oxford, saith Matth. Paris, and Matth. Westm. came the seditious Earles and Barons with Paris. Westm. whom the Bishops Pontisice's ( ne dicam Pharisei, those were his words) had taken counsell against the King, the Lords annointed, who sternly propounded to the King sundry traiterous Articles, to which they required his assent; but not to reckon all the points, you shall heare what the same Authours deliver of their intent, I will repeat the words as I finde them. These turbulent Nobles, saith M. West. had yet a further plot then all this, which was first hatched by the disloyall Bishops, which was, that foure and twenty persons should there bee chosen to have the whole administration of the K. and State, and yearly appointment of all great Officers, reserving onely to the King the highest place at meetings. Primus accubitus in caenis, and salutations of honour in publicke places. To which they forced him and his sonne Prince Edward to sweare for feare (as mine Authour saith) of perpetuall im­prisonment, if not worse: for the traiterous Lords had by an edict threatned death to all that resisted. And the perfi­dious and wicked Archbishop and Bishops, cursing all that should rebell against it: which impudent and traiterous dis­loyalty (saith Matth. Paris, and Matth. Westm.) the Monks did detest, asking with what fore-heads the Priests durst thus impaire the Kingly Majesty, expressely against their sworne fidelity to him. Here we see the Monks more loy­all and honest then the Lord Bishops: wee have cashiered the poore Monkes, and are we afraid of the Bishops Lord­linesse, that they must continue and sit in Parliament, to the prejudice of the King and people? And so we may observe, that this traiterous Bishop did make this King as the for­mer had done his father, meerely titular.

From him I passe to his son Edward the first: In his reigne Boniface was Archbishop of Canterbury and Brother to the [Page 11] Queene, what he and the rest of the Prelats did in preju­dice to the regall authority and weale publique I will passe over, the rather for that they declare themselves in his sons reigne so wicked and disloyall that no age can parallell, of which thus in briefe; doth not Thomas De la More call the Bishop of Hereford Arch plotter of treason, Omnis mali Architectum, and not to speake of his contriving the death of the late Chancellour, and other particular villa­nies, he is branded together with Winchester then Chan­cellour, and Norwich Lord Treasurer, to occasion the De­throning of this Prince: nay, after long imprisonment, his very life taken away by Bishop Thorltons aenigmaticall verse (though he after denied it) Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est. But this, Adam de Orleton, alias To [...]leton, and his fellow Bishops in this Kings reigne, I may not slightly passe over: Therefore I desire wee may take a fur­ther view of them. First of this Adam Bishop of Hereford, we finde that he was stript of all his temporalties, for sup­porting the Mortimers in the Barons quarrell. Hee being (saith Thomas de la More) a man of most subtile wit, and in all worldly policies profound, daring to doe great things, and factious withall, who made against King Ed­ward the second a great secret party. To which H [...]nry Bur­wash Bishop of Lincolne (for like causes deprived of his temporalties) joyned himselfe, as also Ely and others, Wal­ter Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, a turne-coat, left the Queen and came to England to in [...]orme the King of his Queenes too great familiarity with Mortimer, which after cost him his head. Perhaps some now (as Thomas de la More) will say, he was therein a good man; yet I will take leave to thinke▪ nor doe I feare to speake it, This was no part of E­piscopall function. But I will passe him by, not concluding him either good or bad, every man may thinke as hee plea­seth, I will declare the traiterous and disloyall actions of the other Bishop formerly mentioned. This Bishop of Hereford, whom I finde called the Queens bosome Coun­cellour, preaching at Oxford, tooke for text, My head, my head aketh, 2 Kings 4. 19. concluding more like a Butcher [Page 12] then a Divine, that an a king and sick head of a kingdome, was of necessity to be taken off, and not to bee tampered with by any other physicke, whereby it is probable, that he was the authour of that aenigmaticall verse formerly reci­ted, Edwardum occidere, &c. And well may wee beleeve it▪ for we finde that he caused Roger Baldock Bishop of Nor­wich, the late Lord Chancellour, to die miserably in New­gate. Not much better were Ely, Lincolne, Winchester, and other Bishops that adhered to the Queene, Mortimer and others of her part. Nor can I commend those Bishops that were for the King and the Spencers. The Archbishop of Canterbury, and his Suffragans, decreeing the revocation of those pestilent Peers, the judgemen given against them jud­ged a [...] erroneous. Thus these Lord Bishops, as all in a man­ner, both before and after, in stead of feeding the flock o [...] Christ only, plotted dismall warres, death and destruction of Christians. I might tell you how in this Kings reigne, as in others, they perswaded the Lords, and Peeres of the Realme, that they had power and right not onely to reform the Kings House and Councell, and to place and displace all great Officers at their pleasure, but even a joynt interest in the regiment of the Kingdome, together with the King. And now will any say, No Bishop no King: yet one word more before I part with these Bishops: What ground-worke they layd, and what meanes they u­sed for the ruine of King and Kingdome, was it not their working upon the impotence of a womans will, insinua­ting what indignity it was, that a she daughter of France, being promised to be a Queene, was become no better then a waiting woman, living upon a pension; and so nourish­ing in her great discontents, perswaded her going to France, which was the matter and Embrion, and as I may say, the chiefe cause of common destruction, which after ensued. God keep all good Princes from hearkning or consenting to the pernitious counsels of such pestilent Priests, and prating Parasites. To declare all their disloyalties in Parliament, and out, would fill a large volume. But now Brevis esse laboro, therefore I onely say, that as it was not for their goodnesse, but greatnesse, that they sat [...] in Parlia­ment, [Page 13] so their sitting there did (I thinke I may say) almost evert Monarchy, yea Regality: with what face can they inculcate that aspersion, No Bishop, no King? Certainly, by what I have already delivered, and shall now declare in the reignes of succeeding Princes, it will appeare quite con­trary, that where Lordly Bishops dominsere and beare rule and sway, neither Kings nor Kingdoms, themselves or sub­jects are secure.

Now to the reigne of King Edward the third, did not John Archbishop of Canterbury perswade and incite this King and the Parliament, to a most dangerous warre with France, whereby the death of millions hath been oc­casioned. To such mischiefe d [...]e they use their learning and eloquent Orations in Parliament. What Epiphanius delivered of Philosophers, that they were In re stulta sapi­entes, so may we say of such Bishops, that they are In malo publico facundi. But to passe by particular men and actions, I shall only deliver unto you some notable passages in Par­liament Anno 1371. The Parliament did petition the King to have them deprived of all Lay Offices and government, they being commonly the plotters and contrivers of all treasons, conspiracies and rebellions, the very incendi [...]ries, pests and grievances both of tho Church & State, the chie­fest instruments to advance the peoples usurped authority, though with prejudice of the kings (which they never cor­dially affected) and the Arch-enemies of the Common­wealth through their private oppression, covetousnesse, re­bellion and tyranny, when they have been in office, as may appeare by Antiquitates Ecclesiae Britannicae, in the lives of Anselme, Becket, Arundel, &c. Here we see, that they never affected the authority of Kings, but rather were scourges to their sides, and thornes in their eyes.

Now wee come to Richard the second, his grandchilde R. 2. who succeeded him: we read that when in Parliament in London the Laity had granted a fifteenth, on condition that the Clergie would likewise give a [...]tenth and a halfe; William le Courtney then Archbishop, did stifly oppose it, alleaging, they ought to be free, nor in any wise to be tax­ed [Page 14] by the laity, which answer so offended the Lords and [...]ho. Wal­ [...]ngham. Commons, that with extreame fury they befought the King to deprive them of their temporalties, alleadging that it was an almesdeed and an act of charity, thereby to hum­ble them; that was then deliverd for an almesdeed and an act of charity, which is now accounted sacriledge and cruelty.

The next that succeeded him, was Henry the fourth, but H. 4. an usurper also, for at that time there were living of the house of Yorke others whose right by the title of Clarence was before his as Mortimer, &c. In opposition to his claime and right, the Bishop of Carlile made a most eloquent o­ration; [...]. yward. but to what purpose? to perswade his dethroning now vested in the regall government; and therby to en­gage the Kingdome in a civill warre, (which when his oratory could not effect) he laboured and so farre prevai­led, that by his subtile insinuations, and perswasions many Princes of the bloud royall and other great Lords were drawne to a conspiracy, himselfe laying the plot, (and to­gether Ioh. Stow ex [...]onymo [...]al [...]ron. with the Abbot of Westminster, the chiefe wheeles of all the practice, as moving the rest) for the Kings death whereby he brought to the block those noble Peeres, and as his pestilent counsell had infected their minds, so was the bloud of them and theirs, tainted by this foule trea­son; Ioh. Stow. [...]n [...]ll. [...]l ex Tho. Walsingh. but as I discommend his disloyall actions, so I no bet­ter approve the other flattering and timeserving Bishops, who did pleade the right of the title of the said King more eloquently then honestly, more rhetorically then di­vinely; for which their expressions they were imployed as Embassadours to forraigne parts to declare and justifie his title and right to the Scepter; the Bishop of Hereford to Rome, the Bishop of Duresme to France, the Bishop of Bangor to Germany, and the Bishop of St. Asaph to Spaine; which Bishop of Asaph sate as Iudge in that Par­liament and pronounced the sentence of deposition a­gainst King Rich. The forme (as neare as I remember) was: We John Bishop of St. Asaph, John Abbot of Glastenbury, Commissioners, named by the house of Parliament, sitting [Page 15] in place of judgement, &c. Here you may note that the Bi­shop did passe judgement of a great inheritance, no lesse then two or three Kingdomes, and though not betweene two brothers, but cosins, yet did adjudge most wrongfully, as was most apparant. I note withall, that the title of Lord is not assumed by this King-deposing Bishop, nor any other that I reade of. Now what hee had judged in Parliament his holy brother of Canterbury must make good in Pulpit, delivering, What unhappinesse it was to have a childe ei­ther Fabian 1. concor. Hall ex Fab. of age or discretion to be a King, and what felicity it was to a Kingdome to have it governed by a man. Certain­ly a most dangerous position to an hereditary Monarchy. I also note that this Archbishop was brother to the Earle of Arundell, and at the same time the Archbishop of Yorke a neare kinsman to the Earle of Wiltshire; and who durst then plead against the right of the Bishops sitting in Par­liament?

In the same Kings reigne Richard le Scroope the Archbi­shop of Yorke, did in Parliament enter into conspiracy with Thomas Mowbray Earle Marshall, against the said King, for which they were both beheaded; I say the Archbishop as well as the Earle Marshall had his head cut off, iterate it, because some have doubted whether an Archbishop may be beheaded. And now in the said Kings reigne, in the Parliament of Coventry, let me also tell you that in the said Parliament, as in other both before and after, a Bill was exhibited against the Temporalties of the Clergy, who cal­led that Parliament Parliamentum indoctorum, saying that the Commons were fit to enter Common with their cattle, having no more reason then bruit beasts. This is Speeds de­livery; but I take it that he repeateth it as the Prelates cen­sure of the house of Commons.

But to him succeeded Henry the 5. in his time did not H. 5. Hall in 8. R. a. Henry Chichley in an eloquent oration in Parliament revive the warres with France, by declaring the Kings right there­unto; to the effusion of much Christian blood, and to the losse of all we had there? To expiate which, he built a Col­ledge in Oxenford, to pray for the soules slaine in France. [Page 16] Though what hee did then deliver was true of the Kings right to the Crowne of France (as was also the other of Iohn Archbishop of the same See in Ed. 3. time, and no lesse true was that of Carlile against Hen. 4. title:) Yet I may say it was not the office or function of a Bishop to incense warres domesticke or forraigne. Nay this Bishop did set this warre on foot to divert the King from reformation of the Clergy. For in that Parliament held at Leicester there was a petition declaring that the temporall lands which were bestowed on the Church were super [...]uously and dis­orderly spent upon hounds and hawkes, horses and whores, which better imployed would suffice for the maintenance of 15. Earles, 1500. Knights, 6200. Esquires, an hundred Almeshouses, and besides of yearly rent to the Crowne 20000. pounds.

From him I come to his sonne H. 6. I reade many accu­sations Matt. in that Gloucester the good protector did lay to the charge of Beaufort the Cardinall of Winchester, and Lord Chancellor, great uncle to the King living, sonne to Iohn of Gaunt, alledging him a person very dangerous both to the King and State; his brother of Yorke a Cardinall also, together with the other Bishops no better. For wee reade of Archbishop Bourchier and other Bishops, that they did shamefully countenance the distraction of the time. These as I delivered before, though bad in Parliaments, yet too great to put out, I will not now speake of many other parti­culars, that I might either in this Kings reigne, or his suc­cessors to King H. 8. for that I desire to declare what they did since the reformation, yet therein will be as briefe as I may, having already too much provoked your patience, for which I crave humble pardon.

To Henry the sixt succeeded Edward the fourth who in­deed had the better title to the Crowne, notwithstanding Archbishop Nevill Brother to the King-make- Warwick with others, did conspire and attempt his dethroning, and after tooke him prisoner, and kept him in his Castle of Midleham; and after in Parliament at Westminster, did they not declare him a traitor and usurper, con [...]iscate his [Page 17] goods, revoke, abrogate, and make frustrate all Satutes made by him, and intaile the Crowne of England and France upon Henry and his issue male, in default thereof to Clarence, and so disabling King Edward his elder Brother?

But to hasten, I will passe over Edward the fift, whose E. 5. Crowne by meanes of the Prelates as well as the Duke of Buckingham, was placed on the head of his murtherous Vnkle that cruell Tyrant; for had not the Cardinall Arch­bishop by his perswasion with his mother, taken the Bro­ther Richard Duke of Yorke out of Sanctuary, the Crowne had not beene placed on his Vnkes head, nor they lost their lives; and not to speake of Doctor Pinker, and Doctor Shaws Sermons, and other foul passages of Prelates (as Mor­ton & others) who sought also the destruction of K. Richard, Rich. 3. and that when his Nephewes were dead, and none had right before him to the Crowne which he then wore; what disloyall long speeches made he to the Duke of Buck­ingham to perswade the said Duke to take the Crowne to himselfe?

From Richard I passe to Henry the seventh: I told you be­fore H. 7. that Morton would have perswaded Buckingham to dethrone King Richard the third, and take the Kingdome to himselfe, to which he had no right; and failing therein he adressed himselfe to Henry then Earle of Richmond, and as by his counsell he prevailed with him, so he prevailed a­gainst and wonne from Richard the garland; this perswa­der and furtherer of bad Titles was advanced to the See of Canterbury, his desire whereof perhaps caused his disloyal­ty, and being in high favour with this Prince by his speciall recommendations, procured one Hadrian de Castello an Ita­lian to be be made first Bishop of Hereford, after of Bath & Wells, who also was made Cardinall, by that Antichristian and divelish Pope Albert the sixt; and as Morton had en­deavoured Goodw. Ca­ [...]l. of BB in Bath▪ &c. pag. 309. Paulus Jovius. the dethroning of his Lord and King, so did the other conspire the murther of Pope Leo the tenth, when hee was told by a Witch that one named Hadrian should succeed.

As to Henry the eighth, I need not speake much of his [Page 18] opinion of Bishops, who he saith were but halfe subjects, if subjects at all to him, when he caused Sir Thomas Audley, Speaker, to read the oath of Bishops in Parliament. And that it was so, appeared when Wolsey and Campeius refused [...]ede. to give judgement for the unlawfulnesse of the marriage of Henry the eighth, and thereupon a divorce: Whereupon the Duke of Suffolke said, and that truly, It was never merry in England since Cardinall Bishops came amongst us. It were too large to repeate all the petitions, and supplicati­ons, and complaints of Divines against them, in this Kings Reigne, as of Doctor, Barnes, Latimer, Tindal, Beane and o­thers. [...]s supplic. [...]i. This last named saith, that the Bishops alone have the keyes of the English kingdome hanging at their girdles▪ and what they traiterously conspire among themselves, the same is bound and loosed in Star-chamber, Westminster Hall, privie Councell and Parliament. This and much more hee. But as their sitting there hath been obnoxious, so it is useles, as may appear by the Statute 31. Hen. 8. yet in force, ry 8. 31. [...] where it is enācted, That as the then Lord Cromwell, so all other that should thereafter bee made Vicegerents, should sit above the Archbishop in Parliament; nay, hold generall visitations in all the Diocesses of the Realme, as well over the Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, as Laity, to enquire & correct their abuses, to prescribe Injunctions, Rules and Orders for reforming of religion, for abolishing of super­stition and Idolatry, and correction of their lives and man­ners, &c. And read wee not that in the 37. of this Kings reigne, letters patents were granted to Laymen, to exercise all manner of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, as the Kings offi­cers, [...]ry 8. 37. not the Bishops. Thus wee see the government of Bi­shops as well as their sitting in Parliament, may bee spared. And that they neither have, nor heretofore had any Eccle­siastical jurisdiction in making of Canons or Constitutions, but by the Kings Writ, nor promulge or execute any such, without the Kings Royall assent and licence, under paine, appeares by the Statute of the 25. of the same King, upon [...]ry 8. 25. the Clergies owne submissive petition. And the Bishops themselves in the prosecution of this Act 1603. in the be­ginning [Page 19] of King Iames his reigne, did decree the same, and pronounce excommunication ipso facto upon all or any that should ordain or execute the same without Royall assent. Now you have seen their demeanor in Parliament for three or four hundred years, or there abouts. The delivery hereof hath taken up much time, and perhaps thereby most are satisfied, that they have been hurtfull, and therefore that it is not convenient they should longer continue members of that honourable House, where they have done such mis­chiefe to King and Common-wealth: yet in regard of my promise, and undertaking to declare them prejudiciall from the first Parliament to this present, by testimony of credible authours in each Kings reigne, as also to meet with an ob­jection which I conceive will be offered to make all that hath been proved, as extravagant, so invalid, That those actions, practises, plots, conspiracies, or treasons, were done and perpetrated in time of Popery; and that it was done by Papall command, I will deliver their actions no lesse detestable, nay rather more heynous after the refor­mation then before. In the severall reignes of King Ed­ward the sixth, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, King Iames, of blessed memory, and our present Soveraigne, whom God long preserve. But I desire I may bee rightly under­stood, that when I charge these reverend Bishops that were very good men, chiefe pillars of the Church, great lights of learning, and charge them to have done those things as Bishops, which I beleeve they would not have done as private Ministers; if (I say) I declare that they, to hold their Bishoprickes, and in expectance of great prefer­ment, and to please great Lords and Princes, Kings and Em­perours, have not only yeelded to, but perswaded to intro­duce Idolatry, to dis-inherit the right heirs of Kingdomes, and force good Princes to doe acts unnaturalll and unjust: Let me not be thought to speake in depravation or detraction, I doe not intend their infamy (and so desire to be understood) their memory ought to be dear to us all, and it ever hath been, and is pretious in my esteeme; but I there­by insinuate, that corrupt Lordly Episcopacie hath an infe­ction [Page 20] in it, tainting the purest Divines and godliest▪ Mini­sters.

I pray you misconceive me not, I am not against Episco­pacy, truly understood, or a Church-government rightly used, but I conceive, and therefore (under correction) say, that it hath (with Theseus ship) received so many new pie­ces and additions to the first building, that it doth justly oc­casion a dispute whether it be the same, little or nothing of the first substance and materialls remaining. So that wee have Episcopall government in name, but want the sub­stance; Vox & praeterea nihil: With I [...]ion we imbrace but a cloud in stead of a Iuno, or (at best) but a bleare-eyed Leah in stead of a beautifull Rachel. This tree (I say) is al­most rotten, this salt somewhat unsavoury, this light very dimme, this building scarce sound or sure, which (if prop­ping will helpe) I would not have demolished, till a modell of a better be agreed upon.

In King Edwards reigne did not the reverend Bishop (O [...]. 6. [...]x acts and [...]n. griefe to heare! saith mine Authour) perswade and subscribe to the dis-inheriting of the two daughters of Henry th [...] 8. the sisters of his King, contrary to the Statute of the 35. of Henry the 8. as also in prejudice of the right of Scotland, Margaret being eldest sister to Mary, grandmother to Iane, on whose head they would settle the Crowne; which plot I thinke I may say, wicked and disloyall, if it had taken ef­fect, in all likelihood, the blessed union of both Kingdomes had not ensued, which, as I said before, was hindred by Betton Bishop of Saint Andrewes in Henry the 8. time.

I have not yet spoke any thing as to the point of Idola­try, the most wicked & highest degree of treasons being a­gainst the King of Kings; did not the Archb. Cranmer and Bish. Ridley, perswade, nay earnestly presse K. Edward the sixth, that the Lady▪ Mary might have Masse said in her Speed. house, and that to be done without all prejudice of Law, the greatnesse of her person being the immediate successor, and the might of Charles the Emperor moved those Bish­ops too forword, and so farre urged this to the King, and from Divines becomming Politicians, alleadged the dan­ger [Page 21] in breach of amity with the Emperor, and when hee convincing them by scripture, and tould them he would rather hazard his life then grant that which was not agree­able to truth, they alledge the bonds of nature, at last tell him they would not be said nay; this they offered, and thus farre they pressed, although they could not prevaile with this pious Prince.

These were not the baits that Peter angled with to catch soules, or the weapons that Saint Paul fought with when he professed they were not carnall, but mighty through God to cast downe holds, they propose not honour and security to Christs disciples, but hazard and basenesse. A most god­ly speech of a good Christian Prince, the like whereto I reade that King Iames uttered in his protestation made to Watson, as he after confessed to the▪ Earle of Northampton upon some occasion offered: All the Crownes and King­domes in this world (saith he) shall not induce me to change one jot of my profession, which is the pasture of my soule, and earnest of my eternall inheritance. A pious speech of a magnanimous King, whose memory shall ever bee justly blessed; and I doubt not but our gracious Soveraigne, as he holdeth his Kingdomes, so possesseth the like religious cou­rage and constancy.

But to returne to our former Bishops, viz. Cranmer, Rid­ley, &c. did they repent them of this upon better conside­ration, and upon the death of this good King advance the title of the right heyre? Nothing so; for when queen Ma­ry Q Maries L [...]tter to the BB. and LL. from Kenin­g [...]ll 9. July 1553. Their answer from the To­wer, die & anno praedict. B. Ridley his Sermon at Pauls crosse, defending Ianes title. hearing that Iane her cosin was to be proclaimed queene, writ her letter to the Lord, declaring her owne right, and marvelling that they so unjustly attempted to put her from it, contrary to their loyalty, allegiance, and the Statute which had formerly settled the Crowne upon her; they (I meane the Bishops as well as the Lords, for I finde Canter­bury and [...]ly to have subscribed) told her that she had no right thereto, but [...]n [...] must be queene, and she must submit her selfe to her as her Soveraigne. And what they w [...]it did Ridley Bishop of London preach. And though this was not done or spoken in Parliament, yet no men doubteth but [Page 22] if it had been effected, they would have pleaded in justifi­cation thereof, and confirmed it as rightfull in the next Parliament that should have been called. Now I have declared them disloyall traytors, and most unjust and un­godly in these passages.

To passe from this Queen to the next, I finde that in the first yeare of good Queen Elizabeth there was a further re­formation desired; and what was then earnestly pressed by good Divines, as Doctor Scorie, Cox, Mr. Iewel, Elmer, Grin­dal, Jo. Stow pag. 1034. Whitehead, Horne, Gest, was thus farre granted by that godly Princesse that there should bee a conference at Westminster; where being come, they were opposed by the Bishop of Winchester, Lincolne, Lichfield, Carlile, and Chester, together with some others. These Bishops (saith mine Author Stow, abruptly broke off this conference, plea­ding a mistaking of their directions: and in the next sit­ting utterly refused either to write their owne, or to read the others reasons, whereby all was undone that was in­tended, whereof part was imprinted by Richard Iugge and Iohn Cawood, as is to be seene: and this was in time of Par­liament. Much more I might declare of Bishops actions in this queenes time, as that the Bishops at queene Elizabeths inauguration, did refuse to anoint or consecrate her ( viz.) Yorke, (Canterbury dying a little before;) also these chiefe Bishops denied the same, as London, Duresme, Win­chester, Ely, Lincolne, Exeter, Bath and Wells, Coventry and Lichfield, Chichester and Peterborough.

But I hasten to conclusion. And as this vertuous Queene did yeeld that a disputate should bee had for reformation; so did the gracious Prince King Iames grant the like at Hampton Court, where were Doctor Reynolds and Doctor Conference at Hampton court upon Thursd. January 12. Sparkes of Oxford; and Knewstubs, and Chaderton of Cam­bridge. Now who resisted the reformation? Sure none o­ther but the Bishop of Canterbury, Duresme, London, Win­chester, Chichester, Worcester, Carlile and Saint Davids; and the Deanes of Westminster, Windsor, Paules, Chester, Worcester and Christchurch, alledging that there was no need of reformation: But God and good men did know the [Page 23] contrary▪ but I will not trouble you with their actions [...] this Kings reigne, their introduction of [...], [...], and idolatry, of [...]opery and [...], and what not of irreligion to the Deity, mischiefe and danger to the King, and prejudice to the people and Kingdome, few or none within these walles but know them, and felt the harmfull fruits thereof. As for their actions in his Majesties reigne, which I thinke doe poy [...]e downe and over-ballance all formerly done since the beginning of Parliaments, put to­gether in the other Scale, I will referre them to the reports of the Committees for the [...]ope of Lambeth, and his Cardi­nalls Wren and others, and briefly conclude, That whereas from their first sitting in Parliament to this time, they have as well in Parliament as ou [...], beene so prejudiciall, and appeared to have during their sitting there, plotted and contrived treasons and conspiracles, rebellion and war, domestick and forraigne, beene incendiaries and grie­vances to State and Church, and Arch-enemies to King and Common-weale, introducing Salique Law, making this Kingdome elective, and our Princes onely Kings durant [...] bene g [...]rend▪ or rather bene placi [...]. in worse case and lesse hold then a Duke of Venice, I hope his Majestie will [...]ege talionis make their Episcopacie to bee onely titular, which is as much as is due to them, whether Archbishops or Bishops: for they are to have priority or precedencie, quoad ordinem, not quoad ministerium, wherein the poorest Curate is his equall and his fellow Minister. And as I am not for e­quality and parity, so I would not have too great a distance, the danger whereof to any Estate, be pleased to heare, as I receive it from an Authour formerly mentioned, in these words rendred:

Too much increase and unproportionable growth, is a cause that procureth the change and ruine of Common-we [...]les. For a [...] the body is made and compounded of parts, and ought to [...] by propo [...]on, that [...] may sleep a [...]ust treasure; so e [...]ry Common-weale bei [...]g compounded of [Page 24] orders and estates as it were of parts, they must bee main­tained in concord▪ one with another, as it were with equall and due proportion observed betweene each of them. For if one estate be advanced too much above another, dissen­tion ariseth, equality being the nursing mother of peace, and contrariwise, inequality the beginning of all enmity, factions, hatred, and part-taking. But seeing it is meet that in every well establisht policy there should be a difference of rights and priviledges betwixt every estate, equality may continue, if provision be made that one estate grow not too much before the other: but more of this elsewhere in its more proper place.

And as for these reasons, I yeelded my vote for the un­lawfulnesse and inconvenience of their sitting there: therefore I wish they may be no longer members of that most Honourable House.

I humbly crave leave to adde a word or two to what I formerly spake.

I am not ignorant, that the foresaid assertion, No Bi­shop no King, is received as the delivery of King James▪ but though it might be admitted in the sense he meant and in­tended, to wit, that those that dislike a Church-government will hardly admit Regall rule; yet we can no way allow thereof as it is commonly offered and pressed▪ that the Re­gall power cannot subsist without the present Episcopacy. Now, what that wise, learned, and religious King did con­ceive of the rules and tenents of Bishops and Prelates, how consonant to the majesty▪ of temporall Princes, or whether he thought them rather to tend to the trampling thereof under foot, and laying their honour in the dust, may appeare by his quotations in the latter end of his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, which I thought fitter to annex here­unto, then to have delivered then in the proper place, when I spake of Bishops in the reigne of E. 2. being then desirous to continue the Historicall narration of their sitting and [Page 25] actions in Parliament, having too much transgressed by my so often enterweaving other passages therewith, I over­passed the same.

King Iames Collection out of Cardinall Bishop Bellar­mine are as followeth:

• 1 That Kings are rather slaves then Lords.
  1 De laic [...] c [...] 7.
• 2 That they are not onely subjects to Popes, to Bishops, to
  2 De Pont▪ Rom. l. 1 cap. 7.
  Priests, but even to Deacons.
• 3 That an Emperour must content himselfe to drinke, not onely
  3 Ibid.
  after a Bishop, but after a Bishops Chaplaine.
• 4 That Kings have not their authority nor office immediately
  4 Ibid. &. de cl [...]r cap. 20.
  from God, nor his Law, but onely from the law of Nations.
• 5 That Popes have degraded Emperours, but never Empe­rour
  5 De Pontif lib. 3 cap 16
  degraded the Pope: nay, even
  Lib. 5. cap. 8.
  Bishops that are but the Popes vassals, may depose Kings, and abrogate their Lawes.
• 6 That Church-men are as farre above Kings, as the soule is
  6 De Laic [...]s, [...] [...].
  above the body.
• 7 That Kings may be deposed by their perple for divers respects.
  7 De Pontif l. b. 5 cap. 8.
• 8 But Popes can be deposed by no meanes: for no flesh hath po­wer
  8 De Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 26.
  to judge of them.
• 9 That obedience due to the Pope is for conscience sake.
  9 De Pontif. lib. 4 cap 15.
• 10 But obedience due to Kings is onely for certaine respects of
  10 De Clericis cap 28.
  order and policy.
• 11 That those very Churchmen that are borne and inhabit in
  11 Ibidem.
  Soveraigne Princes countries, are notwithstanding not their Sub­jects, and cannot be judged by them, although they may judge them.
• 12 And that the obedience that Churchmen give to Princes
  12 Ibidem.
  even in the meanest and meere temporall things, is not by way of any necessary subjection, but onely out of discretion, and for observa­tion of good order and custome.

Here we find what base estimation Prelates had of Prin­ces, may we not then justly except against their delivery (as it is by them urged, No Bishop, no King?