The Second Volume OF THE REMAINS OF THE Most Reverend Father in God, And Blessed MARTYR, WILLIAM LAUD, Lord Arch-Bishop OF CANTERBURY.

Written by HIMSELF.

Collected by the late Learned Mr. Henry Wharton, And Published according to his Request by the Re­verend Mr. Edmund Wharton, his Father.

LONDON, Printed for Sam. Keble at the Turk's-Head in Fleet-street, Dan. Brown without Temple-Bar, Will. Hensman in Westminster-Hall, Matt. Wotton near the Inner-Temple Gate, and R. Knaplock at the Angel in St. Paul's Church-yard. 1700.

TO THE READER.

THE late Learned Mr. H. Wharton, when he publish'd the History of the Troubles and Tryal of Arch-Bishop Laud, in the Year 1695, finding that all the Papers to be printed with that Work could not be brought within the compass of one Volume, reserv'd these for a Second Part: If God had pleas'd to continue his life, they had been publish'd much sooner, together with such an account of them as he would have thought necessary: But he was preven­ted in so good a Work by that stubborn and incura­ble Distemper of which he dyed. In his Last Will all the Manuscript Papers relating to Arch-Bishop Laud are order'd forthwith to be deliver'd to his Father, (the Reverend Mr. Edmund Wharton, now Rector of Saxlingham in Norfolk,) that so he might cause them to be transcrib'd, and fitted for the Press: In complyance therefore with that his dying Request, these Papers are now sent into the World.

[...]
[...]

AN ANSWER TO THE SPEECH OF The Right HONOURABLE WILLIAM Lord Viscount Say and Seal, &c. SPOKEN IN PARLIAMENT, Upon the BILL about BISHOPS POWER in CIVIL AFFAIRS, AND COURTS of JUDICATURE, Anno 1641. By the Most Reverend WILLIAM LAUD Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, Then Prisoner in the TOWER. Non apposui ultimam manum, W. CANT.
Arch-Bishop LAVD's ANSWER TO THE Lord SAY's SPEECH Against the BISHOPS.

THIS Speech is said to have done the Bishops, their Calling, and their present Cause a great deal of harm, among the Gentry, and divers sober-minded Men: and therefore I did much wonder that so many learned Bishops, present in the House to hear it, should not, (some of them) being free and among their Books, so soon as it was printed, give it Answer, and stop the venom which it spits from poysoning, so many at least, as it's said to have done; especially that Bishop who stands named in the Margin, and against whom in particular the Speech was in part directed, should (as I conceive) to vindicate himself, as well as the Cause, have taken this task upon him. But since I see all Men si­lent, and the Speech go away in triumph, as if it were unanswerable truth, though the Bill be now past, and the Bishops with their Votes cast out of the House, and from all Civil Employment, yet I thought it fit, if not necessary, to call this Speech to an account in every pas­sage, and with all due respect approve what is just, and give the rest such an Answer as it deserves. And though you may think this An­swer comes too late, as indeed it doth to remedy the present Evil, yet I have thought fit to go on with these my Endeavours, that if these miserable distracted times have an end (which I have no hope to live to see) the Errours of this Speech may appear, and the Bi­shops perhaps recover their ancient Rights. If not (as I confess 'tis very hard in England) that yet the World may see how unjustly they suffer'd, and with what misguided Zeal this Lord hath fallen upon the Church, as indeed he hath done in all kinds. And I pray God something fall not therefore upon Him and His. The Speech then begins thus:

[Page 4] My Lords,

I shall not need to begin as high as Adam in answer to what hath been drawn down from thence by a The Bishop of Lincoln. Bishop concerning this Question, for that which is pertinent to it, will only be what concerns Bishops, as they are Ministers of the Gospel: What was before, being of ano­ther Nature, can give no Rule to this.

Whether this Reverend Bishop, now Lord Arch-Bishop of York, did begin his Speech as high as Adam, I cannot tell, nor what proof he made after such beginning; for I was committed long before this Speech was made: but if he did bring it down from Adam, I think there may be good Reason for it. For it will appear, for the two thousand years before the Law, and for two thousand years more under the Law of Moses, that the Priests, especially the High and Chief Priests, did meddle in all the great Temporal Affairs, which fell out in their times.

And first for the time before the Law, 'tis mani­fest, and receiv'd by all Men, that the Sacerdotium [...] ante Legem, apud Colentes Deum, secundum hu­manam determinationem, qui hanc dignitatem Primogenitis attribue­bant. Tho. 1. 2. q. 103. [...] 1. ad 3. Ante tempus veteris Legis non e­rant determinati Ministri [...] cul­tûs, sed dicitur, quod Primogeniti erant Sacerdotes, qui duplicem por­tionem accipiebant. Tho. 2.2. q. 87. à 1. ad 3. And it is irresragably manifest by the Lord's Commands to Moses, that he should take the Levites instead of the First-born, Numb. 3. 45. Why in­stead of the First-born, if the First-born did not perform the Publick Service of the Lord before that time? Primogeni­tus, the First-born was Priest, and the First-born in the Prime and Leading Families, were as the Chief-Priests in their several Generations: and 'tis more than absurd to think that all these Prime Men in their several Families first, and Tribes after, being Priests, should be estranged from all their Civil and Temporal Affairs, and leave them in the hands of Younger and Weaker Men. And as be­fore the Law there is no express Text for this their forbearance to help to manage Civil Affairs, so nei­ther can there any sufficient Reason be given why they should abstain. Neither did they. For in­stance, Abraham was a Priest, and a great one, for he was a Patriarch, Heb. 7. 4. And his Priesthood appears in that he was the first Minister of the Sacrament of Circumcision. Gen. 17. 23. and yet he managed his Family, and trained up his Servants in that which is most opposite to the Priestly Function, even for War. Nay took them, and went in Person against five Kings, and redeemed his Kinsman Lot by the Sword, Gen. 14. 14, 16. And Melchisedeck, who is expresly called the Priest of the high God, was King of Salem also: a Gen. 14. 18. Heb. 7. 1. King and a Priest too, so both capable by one Person. And as he received Tythes as a Priest, so no doubt can be made but he ordered and governed Civil Affairs as a King. Before these Noah was a Priest, and offered Sacrifice, Gen. 8. 20. and yet all the great care and trouble of building the Ark, and managing the preservation of the whole World, was committed to him by God himself, and under­took by him, Gen. 6.

Under the Law the Case comes under fuller and clearer Proof. And in the first entrance Moses himself was Saccrdos Sacerdotum, the Man that consecrated Aaron, Exod. 40. 13. and after reckon'd with [...] Levit. 8. 1. among the Priests of God, Psal. 99.6. and yet the whole Princely Jurisdiction resided in him all his days. But God commanded him [Page 5] to settle the Priesthood upon Aaron, to teach the World that few Men's Abilities were fit for the Heighth of both those Places, since Moses himself was order'd to ordain Aaron, and divide the Burthen. After this division the High Priest did meddle in Civil Affairs, even the greatest, as well as Moses continued his Care of the Synagogue. In the numbering of the People for War, a thing of sole Imperial Cognisance, if any, Aaron was joined in Commission with Moses by God himself, to number them by their Armies; and they did it, Numb. 1. 3. 17. 44. In the ordering of the Standards and Ensigns of the Children of Israel in their removes from place to place, God's own Com­mand came alike to Moses and Aaron, Numb. 2. 1, 2. the Silver Trumpets to call the Assemblies of the People together did belong to Moses, the People had nothing to do with them; nor might they tumultu­ously assemble, but orderly, as the Sound of the Trumpets directed them; but the Priests, the Sons of Aaron were to sound them, Num. 10. 8, 9,11. And this Duty lay upon them as well when they went to War, as when they sacrificed. In the Survey of the Land of Promise Aaron was interessed as well as Moses: And this appears plainly, First, in that when the Spies (all save Joshua and Caleb) had brought up an evil Report upon the Land, the People fall into a Murmuring, and were as mad against Aaron as against Moses, Numb. 14. 2, 5. Secondly, because when the Land of Promise came to be divided among the Tribes, no Spiritual business was it, and yet in the Commission which Moses gave for the solemn Division of the Land, both to Reuben, Gad, and the half Tribe of Manasses on the one side of Jordan, and on the other side to the other Tribes, and to all the Princes of the several Tribes of Israel, Eleazar the Priest was first and principal, Numb. 32. 2, 28. & 34.17. even before Joshua himself: and that not only here during Moses his life, but even after, at the actual Division of the Land to every Tribe, though Joshua was then the Leader of the Peo­ple, Josh. 19. 51. In the great Murmuring of the People at Kadesh, for want of Water, which was like enough to break out into an Insur­rection, the Commission which God himself gave out to gather the Assembly together, and to satisfie the People with Water out of the Rock (a harder thing for Moses to do when he looks upon the Peo­ple, than for God when he looks upon the Rock) went jointly to Moses and Aaron, Numb. 20. and they performed it accordingly.

Thus far it went, and in all these great Particulars in Aaron's Life time; as if God would give a pattern in the first High Priest under the Law, what his Successours in some Cases might, and in some must do in great and Civil Affairs. And not so only, but to instruct the Successours of Moses also what value they should put upon Aaron and his Successours, if they will follow the way which God himself prescribed, and which hath been taken up and followed in all well govern'd Kingdoms, as well Christian as Heathen, till this very time that this ignorant boisterous Faction hath laboured to bear sway, as a They would have Clergy-Men not admitted, or very sparingly to Matters of State, contrary to the practice of all well govern'd Common-wealths and of our own till these late Years. Geo. Cranmer, Epist. to Mr. Hooker. p. 13. learned Country-Man of ours hath observed. And therefore though God set the pattern in Aaron, yet he continued it farther, to shew (as I conceive) that his Will was it should continue. For no sooner was Aaron dead, but his [Page 6] Son Eleazar succeeded in all those great Civil employments, as well as in the Priesthood. For when the People of Israel were come into the plain of Moab near Jerico, and were ready to enter into the Land of Promise, God himself joyned Eleazar with Moses for the numbring of all the People that were found fit for War, which they were to expect at their entrance into Canaan, Numb. 26. 1, 3. In the difficult point of Inheritance for the Daughters of Zelophehad, when they came and demanded right of Moses, their demand was made to him and Eleazar, and the Princes of the Congregation, Numb. 27. 2. which they would not have done had not Eleazar had a Vote in that Judicature with Moses and the Princes. And no less than God himself commanded Moses to declare Joshua to be his Successour in the presence of the Congregation, Josh. 17. 4. And orders farther that Joshua shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, and that Eleazar shall ask Counsel for him after the Judgment of Vrim before the Lord. Numb. 27. 18, 19, 23. Now I would fain know of this Lord, whether Eleazar might give Joshua the Counsel which he asked of God for him. If he might not, why did God appoint him to ask it for Joshua? If he might, then he might give Counsel in Temporal Affairs, for so runs the Text about the War to be had with the Canaanites. At Eleazar's word they should go out, and at his word they should come in, both Joshua and all the Children of Israel.

Phineas the Son of Eleazar, but Priest too, though not High Priest till after his Father's Death, was employed by Moses in the War against the Midianites, Numb. 31. 6. and the Trumpets put into his Hands. After the Victory over them, the Captains and the Spoil were brought to Moses, Eleazar, and the chief Fathers of the Con­gregation to divide them, v. 12, 26. and an express Law ordained, that if there be a matter too hard for them in Judgment, (I pray mark it, 'tis between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between stroke and stroke; these are no Ecclesiastical Matters, I trow,) that they should go unto the Priests, the Levites, and to the Judges that shall be in those days, Deut. 17. 8, 9. and he that will not hearken unto the Priest and Judge shall die, v. 12. Was the Priest here excluded from all Tem­poral affairs? Nay, was he excluded from any, when his Judgment was required between Blood and Blood? Nay, the Geneva Note adds here, Annot. in Deut. 17. 9. that the Judge was to give Sentence as the Priests counsel him by the Law of God; which gives the Priest a greater power than the Judge, since he was to follow the Priest's Direction, and Confer. with Hart, c. 6. Di­vis. 2. p. 203. Dr. Ray­nolds tells us very learnedly, that this Law was made to establish the highest Court of Judgment among that People, in which all harder Causes both Ecclesiastical and Civil should be determined without far­ther Appeal. When the People made War and came nigh unto the Battle, the Priest was to approach and speak unto them; and when he had done, the Officers were to speak to them likewise; which must needs imply that the Priests which were present were not strangers to some at least of the Counsels of the War, Deut. 20. 2, 5. and the whole Law, the Judicial as well as the rest, was delivered by Moses, after he had written it, unto the Priests the Sons of Levi, and unto all the Elders of Israel, Deut. 31. 9. so was the Priest trusted with the Custody and in the discussing of the Law, and (as is before [Page 7] mentioned.) Eleazar had his Hand in distributing the Land of Canaan to the several Tribes, as well as Joshua, and the other Elders of Israel, Josh. 14. 1.

Nay though this were not ordinary and usual; yet Eli was so far trusted with and employed in Temporal Affairs, as that being High Priest, he was also Judge over Israel fourty Years, 1 Sam. 4. 18. and after him Samuel a Levite Judged Israel, and no Man better. Yea, and after the Captivity of Babylon also, for well near five Hundred Years, the Priesthood had the greatest Stroke in the Government; as under the Maccabees, and they did all that belonged unto them very worthily, and it pleased God to make that Family very victori­ous. After Samuel, when that People had Kings to Govern them, in that great and most unnatural Conspiracy of Absalom against his Father David, in that great distress, Hushai was ordered by David to return and mix himself with the Counsels of Absalom, and to impart all things to Zadoc and Abiathar the Priests, that by them and their Sons, David might come to know what was useful or necessary for him to do, 1 Sam. 15. 27. 32. 35. and Hushai's making no scruple nor reply to this, makes it clear that Zadoc and Abiathar were formerly trusted with David's Counsels, and that Hushai had observ'd them to be prudent and secret. And when David was old, he called a kind of Parliament for the settling his Son Solomon in the Kingdom. To that great Assembly he gathered together all the Princes of Israel, with the Priests and the Levites, 1 Chron. 23. 1, 2. so far was he from turning their Votes out of the House of that great Consultation, that Six Thousand of them were by the Wisdom of that Senate made Offi­cers and Judges throughout the Kingdom, v. 4. and this was done on both sides of Jordan in all businesses of the Lord, and in the Service of the King, 1 Chron. 26. 30, 32. In the beginning of Solomon's Reign, Abiathar the High Priest was in all the great Counsels of that State, but falling into the Treason of Adonijah, he was deprived by Solomon, and Zadock made High Priest in his Room, 1 King. 2. 27, 35. And when Jehosaphat repaired the decays of that State, he set the Priests and the Levites in their right places again, according to that Law in Deut. 17. 8, 9. and restored to them that Power in Judicature which was by God's appointment settled in them, 2 Chron. 19. 8. And that he had relation to that Law is manifest, because he pitches almost upon the same words, v. 10. as Conf. with Hart, c. 6. Di­vis. 2. p. 203. Dr. Raynolds hath observed before me. And Jehoiada the High Priest was the preserver of Joash, the right Heir of the Crown, against the Usurpations of Athaliah; and when he had settled him in his Kingdom, though not without Force of Arms, and they also ordered by Jehoiada, 2 Chron. 23. 8. he was inward in his Counsels, and was ruled by him in his Mar­riage, 2 Chron. 24. 2. and he died with this Testimony, that this young King did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, all the days wherein Jehoiada instructed him, 2 King. 12. But after his Death you may read what befel Joash, 2 Chron. 24. In all the Conduct of this People out of Egypt, in which many Temporal Businesses did occur, Aaron was joyned with Moses in and through all. Thou leadest thy People like sheep (saith the Prophet, Psal. 77.) by or in the Hand of Moses and Aaron. The Prophet David was a great Shepherd himself, [Page 8] and knew very well what belonged to leading the People; and you see he is so far from separating Aaron from Moses in the great work of leading the People, that though they be two Persons, and have two distinct Powers, yet in regard the one is subordinate and sub­servient to the other, they are reputed to have but one Hand in this great Work. And therefore in the Original, and in all the Transla­tions which render it, 'tis said in Manu, not in Manibus, in the Hand, not in the Hands, of Moses and Aaron. So necessary did God in his Wisdom think it, that Aaron should be near about Moses in the Government of his People. And as the Priests and Levites were great Men in the great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, so were two of them ever in all the lesser Sanhedrims in the several Cities of every Tribe, for so Oppidatim praesint septem viri probatae virtutis & justitiae cultores: [...] Magistratibus attribuantur duo Ministri de Tribu Levitica. Jo­seph. l. 4. Antiq. c. 8. Josephus witnesses expresly, that two of them were ever allotted to each Magi­stracy. Jeroboam's Sin it was, and a great one, to make the lowest of the People Priests, 1 King. 12. 13. and I pray God it be not the Sin of this Age to make the Priests the lowest of the People.

So by this I think it appears, that nothing of like Antiquity can well be more clear, than that four thousand years before and under the Law, the Priests, especially the chief Priests did meddle in, and help manage the greatest Temporal Affairs. And this, as this Ho­nourable Person cannot but know, so I presume he was willing warily to avoid. For he tells you he shall not need to begin so high. Not need? And why so? Why, it is because (saith he) the Question is only what concerns Bishops as they are Ministers of the Gospel, and that which was before being of another Nature can give no Rule to this. No Man doubts but this Question in Par­liament belongs only to Bishops as they are Ministers of the Gospel, nay more particularly than so, as they are Ministers of the Gospel in the Church of England only. For either this must be said, or else granted it must be by this Honourable Lord, that the Parliament of England takes upon them to limit Episcopacy through all the Christian World, and to teach all States therein, what they are to do with their Bishops. And this were as bold a part for the English Parliament to do, as it is for a private English-man to censure the Parliament. And truly, for my own part, I cannot tell how to excuse the Parliament in this. For though in the Act Feb. 15. 1641/2. now past there be nothing enacted but that which concerns Bishops, and such as are in Holy Orders here, because their Power stretches no farther than this Kingdom, yet their Aim and their Judgment is general. And this appears by the Preface of that Act, which runs thus. Whereas Bishops, and other Persons in Holy Orders, ought not to be intangled with Secular Jurisdiction, &c. Ought not: Therefore in their Judgment 'tis Malum per se, a thing in it felf unlawful for any Man in Holy Orders to meddle in, or help manage Temporal Affairs. For though their words be, Ought not to be intangled (which as that word in­tangled bears sense in English, and stands for an absolute hindring of them from the works of their own Calling, I grant as well as they) yet the Act proceeds generally to divest them of all Power and Jurisdiction in Civil Affairs, whether they be intangled with them or not.

[Page 9] But be it so, that this Question belongs to Bishops only as they are Ministers of the Gospel, yet why may not the Ancient Usage before the Law, and the Law of God Himself give a Rule to this? For sure, if they can give no Rule in this, then can they give no Rule to any thing else under the Gospel, that is not simply Moral in it self, as well as none to Prelates, and their assisting in Temporal Affairs. Which Opinion how many things it will disjoynt both in Church and State is not hard to see. First then, I shall endeavour to make it appear, that the practice of pious Men before the Law, and the Pre­cept of the Law, can give a Rule to many things under the Gospel; and then I will examine how, and how far those things may be said to be of another Nature, which is the Reason given why they can give no Rule in this.

For the First, that they can give a Rule, I hope it will appear very plainly. For in things that are Typical, the Type must praefigure the Antitype, and give a kind of Rule to make the Antitype known: Therefore in Typical things no Question is or can be made, but that the things which were under the Law can give a Rule to us Christi­ans. Though this bold Proposition runs universally, without except­ing things Typical or any other. Besides, the Priests had a hand in all Temporal Affairs, and in matters which were no way Typical, but meerly belonging to Order and Government, as appears by the Proofs before made. And therefore the Jews may be Precedents for Christians, which could not possibly be if they could give us no Rule. Nor is this any new Doctrine. For that ancient Commentary under the Name of St S. Ambros. in 1 Cor. 14.30. Traditio Syna­gogae est quam nos vult secta­ri. Ambrose tells us expresly, that that which is mentioned by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 14. 30. is a Custom of the Synagogue which he would have us to follow. And as this Doctrine is not new, so neither is it refused by later Writers, and some of them as Learned almost as this Lord. For that which was ordered, 1 Chron. 23. 30. that they should stand every Morning and Evening to thank and praise the Lord, is precedent enough to presume that the like is not against the Law of God. And Calv. in Act. 3. 1. Calvin speaks it out expresly. In regard (saith he) that God himself instituted that they should offer Sacrifice Morning and Evening, inde colligitur, it is thence collected plainly, that the Church cannot want a certain Discipline. So here the Jews Discipline gives an express Rule to us. And it is very learnedly and truly observed by a late Writer Her. Thorn. dike, Epistle to the Reader be­fore his Tract of Religious Assemblies. of Ours. That there is no such Light to the true meaning of Scripture, as the Practice of matters contained in it under the Synagogue, and in the Church afterwards. Now what Light can we possibly receive from the Synagogue, if those things which were before can give no Rule to us? Besides, for ought I know of this Lord's Religion, he may brand all the Old Testament as deeply as the Manichees did of old, or go very near it, if it can give no Rule, and so be of no use to Christians. S. Aug. contra Faustum. St. Augustine was of another Mind through all his Books against Faustus the Manichee. And S. Aug. lib. 6. Confess. c. 4. Vete­ra Scripta Legis & Prophetarum, tanquam Regulam dillgentissime com­mendavit Ambrosius in popularibus Sermonibus. St. Ambrose most expresly, and very frequent­ly recommended this, tanquam Regulam, as a Rule to the People. And in this very Case of Episco­pacy, Clem. Ep. ad Corinth. p. 52, 53. Clemens Romanus tells us, There is a kind [Page 10] of Parallel between Bishops, Presbyters and Dea­cons, in the one, and High Priests, Priests and Le­vites in the other Church. And Quod Aaron & filii [...], atque [...] in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicant in Ecclesia. S. Hier. Ep. ad Evagr. St. Jerom speaks it out, that such as Aaron and his Sons, and the Tribe of Levi were in the Temple, the same are Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons in the Church of Christ. And this they might justly challenge to themselves, and make it a Rule.

But 'tis time to proceed to other Particulars. In the Case of Tythes we find that they were due Jure Divino, by Divine Right, to the Priests under the Law, and some were paid before the Law, no Man doubts; but many will not grant that there is any Divine Right, commanding or ordering them to be paid to the Priests under the Gospel. Yet this is undeniable that Tythes have been paid to the Ministers under the Gospel, in all or most parts of Christendom, for many Hundreds of Years together; and God be thanked the Payment continues yet in some Places. What was it then, if not Divine Right, that gave the Rule to Christians for this kind of Pay­ment, but the Practice before the Law and the Precept under it? Shall we say here, as this Lord doth, That what was before can give no Rule to this. Now God forbid. The whole Christian World thought otherwise.

And whatsoever becomes of the Controversie about Tythes, yet this is certain, that the Ministers of the Gospel ought to have a liberal and free Maintenance. Men, whom they serve in and for Christ, must not open their Mouths too often to preach, and muzzle them whom they should feed. And the Rule for this is given by the Law, for it is written in the Law of Moses. Thou shall not muzzle the Mouth of the Ox that treads out the Corn. Doth God take care for Oxen, or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt this is written, 1 Cor. 9. 9. And yet how many of these Oxen are poorly shuted, and in a manner muzzel'd, is evident enough. How comes this to pass? How? Why surely, the Apostle St. Paul was utterly deceived here, ask my Lord else; for he proves this point of their Maintenance, because 'tis so written in the Law of Moses, whereas that Law which was before can give no Rule to this.

Again, The Lord himself hath ordained (so saith St. Paul, v. 14.) that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel. Not starve by the Gospel, but live upon it; live plentifully and decently. But by what Rule did the Lord himself proceed in this? If his Will had been his Rule, no Rule so strait, it could not but have been just. But St. Paul tells us there, v. 13. that God himself proceeded by another Rule, Do ye not know (saith he) that they which minister about Holy things, live of the things of the Temple, and they which wait on the Altar are partakers with the Altar? [...], — even so hath the Lord ordained. Just so: That as the Priests and Levites under the Law, did wait on the Altar and live by it, so must they who preach the Gospel, by the Gospel. Just so: Why then, how did the Priest under the Law live? 'Tis set down at large, Deut. 18. 1. Numb. 10. 9. and a very full Portion they had, so full as that they might have no Inheritance amongst their Brethren, the Lord's Portion which [Page 11] was made theirs was so great, yet [...], so the Lord ordained for the Ministers of the Gospel. Press this a little farther and 'twill come to the quick. The Priests and Levites under the Law, besides their partaking with the Altar, had the Tythes of all duly paid them. Will not [...] reach to this too? If so, then 'tis clear in the Text, that the Lord himself ordained payment of Tythes to the Ministers of the Gospel. For the ordained that the Ministers of the Gospel, should live of the Gospel, [...], just as the Priests under the Law did of the Altar. I will not be peremtory in this sense of the Text, yet I would have it well considered. And howsoever, that a free and plentiful Certain Maintenance is the Ordinance of the Lord himself, is by this Text as clear as the Sun. Now this Lord should do well to tell St. Paul, that either he mistook the Lord's Ordinance, or if he did not, that then the Lord himself was mistaken in so ordaining for the Ministers of the Gospel, because what was before can give no Rule to this.

Farther yet, you may see the Vanity, the Nothing of this bold As­sertion in other particulars beside the Case of Tything. For if nei­ther the State of Man before the Law, nor the Law it self can give any Rule in things of this kind, to us that live under the Gospel, then there is nothing in God's Law that can give a Rule to us, but that a Man may remove his Neighbour's Land-mark, he may lead the Blind out of the way, he may smite his Neighbour so it be secretly, he may marry in many Degrees of Consanguinity, and what may he not? For all these and many things more are prohibited only in the Law, Deut. 27. Levit. 18. But that going before can give no Rule to these. Now the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 10. 6, 11. That those things were our Examples, and written for our admonition. And he speaks of things before and under the Law. And more generally, Rom. 15. 4. Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our Learning. Now, learn well and certainly we cannot, but by Rule; and therefore most manifest it is, that those things which were before, can give us Rules, whatsoever is here said to the con­trary.

Two things there are which work much with me, why this Lord should say that the things which were before and under the Law can give no Rule in this: And if not in this, then not in things like to this. The one is the Power which Kings have in their several Dominions over the external Government and Polity of the Church. The Apostle's Rule goes in the general only, Let every Soul be subject. Rom. 13. 1. But the Rule drawn down to particulars is from the the commended Practice of the Kings of Juda under the Law. Now if these can give us no Rule, then we have none at all brought down to particulars, wherein that Power consists. And here this Lord being a known Separatist from the Church of England (as appears most manifestly by another Speech of his Lordship's in Parliament, and printed with this) separates, I doubt, from her Do­ctrine too, and will not, (could he speak out with safety) allow Kings any Power at all in Church Affairs, more than to be the Executioners to see the Orders of their Assemblyes executed, in such things as they need the Civil Sword. And therefore he doth [Page 12] wisely in his generation, to say, That the things which were before can give no Rule in this.

The other is, that there is of late a Name of Scorn fastned upon the Brethren of the Separation, and they are commonly called Round­heads, from their Fashion of cutting close and rounding of their Hair: A Fashion used in It is [...] the Graecians did wear long Hair, and therefore Homer calls them [...], Ca­pite [...] Achivos, L. 2. Iliad. And Eustathius, [...] upon that place, saith, they wear it long at other times, but cut it in the time of Sorrow. And Achil­les and his Company. cut off their Hair, and cast it upon the dead Body of Patroclus to cover it. Homer. l. 23. Il. And at the Funerals of Achilles, the Graecians are said to shed warm Tears [...] — and to have cut their Hair. Homer. l. 24. Od. That the Romans wore their Hair long, is evident by Varro, who saith that Barbers were not known in Italy before the year 454, post U. C. About that time Tici­nius Menas brought them in. Varro, L. 2. de Re Rust. c. ult. And that they did cut their Hair at Funerals, is plain in Andreas Tiraquel. — Romani in aliis luctibus quam funerum Capillum Barbantque promittebant. Annot. in Alex. ab Alex. l. 3. c. 7. But then they cut them. And when this rounding went [...], indeed it came some­what near Baldness; which the Jews were likewise for­bidden to make upon themselves for the Dead, Deut. 14. 1. & Jerem. 16. 6. And as this Rounding of the Head was sometimes a sign of superstitious sorrowing, so was it (with some difference) used as an esseminate and luxurious Fashion. And there­fore Ganimedes were said [...], circumtondere. Dio. Chrysoft. Orat. 2. de Regno. And Harlots. After which manner they say Harlots were cut, [...]. And that it was a kind of rounding the Head, [...] in Lexico, verbo [...]. Which kind of rounding the Hair Tertullian mentions L. de Cultu Foeminatum, c. 8. and L. de Pallio, c. 4. he objects the use of it to his Carthaginians. And in some places, this rounding of the Head was a mark of Servitude and Vassallage, as among the ancient French, where the King only and the Heir apparent had Jus Capilitii, in token of his [...], and the rest were Circumtonsi. Selden, Praefat. to his Titles of Honour, Ex Cedreno. But whether our Round-heads do it for Superstition, or for Luxury, or out of any Base and Servile Condition, I cannot tell; though I think there need be little Question, but that many of them are guilty of all three, their [...] being not a Robe large enough to hide all of them; and some of their Conventicles have of late [...]. Paganism in the times of their Mournings, and sad oc­currences, as these seem to do, put­ing on in outward shew at least a sowr Look and a more severe Carriage than other Men. This Fashion of Round­ing the Head, God himself forbids his People to practise, the more to with­draw from the Superstitions of the Gentiles. Ye shall not round the Corn­ers of your Heads, Lev. 19. 27. This express Text of Scripture troubled the Brownists and the rest extreamly; and therefore this Lord being a great fa­vourer of theirs, if not one himself, hath thought upon this way to ease their minds, and his own. For 'tis no matter for this Text, nor for their resembling Heathen Idolaters; they may round their Heads safely, since those things which were before can give no Rule in this. And I do not doubt but that if this World go on, the dear Sisters of these Rattle-heads will no longer keep silence in their Churches, or Conventicles, since the A­postle surely is deceived, where he saith that Women are not permitted to speak in the Churches, because they are to be under Obedience, as also saith the Law, 1 Cor. 14. For the Law and those things which were before can give no Rule in this; and therefore they shall not need to go as high as Adam to answer this. They shall not need in this, nor we in that of Episcopacy, go so high as Adam. But yet we may if we will, for so high the Apostle goes in this place.

And I thank this Lord for that Liberty (if he means so well) that though we need not go so high, yet we may if we list. And this is most certain, that any State Christian may receive all or as much of the Judicial Law of Moses as they please, and find fit for them; and as much of the Ceremonial as detracts not from Christ come in the Flesh. And since all Law is a Rule, this could not be done if those Laws being before could be no Rule to us.

This is proof enough (as I conceive) that these things which were before, can give a Rule to us now under the Gospel. My Lord thinks not so, for this Reason, Because they are of another Nature. [Page 13] Secondly, therefore the Reason comes to be examined. Wherein I shall weigh two things. First, Whether the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ are things of another Nature, and how far? And Secondly, Whether this be universally true, that among things of another Nature one cannot give a Rule to another.

1. For the first, I shall easily acknowledge a great deal of diffe­rence between the Law and the Gospel. They differ in the Strictness of the Covenant made under either: They differ in the Sacraments and Sacramentals used in either: They differ in the Ex­tent and Continuance of either: They differ in the Way and Power of justifying a Sinner; and perhaps in more things than these. And in these things in which they thus differ, and qua, as they so differ, the Law can give no Rule to Christians; but whether these diffe­rences do make the Law and the Gospel things of quite another Na­ture, (which are the words here used) I cannot but doubt a little. First, because more or less strictness doth not vary the Covenant in Nature though it doth in Grace; And so Arist. persues it. Impe­rare & parere, non differunt secun­dum Magis & Minus, quia differunt specie. Arist. L. 2. Polit. c. 8. for Magis & Minus non variant speciem, More or Less in any thing does not make a specifical Difference, and therefore not in Nature. And use of different Sacra­ments do not make things to be of another Nature, where Res Sacra­menti, the Substance of the Sacrament is one and the same. And so 'tis here. For one and the same Christ is the Substance of Circumcision and the Pascal Lamb, as well as of Baptism and the Eucharist. For our Fathers under the Law, did all cat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink of the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: And that Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. And much less, can Extent or Continuance vary Nature: Not Extent; for Fire contained in a Chimny and spread miserably over a City, is one and the same in Nature. Not Continuance; for then a Father and his Son should not be of the same Nature, if the one live longer than the other. And as for the way and Power of Justifica­tion, they difference the Law and the Gospel, not so much in their Nature as in their Relation to Christ, who alone is our Justification, 1 Cor. 1. 30. and was theirs also who lived under the Law, for both they and we, were and are justified by the same Faith in the same Christ.

And this seems to me very plain in Scripture. For to this day (saith the Apostle) the Vail remains upon the Jews in the reading of the Old Testament, which Vail is done away in Christ, but we all with open Face behold as in a glass the Glory of the Lord, 2 Cor. 3. 14, 18. So one and the same Christ is in the Old Testament as well as in the New. Not so plainly; but there, though under a Vail. Now a Vail on and a Vail off, a dimmer and a clearer sight in and by the one than by the other, do in no case make the things of another Nature.

Again; We find it expresly written Gal. 3. 24. That the Law was our School-master to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by Faith. Our School-master; therefore it must needs be able to give Rules unto us, or else it can never teach us. And the Rules it gives, are very good too, or else they can never bring us unto Christ, that we may be justified by Faith; which to do, St. Paul here tells us is the End [Page 14] of the Law's Instruction. And this Instruction it could not so fully give, if this School-master were so of another Nature as that it could not give us a Rule in this.

Besides, the Type and the Antitype, the Shadow and the Substance, howsoever they may be of another Nature if you look upon their Entity, yet in their Relative Nature, as Type and Antitype, Shadow and Substance, they are of the same Nature, and have mutual de­pendence either upon other, and give Rules mutually either to other, and a Proof one of another. For a Man may take the measure of the Body by the Shadow, and of the Shadow by the Body. And so it is between the Law and the Gospel; the Sacrifices in the One, and Christ in the other. For the Law had but the Shadow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things themselves, and therefore with those Sacrifices could make nothing perfect, Heb. 10. 1. But Christ is the Body it self, Col. 2. 17. And when he came into the World, he saith, Sacrifice and burnt Offering thou wouldest not have, but a Body hast thou given me, Heb. 10. 4. How shall this appear? How? Why, by the very Rules given in the Law. For so the Prophet tells us in the Person of Christ. In the volume of the Book it is written of me, Psal. 40. 7. Nay, so says Christ himself, St. Joh. 5. 46. Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me. And to bring all home close to the present business; Christ, as God, of another Nature quite from Melchisedek, yet in Relation to the Priesthood, as Type and Antitype, not so; for Christ was Man also, and the one gave a kind of Rule to the other. For Christ was made a Priest after the order of Milchisedek, [...]: Or as Mont. reads in the Margin Secundum Morem, according to the Form, Manner or Rule of Melchisedek's Priesthood. And as Melchisedek and Christ are Type and Antitype in their Priesthood, For those Priests served but to the Example, and to the Shadow, &c. But how hath he obtained a more excellent Ministery. Heb. 8. 5, 6. so the Priest­hood of Aaron under the Law, was but a shadow of the Priesthood of Christ under the Gospel. And therefore the Priestood which is now, ought in all Privileges to exceed that under the Law, in as much as the Anti­type and the Body is of more worth than the Type and the Shadow. I say, in all Privileges which are not appropiated by God himself to the Priesthood of the Law.

2. Secondly, It may be considered too, whether this be universally true; that among things which are of another Nature, one cannot give a Rule to another. For my own part, I doubt there is not Truth in the Rule, but instead of Truth a great deal of danger. And surely, if this be generally true, that that which was before (being of ano­ther Nature) can give no Rule to this; that is, if that which was both before and under the Law concerning Priesthood can give no Rule, none at all, to the Ministery under the Gospel, then can it give no Rule in any thing else: Because the Law is as much of another Nature, in regard of other things, as of this. Nay, this very thing, the Priesthood, makes the Law to be of another Nature more than any thing else. And so the Apostle plainly, Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood being changed, made of Necessity a change also of the Law. But be this change, this other Nature what it will, if the Law can give no Rule at all in this (which again is directly con­trary [Page 15] to the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. 9, 13.) then can it no give Rule in any thing else pertaining to the Gospel. For the Reason if it be good, holds alike, 'tis of another Nature.

Nay, yet farther, if this Reason be true, universally true, (as 'tis here given) then it reaches to, and thorough the whole Law. No part of it can give any Rule to Men, or things under the Gopsel. For if no Rule to things, then none to Men, who must do or leave undone; and if so, then the Moral Law can give no Rule to Men under the Gospel, more than the Ceremonial or the Judicial Law. For the whole Law was before the Gospel, and here said, without any distinction, to be of another Nature, and so unable to give a Rule. And for ought I know this zealous Lord may be of this Opinion. For this lewd Doctrine hath been somewhat common of late among his Favourites, that Moral Honesty is an Enemy to the Grace of Christ; that Harlots and debauched Persons are nearer to the Kingdom of God, than they which labor to shew themselves Moral Men, and the like. As if they went to teach the People to live lewdly, and to do evil that good may come thereof, whose Damnation the Apostle tells us is just, Rom. 3. 8. Whereas Christ came not to take away the Law, but to fulfill it for us, Mat. 5. 17. and in some measure to enable us to keep it also. And in the Gospel, when the Scribe told our Saviour, that to love God with all the Heart, and his Neighbour as himself, (up­on which Commandments hang the whole Law, S. Mat. 22. 40.) was more than all burnt Sacrifices, our Saviour did not tell him that Harlots were nearer the Kingdom of God than he, or that this Law being of another Nature, could give him no Rule for his Life. But quite con­trary, he told him for his Comfort, and the Comfort of Obedience, that he was not far from the Kingdom of God, S. Mar. 12. 34. And though this be bad enough, and will prove a fruitful Mother of all Libertinism and Prophaness, yet there is a greater danger behind. For if the Grace of Christ under the Gospel, be a discharge of the Moral Law, and disenable it to give a Rule, as being of another Nature, what shall become of God the Law-giver himself in all kinds? For he is quite of another Nature, eminently and infinitely exceed­ing us, and whatsoever is, or can be naturally in us; yea or super­naturally either. And what now? Shall not God himself being of another Nature give us any Rule in this or any thing else. I know this Lord will say, this is not his meaning. No truly, I hope it is not. But then this Lord if he will needs be writing and printing, should so express himself, as that he may not expose his words to such unsavory Consequences as (for ought I know) may justly be gathered from them. And let me tell him in the mean time, 'tis a dangerous thing to be so busie with the Law of God; and so without distinction, as he is, lest he intrench upon the Law-giver before he be aware.

Howsoever, in this Proposition of his, that that which is before being of another Nature, can give no Rule to this, leaves him at a loss which way soever to turn himself. For since 'tis manifest by the Apostle in the places 1 Cor. 9. 9. 13, 14. Rom. 15.4. 1 Cor. 10. [...] 11. before cited, that the Law of Moses which was before, doth give a Rule to divers things under the Gospel; this Lord of the Separation is at a loss every way. For if the Law and [Page 16] that which was before be not of another Nature from this, then his Reason is false, which says it can give no Rule because 'tis of ano­ther Nature, and so he is at a loss in that. And if it be of another Nature, yet it appears by the Apostle's practice, that for all that it can give a Rule in this. For that which can give the Apostle a Rule, can give a Rule to us: And so he is at a loss in the whole Proposi­tion. For whether that which was before, be or be not of another Nature, yet it can give a Rule.

I have been long upon this Passage, because I conceive the main Controversie hangs and turns upon this hinge. And if any Reader think it long or tedious, or be of this Lord's Mind, that he need not go so high for Proof, yet let him pardon me, who in this am quite of another Judgment. And for the pardon, I shall gratifie him, by being as brief as possibly I can in all that follows. Thus then this Lord proceeds:

The Question which will lye before your Honours in passing this Bill, is not, Whether Episcopacy (I mean this Hierarchical Episco­pacy which the World now holds forth to us) shall be taken away Root and Branch; but, Whether those exuberant and superfluous Branches, which draw away the Sapp from the Tree, and divert it from the right and proper use, whereby it becomes unfruitful, shall be cut off, as they use to pluck up Suckers from the Root.

After this Lord had told us we need not go so high for the business, he comes now to state the present Question. Where he tells us what himself means by Episcopacy. Namely, Hierarchical Episcopacy, such as is properly and now commonly so called in the World. And this his Lordship adds because of that distinction made by Beza in his Tract de Triplici Episcopatu, Divino scilicet, Humano & Satanico. In which, what part Beza plays I will forbear to speak, but leave him and his Gall of bitterness to the Censure of the Learned. Sir Edw. Deering in his printed Speeches tells us, that others in milder [...]. 16. p. 122. Language keep the same sense, and say there is Episcopus, Pastor, Praeses and Princeps. So in his account Episcopus, Princeps & Satani­cus, is all one in milder terms. But the Truth is, that in the most learned and flourishing Ages of the Church, the Bishops were, and were called Principes, Chief and Prime, and Prince, if you will, in Church Affairs. For so Apices & Principes omnium. Optat. L. adv. Parm. Princeps Ecclesiae. S. Hilar. L. 8. de Trin. Prin. Greg. Nazianz. ascribit [...], Principatum, ad Re­gimen Animarum Episcopo. Orat. 17. & 20. Quid aliud est Episcopus quam is qui omni Princi­patu & Potestate superior est? in materia & gradu Re­ligionis. Ignat. Ep. ad Trall. Principes Ecclesiae fiunt, &c. Opus imperf. in S. Matth. [...]. 35. Principes futuros Ecclesiae Episcopos nominavit. S. Hier. in Esai. 6. 60. Optatus calls them the Chief, and Princes. And so likewise did divers others of the Fa­thers, even the best learned and most devout. And this Title is given to Diocesan or Hierarchical Bishops, which doubtless these Fathers would neither have given nor taken, had Episcopus, Princeps and Satanicus been all one. Nor would Qued autem singulae Provinciae unum habebant in­ter [...] Archiepiscopum, quod item in Nicena Synodo constituti sunt Patriarchae, qui essent Ordine. & Dignitate Archiepiscopis Superiores, id ad Discipli­nae conservationem pertinebat. Calv. 4 Inst. E. 4.4. Calvin have taught us, that the Primitive Church had in eve­ry Province among their Bishops one Arch-Bishop, and that in the Council of [Page 17] Nice Patriarchs were appointed which should be in order and digni­ty above Bishops, had he thought either such Bishops or Arch-Bishops to have been Satanical: And had Beza lived in those times, he would have been taught another Lesson. And the Truth is, Beza, when he wrote that Tract, had in that Argument either little Learning or no Honesty. But for this Lord, whether he means by Hierarchical Episcopacy, the same which Beza, I will not determine. He uses a Proper word and a Civil, and I will not purpose to force him into a worse meaning than he hath, or make him a worse Enemy to the Church (if worse he may be) than he is already. Though I cannot but doubt he is bathed in the same Tub.

Having told us what he means by Episcopacy, he states the business thus: That the Question is not whether this Hierarchical Episcopacy shall be taken away Root and Branch. So then I hope this Lord will leave a Hierarchy (such as it shall be) in the Church. We shall not have it all laid level. We shall not have that Curse of Root and Branch ( Job. 18, 16. for less it is not) laid upon us: Or at least not yet. But what shall follow in time, when this Bill hath us'd its edge, I know not. Well, if not Root and Branch taken away, what then? What? why, 'tis but whether those exuberant and superfluous Branches, which draw away the Sapp from the Tree, and divert it from the right and proper use, whereby it becomes unfruitful, shall be cut off, as they use to pluck up Suckers from the Root. This Lord seems to be a good Husbandman, but what he will prove in the Orchard or Garden of the Lord, I know not: For most true it is, that Suckers are to be plucked from the Root; and as true, that in the prime and great Vine, there are some Branches which bear no fruit, and our Saviour himself tells us, that they which are such, are to be taken a­way, St. Joh. 15. 2. And therefore I can easily believe it that in Episcopacy, which is a far lower Vine, under and in the Service of Christ, and especially in the husbanding of it, there may be some such Branches as this Lord speaks of, which draw away Sapp and divert it, and make the Vine less fruitful; and no doubt but such Branches are to be cut off. So far I agree, and God forbid but I should. But then there are divers other Questions to be made and answered before this sharp Lord fall to cutting. As first, What Branches they be which are Exuberant and Superfluous (as this Lord is pleased to call them) What time is fittest to cut them off? Whe­ther they be not such as with Pruning may be made fruitful? If not, then how near to the Body they are to be cut off? Whether this Lord may not be mistaken in the Branches which he thinks divert the Sapp? Whether a Company of Lay-Men without any Order or Ordinance from Christ, without any Example from the days of Christ, may, without the Church, take upon them to prune and order this Vine? For, whatever this Lord thinks in the over abundance of his own Sense, the Lord hath appointed Husbandmen to order and prune this Vine, and all the Branches of it, in his Church, without his Usurpation of their Office: And while he uses a Bill (which is too boisterous a Weapon for a Vine) instead of a Pruning-hook, the Church it self which is the Vine, which bears Episcopacy, may bleed to death in this Kingdom, before Men be aware of it. And [Page 18] I am in great fear, if things go on as they are projected, that Reli­gion is upon taking its leave of this Kingdom. But this Lord hath not quite done stating the Question, for he tells us next, That,

The Question will be no more but this, Whether Bishops shall be re­duced to what they were in their first advancement over the Pres­byters (which although it were but a Humane device for the Remedy of Schism, yet were they in those times least offensive) or continue still with the addition of such things as their own Ambition, and the Ignorance and Superstition of succeeding times did add thereunto, and which are now continued for several Political Ends; things Heterogeneal and Inconsistent with their Calling and Function as they are Ministers of the Gospel, and thereupon such as ever have been, and ever will be hurtful to themselves, and make them hurtful to others in the times and places where they are continued.

Here my Lord states the Question again. He did it before under the Metaphor of a Tree and the Branches. Here, that Men of narrow Comprehensions may not mistake him, he lays it down in plain Terms, and tells us, the Question is no more but this, Whether Bishops shall be reduced to what they were in their first advancement over the Presbyters? And you may be sure they shall be reduc'd if they once fall into the Hands of this Zealous Lord. Reduc'd out of doubt every way, if he may have his will, saving to that which they were in the Original, which his Lordship calls their first advancement over the Presbyters. For my own part, if it be thought fit to reduce the Christian Church to her first Beginnings, give us the same power, and use us with the same Reverence for our Works sake, as then our Predecessours were used, and reduce us in God's name when you will. But this Lord's Zeal burns quite another way. He tells us indeed, that the Question is no more, but whether Bishops shall be re­duced to what they were in their first Advancement over the Pres­byters; but he means nothing less than their reducement thither: and this is manifest out of his own next Words. For there he says, their first advancement was but a Humane Device for avoiding of Schism. But a Humane Device? Why first, our Saviour himself chose twelve Apostles out of the whole number of his Disciples, and made them Bishops, and advanced over the Presbyters, and all other believing Christians, and gave them the Name of Bishops as well as of Apostles; as appears, since that Name was given even to Judas also, as well as to the other Apostles, and to the other Apostles as well as to Judas, since Matthias was chosen by God himself, both into the Bishoprick and Apostleship of Judas, Acts 1. 20, 24, 25. Now that Christ himself did ordain the Apostles over the ordinary Disciples, Presbyters or others, is evident also in the very Text; for he chose them out of his S. Luke, 6. 13. [...]. Disciples, S. Luk. 6. And to what end was this chusing out, if after this choise they remained no more than they were before? Nay, he chose them out with a special Ordination to a higher Function; as appears S. Mar. 3. where 'tis said, He ordained twelve that they should be with him; that is, in a higher and nearer Relation than the rest were. Nay more than so, the Word there used by S. Mark [Page 19] is [...], he made them; he made them somewhat which before that making they were not; that is, Apostles and Bishops. Had they been such before, it could not have been said that he made them then. And our last Translation renders it very well, He Ordained them: so belike this Making was a new Ordination of them. And this appears farther by the choice of Matthias into the Apostleship of Judas: For Euseb. L. 1. Hist. c. 12. & L. 2. c. 1. Matthias was one of the Seventy when he was cho­sen; and then this choice needed not, if the LXX had been before of equal Place and Calling with the Apostles. For as S. Jerome speaks, S. Hieron. Ep. ad Occan. he that is preferred, is preferr'd de Minori ad Majus, from a less and a lower, to a greater and a higher Degree. Now it is Traditio Vni­versalis, the constant and universal Tradition of the whole Church of Christ, which is of greatest Autho­rity next to Scripture it self, that Apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi; apud eos (i. e. Moutani Sectatores) Episcopus tertius est. S. Hier. Ep. ad Marcel. adv. Montan. Patres missi sunt Apostoli, pro Apostolis filii nati sunt, ibi constituti sunt Episcopi. S. Aug. in Psal. 44. Sicut autem duodecim Apostolos forman Episcopo­rum praemonstrare nemo est qui dubiter, sic & hos LXXII figuram Presbyterorum, i. e. secundi Ordinis Sacerdotium egessisse sciendum est. Beda in Luc. 10. Apostoli cognoverunt contentionem de Nomine E­piscopatûs oboriturum, & ideo constituerunt praedictos, & cum consensu Universae Ecclesiae. Clem. Ep. 1. ad Corinth. p. 57. But I am prevented here by a Chaplain of mine, [...] Jer. Taylor, in his Book entituled Episcopacy Asserted; §. 10. Bi­shops are Successors of the Apostles, and Presbyters made in resemblance of the LXX Disciples. And so the Institution of Christ himself (for so by this Lord's leave I shall ever take Epi­scopacy to be) is made but a Humane Device to avoid Schism. But there hath been so much written of late to prove Episcopacy no Humane Device, that I will not trouble the Reader with any more of it here: only we are thus far beholding to this Lord, that he thinks Bishops were in those times least offensive; so belike in the Apostles times they were offensive, though less. And this makes me doubt, he thinks as much of the Apostles themselves, since they were so ambitious as to take on them Superiority over their Brethren, which this great Lord of the Separation, (for so he is) cannot endure, as being Antichristian, and therefore certainly (if he may have his Will) will reduce the Bishops farther yet, till they be of his Marring and not of Christ's Making.

The other part of the Question stated by this Lord, is, Or whether the Bishops shall continue still with the additon of such things as their own Ambition, and the Ignorance and Superstition of succeeding times, did add unto them. I would my Lord had been pleased to tell us what those things are, which he says are thus added unto them. I should much the better have seen what his Lordship aims at, and been able to come up the closer to him. Now I must be forced to answer him in general. That there are many things of Honour and Profit, which Emperours and great Kings have conferred upon Bishops to the better Settlement of their Calling, and the great advancement of Christianity; and for which Bishops in all times and places, in which they have lived, have been both thankful and very serviceable. And I could give many instances in this Kingdom of such Services done by them, as this Lord and all his Posterity will never equal. But what things their own Ambition or the Ignorance and Superstition of succeeding times have added to them, I may know when this busie Lord is at leisure to tell me. In the mean time I doubt the [Page 20] Piety and Devotion of these times is here miscalled Ignorance and Superstition, while the Knowledge of these times, in too many, is a running headlong into Sacrilege, as the best way to cure Superstition.

But these things, what ever they be, his Lordship tells us, are now continued for several politick Ends. Yea, and with his Lordship's favour, for several and great Religious Ends too. But if they were con­tinued for Politick Ends only, so the Policyes be good and befitting Christians, I know no Reason why they may not be continued. For, as for that which is here given by this Lord, 'tis either weak or false. He says these things are Heterogeneal to their Function, that's weak. For, 'tis not possible for any Priest, that is not Cloistered, to live so in the World, as to meddle with nothing that is Heterogeneal to their Function. And he says farther, that these things are inconsistent with their Function; and that's false. For if these things were simply inconsistent with Priesthood, God himself would never have made Ely both Priest and Judge in Israel: Nor should Bertram de Polit. Jud. c. 6. Six of each Tribe have been of the Sanhedrim, and so by Consequence Six of the Tribe of Levi; and so the High Priest might be always one, and a chief in that great Court, which had Cognizance of all things in that Government: And their Functions, as they are Ministers of the Gospel, is no more inconsistent with these things than the Levitical Preisthood was. For beside their Sacrificing, they were to read and expound the Law, as well as we the Gospel. For so it is expresly set down, Deut. 33. 10. They (that is, the Tribe of Levi,) shall teach Jacob thy Judgments, and Israel thy Laws. So that medling with Temporal Affairs was as great a Distraction to them from their Calling, as from ours; and as inconsistent with it, and so as hurtful to their Consciences and their Credits. And would God put all this upon them, which this Lord thinks so unlawful for us, if it were so indeed? But this Lord goes yet farther, and tells us, that these things are such as have ever been, and will ever be hurtful to themselves, and make them hurtful to others in the times and places where they are continued. Good God! what fools we poor Bishops are, as were also our Predecessours for many hundred years together, that neither they nor we could see and discern, what was and is hurtful to our selves, nor what then did, or yet doth make us hurtful to others, in times and places where they are continued to us? And surely, if my Lord means by this our medling in Civil Affairs, when our Prince calls us to it (as I believe he doth) I doubt his Lordship is much deceived. For certainly, if herein the Bishops do their Duties, as very many of them in several Kingdoms have plentifully done, they cannot hurt themselves by it; and to others, and the very Publick it self, it hath occasioned much good both in Church and State. But now my Lord will not only tell us what these things are, but he will prove it also that they are hurtful to us.

And these things alone ( says my Lord) this Bill takes away; that is, their Offices and Places in Courts of Judicature, and their Employ­ment by Obligation of Office in Civil Affairs. I shall insist upon this to shew, First, how these things hurt themselves, and Secondly, how they have made and ever will make them hurtful to others.

[Page 21] These things then you see which are so hurtful and dangerous to Bishops themselves, and make them as hurtful to others, are their Offices, and Places in Courts of Judicature, and their Employment by Obligation of Office in Civil Affairs. Where, First, for Offices; I know no Bishop since the Reformation that hath been troubled with any, but only Dr. Juxon, when Bishop of London, was Lord High Treasurer of England, for about Five Years. And he was made when the King's Affairs were in a great strait; and, to my knowledge, he car­ried so, that if he might have been left to himself, the King might have been preserved from most of those Difficulties, into which he after fell for want of Money. As all Kings shall be hazarded, more or less, in some time or other of their Reign, and much the more if their Purses be empty, and they forced to seek Aid from their Subjects. And this, as 'tis every where true, yet 'tis most true in England.

As for Places in Courts of Judicature, the Bishops of England have ever sat all of them in Parliament, the highest Court, ever since Par­liaments were in England. And whatsoever is now thought of them, they have in their several Generations done great Services there: And, as I conceive, it is not only fit but necessary they should have Votes in that great Court; howsoever the late Act hath shut them out; and that Act must in time be repealed, or it shall undoubtedly be worse for this Kingdom than yet it is. The Bishops sat in no other Courts, but the Star Chamber, and the High Commission. And of these the High Commission was most proper for them to sit, and see Sin pu­nish'd: For no Causes were handled there but Ecclesiastical, and those such as were very heinous, either for the Crime it self, or the Per­sons which committed it, being too great or too wilful to be ruled by the inferiour Jurisdictions. As for the Star Chamber, there were or­dinarily but two Bishops present, and it was fit some should be there: For that Court was a mix'd Court of Law, Equity, Honour and Con­science, and was compos'd of Persons accordingly from the very Original of that Court. For there were to be there two Judges to take care of the Laws, and two Bishops to look to the Conscience, and the rest Men of great Offices or Birth, or both, to preserve the Honour, and all of them together to maintain the Equity of the Court. So here were but two Bishops employ'd, and those only twice a Week in Term time. As for the Council Table that was never accounted a Court, yet as Matters Civil were heard and often ended there, so were some Ecclesiastical too. But the Bishops were little honoured with this Trouble since the Reformation: For many times no Bishop was of the Council-Table, and usually not above two. Once in King James's time I knew Three, and once Four, and that was was the highest, and but for a short time. And certainly the fewer the better, if this Lord can prove (that which he says he will in­sist upon) that those things are hurtful to themselves, and make them hurtful to others. And to do this he proceeds;

They themselves art hurt thereby in their Conscience and in their Credits. In their Conscience, by seeking and admitting things which [Page 22] are inconsistent with that Function and Office which God hath set them apart unto.

His Lordship begins with this, That the Bishops are hereby hurt both in their Consciences and their Credits. Two great hurts indeed, if by these things they be wounded in their Consciences towards God, and in their Credits before Men. But I am willing to hope these are not real but imaginary hurts, and that this Lord shall not be able to prove it otherwise: Yet I see he is resolved to labour it as much as he can. And first, he would prove that these things, and not the ambitious seeking of them only, but the very admitting of them, though offer'd, or in a manner laid upon some of them by the Supream Power, are hurtful to their Consciences, because they are inconsistent with the Function to which God hath set them apart. But I have proved al­ready, that they are not inconsistent with that Function, and so there's an end of this Argument. For Bishops, without neglect of their Calling, may spend those few Hours required of them, in giving their assistance in and to the forenamed Civil Affairs. And 'tis well known that S. Augustin did both in great Perfection, so high up in the Primitive Church, and in that Great and Learned Age: For he S. Aug. Ep. 110. complains that he had nor Fore-noon, nor After-noon free, he was so held to it, Occupationibus Hominum, by the Businesses which Men brought to him; and he desires that he may ease himself in part upon him that was at his desire designed his Successor; to which the Peo­ple expressed their great liking, by their Acclamation. And these Businesses he dispatch'd with that great Dexterity to most Mens content, Et [...] quidam causas suas saeculares apud nos finire [...], &c. S. Aug. Epist. 147. & Amb. L. 5. Epist. 33. that Men did not only bring their Secular Causes before him, but were very desi­rous to have him determine them. Non [...] quaetere ab eo poteram quod volebam ficut volebam, secludentibus me ab ejus Aure & Ore Catervis Negotiorum hominum, quorum infirmitatibus serviebat. S. Aug. L. 6. Confess. c. 3. Similiter Zozomen. refert de Epiphanio, L. 6. Hist. c. 3. Et de Jacobo quodam, Theod. L. 2. Hist. c. 30. Et de Chrysostomo, Socrat. L. 7. Hist. c. 8. Et Constantinus communicabat cum Episcopis Con­silia de Expeditione sua contra Persas. Euseb. L. 1. de Vita Constant. c. 35. And S. Ambrose was in greater Employment for Secular Affairs than S. Augustin was, for he was Bishop and Governour of Milan both at once; and was so full of this Employment, that S. Augustin, being then upon the Point of his Con­version, complains he could not find him at so much leisure as he would. And this, besides many Bishops and Clergy-Men of great Note, who have been employ'd in great Embassics, and great Offices under Emperors and Kings, and discharged them with great Fidelity and Advantage to the Publick, and without detriment to the Church. And surely they would never have taken this Burthen upon them, had their Conscience been hurt by it, or had it been inconsistent with their Function, or absolutely against the ancient Canons of the Church, of which they were so conscientious and strict Observers. My Lord goes on to another Argument and tells us;

They are separated unto a special Work, and Men must take heed how they mis-employ things dedicated, and set apart to the Service of [Page 23] God. They are called to Preach the Gospel, and set apart to the Work of the Ministery; and the Apostle saith, Who is sufficient for these things? Shewing that this requireth the Whole Man: and all is too little. Therefore for them to seek or take other Offices, which shall require and tie them to employ their Time and Studies in the Affairs of this World, will draw a Guilt upon them, as being inconsistent with that which God doth call them, and set them apart unto.

This is my Lord's next Argument: And truly I like the begin­ning of it very well, and I pray God this Lord may be mindful of it when time may serve. For surely Men ought to take heed how they mis-employ Things dedicated and set apart to the Service of God. And therefore, as Ministers must not mis-employ their Per­sons or their Times, which are dedicated to God and his Service; no more must Lay-Men take away and mis-employ the Church Re­venues devoutly given, dedicated and set apart to maintain and hold up the Service of God, and to refresh Christ in his poor Mem­bers upon Earth. And if ever a Scambling time come for the Church-Lands (as these Times hereafter must) I hope his Lordship will re­member this Argument of his, and help to hold back the Violence from committing more Sacrilege, whereas too much lies heavy on the Kingdom already.

The rest of the Argument will abide some Examination. First then, most true it is, that Bishops are called to Preach the Gospel, and set apart to that Work; but whether they be so set apart, as that what Necessity soever requires it, they may do nothing else but Study and Preach, is no great Question. For certainly, they may in Times of Persecution labour many ways for their Perservation, and in Times of Want for their Sustenance, and at all Times (if they be cal­led to it) give their best Counsel and Advice for the publick Safety of the State as well as their own.

Nor doth that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 2. 16. Who is sufficient for these things? hinder this at all. For though this great Calling and Charge requires the whole Man, though all that the ablest Man can do in it, be too little (all things simply and exactly consider'd) yet he that saith here, None are sufficient for these things, (for so much the Question implieth) saith also in the very next Chapter, that God hath made him and others able Ministers of the New Testament, 2 Cor. 3. 6. and if able, then doubtless sufficient. And the Greek word is the same, [...], sufficient in the one place, and [...], made us sufficient in the other: Besides, it may be the sense of the Places will bear it; that no Man is sufficient for the Dignity of the Office, which brings with it the savour of Life or Death to all Men, and yet that many Men are made sufficient by God's Grace to per­form this Office; that is, to bring both the one and the other. But howsoever, be the Office as high as it is, and be the Men never so sufficient, yet the Function is such as cannot be daily performed by the Priest for the Preaching part, nor attended by the People for their other necessary Employments of Life, which made the Wisdom of God himself command a Sabbath under the Law, and the Church [Page 24] to settle the Lord's-Day, and other Holy-days under the Gospel, for the Publick Service and Worship of God, and the Instruction of the People. I say, in regard of this, a Bishop or a Priest who shall be judged fit for that Publick Service, may give Counsel in any Civil Af­fairs, and take upon him (if not seek) any Office temporal, that may help and assist him in his Calling, and give him Credit and Counte­nance to do the more good among his People, but not to the deser­tion of his Spiritual Work. And this Lord is much deceived if he thinks all Offices do require and tie them to employ their Time and Studies in the Affairs of this World. If they be such Offices as do, I grant with him, that to take them (unless it be upon some urgent Necessity) may draw a Guilt upon them: But if they be such as Clergy-Men may easily execute in their empty Hours, without any great hindrance to their Calling, and perhaps with great Advantage to it, then, out of doubt, it can draw no Guilt upon them which take them. And this Lord in this Passage is very cunning: For, instead of speaking of Bishops having any thing to do in Civil Affairs, he speaks of nothing but taking of Offices. Now a Clergy-Man may many ways have to do in Temporal Affairs, without taking any set Office upon him, which shall not tie up his Time or his Studies to the Affairs of this World, as it seems this Lord would persuade the the World all do.

Now that a Bishop or other Clergy-Man may lawfully meddle with some Temporal Affairs (always provided that he [...], implicatur. entangle not him­self with them; for that indeed no Man doth that Wars for Christ as he ought, 2 Tim. 2. 4.) is, I think, very evident, not only by that which the Priests did, and might do under the Law; but also by that which was done after Christ, in the Apostle's time, and by some of them. To Study and Practise Physick is as much inconsistent with the Function of a Minister of the Gospel, as to Sit, Consult, and give Counsel in Civil Affairs: But St. Luke, though an Evangelist, continued his Profession, as appears Colos. 4. 14. where St. Paul says thus, Luke the beloved Physician greets you; where St. Paul would never have called him a Physician had he left off that Calling to at­tend the Gospel only. And S. Paul himself, when he might have lived on the Gospel by the Lord's own Ordinance, 1 Cor. 9. would never have betaken himself to live by making of Tents, Acts 18. only for a Convenience (as I conceive) that he might work the more upon the People while he charged them not, if in so doing he had found it a hindrance to his Preaching the Gospel: And this Lord and others, who would not have Ministers meddle with Civil Af­fairs, are content, not only to the Disgrace of the Ministery, but even of Religion it self, to hear Felt-makers, and Iron-mongers, and Gardiners, and Brewers, Clerks, and Coachmen preach God knows what Stuff, and countenance them in this Sacrilegious Presumption. Nay, and are never troubled that these Men have all their time taken up in the Affairs of the World, but rather say their Gifts are the greater, that they are able to do both. Out of doubt they hope that their Coachmen-Preachers shall hurry them to Heaven in some Fiery Chariot; and I my self in time might be brought to believe it too, did I not [Page 25] see Phaeton setting the Christian World on fire, but no Elias there. Nor yet will S. Paul's Example any whit advantage them: For he was no ignorant Tradesman, but a learned Pharisee brought up under Gamaliel, Acts 22. And it was the Custom of their Doctors (as it is at this Day in Turkey, and many other places in the East.) to breed up their Scholars to a Trade as well as to the Knowledge of their Law; both that they might know the better how to spend their empty Hours honestly, and be able to get their Living should Neces­sity overtake them. Now let these bold Men shew under what Ga­maliel they were bred, and how they profited under him; or that they have S. Paul's Revelation as well as his Trade, and then I'll say more to them. But this Lord is very full in this Theam, and falls upon another Argument.

In this respect ( saith he) our Saviour hath expresly prohibited it, telling his Apostles that they should not Lord it over their Brethren, nor Exercise Jurisdiction over them, as was used in Civil Govern­ments among the Heathen. They were called Gracious Lords, and exercised Jurisdiction, as Lords, over others; and sure they might lawfully do so. But to the Ministers of the Gospel our Saviour gives this Rule, It shall not be so done to you; if you strive for Great­ness, he shall be Greatest that is the greatest Servant to the rest. Therefore in another place he saith, He that putteth his hand to the Plough, and looketh back to the things of this World, is not fit for the Kingdom of God; that is, the Preaching of the Gospel, as it is usually called.

This Argument will be somewhat indeed, if it proves such as this Lord says it is. For he says that our Saviour hath expresly prohi­bited it: and if it be so, there's an end of the Controversie. No Question but it is utterly unlawful if our Saviour prohibited it. But where is it that he hath done so? Where? Why 'tis where he tells his Apostles, that they should not Lord it over their Brethren. Not Lord it over their Brethren? that's true: Nor exercise Jurisdiction over them? that's false, if the Proposition be general; for then there can be no Order, no Government among Church-Men. And if it be particular, no such Jurisdiction as was used in Civil Government among the [...], then 'tis fit to weigh this place through and throughout. Well then! the Mother of Zebedee's Children desired of Christ for her two Sons, that the one might sit at his right hand, and the other at his left hand in his Kingdom, S. Matth. 20. 21. Where first it appears plainly, that this was not only a piece of Feminine Ambition, for her Sons made the suit as well as she; so S. Mark 10. 35. tells us; and they came with her when she made it. So St. Matth. 20. 20. And little doubt need be made but that they set their Mother on to move it, as may appear partly by our Saviour, who says nothing to the Mother, but first puts a Question to the Sons, which they answer, and then gives his Answer to them, Ver. 22, 23. which (I conceive) he would not have done, had not they been in the Business: And partly, because the other Ten Or were [...] with [...]. [...]; disdained at the two Brethren for this, Ver. 24. Secondly, if it were here meant by [Page 26] them, to sit at his right hand and at his left in his Kingdom in Heaven, as may be thought not altogether improbable by the Question Christ puts to them about his Baptism and his Cup, both preparatory to that Kingdom. And if it be so (and so some think it is) then this Text is applied by this Lord to no purpose, if it meddles nothing with Temporal Offices and Employments, but relates to the King­dom of Heaven. But if they meant by this sitting at his right Hand and at his left, the honourable Places about him in his Earthly Kingdom, which the Apostles sometimes fancied he should here have, as some think, because of the other part of Christ's Answer, that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, but it shall not be so amongst you, ver. 25, 26. Then the Answer is clear, that Christ did not here forbid them the taking of such Places upon them simply, but he forbids either an absolute independent Power; for so [...] signifies, which takes not away Superiority over others, so they be subject to the Prince and State. Or else the using of such Places after the Lordly and Tyrannous Manner of some Heathens. And the Geneva Divines in their Notes upon the Bible tell us, That the meaning of Christ's Answer to them in these words, to sit at my right hand at my left is not mine to give, ver. 23. is, that God the Fa­ther Annot. in St. Matth. 20. 23. had not given him Charge to bestow Offices of Honour here, but to be an Example of Humility to all. So Christ came not then to give such Places; but here's no Prohibition for the Apostles to take them at their Hands who would give them for the good of the Church. And howsoever, if this place must be understood of Tem­poral Honours and Employments, then it follows, that though these two Apostles had not those Seats, some other of them should. For Christ says plainly, That the sitting at his right Hand and at his left shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by his Father. So then it shall be given to some, and doubtless to some of the Apostles: Strangers should not be preferred before them. And 'tis all one to our present Business, which of the Apostles sat there, so some did, or were to do; and rather than yield this, his Lordship perhaps were better grant, that this is to be understood of another Kingdom, and that this Text meddles with no Temporal either Offices or Employ­ments, but that by occasion of this our Saviour preaches Humility to them, yet so as still to keep up Authority and Government in the Church, to which he applies it.

And for that other parallel Place, be ye not called Rabbi, S. Matth. 23. 8. that cannot prejudice all Juridiction in Men in Holy Orders; as if to meddle with it were forbidden by Christ, or, as if it were Antichristian, as now 'tis made; since it is plain that Christ there for­bids neither the Title, nor the Preheminence, nor the Authority, but the Vain-glorious Affectation of it, ver. 5, 6. and that's a Sin indeed, no Man doubts. And it may be observed too, if this Lord pleases, that this Precept was given to the People too, as well as to the Disciples, ver, 1. and then, for ought I know, this Truth will come in as strongly to pull down Temporal Lords, as Bishops; and what will his Lordship say to that?

As for that which is added by this Lord, If ye strive for Greatness, he shall be greatest who is the greatest Servant to the rest: Though the [Page 27] words differ somewhat from the Text, yet my Lord must be content to hear, that there is a twofold Greatness; the one in God's account, and that's Greatness indeed: And so our Saviour means it here, that he is Greatest who is the greatest Servant to the rest, (if this Lord will needs read it so:) The other is in Man's account, when one Man hath Power and Superiority over another; and which was that which the Apostles affected. In which case, though our Saviour's Precept be, Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your Servant; that is, the more serviceable to you and the Church, the greater he is; yet these words ( it shall not be so with you) do not deny this Authority or Greatness which one may have over another in the Church of Christ for the necessary Government thereof, though they neither do nor may Domineer over their Brethren. And therefore where St. Mat­thew St. Matth. 20. 26, 27. reads it, he that will be, [...], great, and, [...], first among you; there St. Luke hath it, [...], greater, and, And St. Paul uses it for a Bi­shop or Governor, Heb. 13. 1. [...], Chief or Lea­der. St. Luke 22.26. Nor doth he say so as St. Matthew does, he that would be so, but, he that is, which argues clearly, that even in our Saviour's own account and Institution too, there was then, and should be after his Ascension greater and less, such as were to lead, and such as were to be led. No Parity, and yet no barbarous Lording; but orderly and Christian Governing in the Church. And this must needs be so, or else Christ lest his Church in a worse Condition, than this Lord ac­knowledges the Civil Governments were among the Heathen, which he says might lawfully govern so. For I hope he will not say that even the Heathen might tyrannize.

If this be not sufficient, this Lord puts us in mind that our Sa­viour says in another place, That he which lays his hand to the Plough, and looks back to the things of this World, is not sit for the King­dom of God; that is, the Preaching of the Gospel, as 'tis usually called, St. Luke 9. ult. Where, first, it may be doubted whether this laying of the hand to the Plough belong to the Ministers of the Gospel only, or to others also. For if it belongs to others as well as to them (though perhaps not so much) then no Christian, though he be not a Minister, may have to do with Worldly Affairs; and then we shall have a devout wise World quickly. Secondly, it may be doubted too whether this looking back be any kind of meddling at all with worldly Affairs, or such a meddling as shall so entangle the Husbandman that his Plough stands still, or so bewitches him, that he forsakes his Plough, that is, his Calling altogether. If it be no meddling at all, no Man can live; if it be no meddling, but that which entangles, then any Minister may meddle with Worldly Af­fairs, so far and so long as he entangles not himself with them: And so far as to entangle himself, no Christian may meddle, that will live Godly in Christ Jesus.

If this be not sufficient, this Lord will prove it e'er he hath done, for he goes on.

To be thus withdrawn, by entangling themselves with the Affairs of this Life, by the Necessity and Duty of an Office receiv'd from Men, from the Discharge of that Office which God hath called them to, brings a Woe upon them. Woe unto me (saith the Apostle) if I [Page 28] Preach not the Gospel. What doth he mean? If I Preach not once a Quarter, or once a Year in the King's Chapel? No. He himself interprets it, preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season; rebuke, exhort or instruct with all long-Suffering and Do­ctrine. He that hath an Office must attend on his Office, especially this of the Ministery.

I see my Lord will not mend his Terms, though they marr the Sense, and mislay the Question. For no Man says that which this Lord so often repeats; namely, that a Bishop or any other Clergy-Man may entangle himself with the Affairs of this Life (which yet may be with Covetousness and Voluptuous Living, as much or more than with being called to Council in Civil Affairs) by any Office re­ceived from Man, from the discharge of that Office, which God hath called them unto. No! God forbid! this would bring a Woe upon them indeed. But since no Man says it, this Lord fights here with his own Shadow. For all that is said is this, that a Bishop being grown old and full of Experience, if the King, or the State in which he lives, thinks him for his Wisdom, Experience and Fidelity fit to be employed in Civil Councils or Affairs, be it with an Office or without, the Bishop may lawfully undertake this, so he be able to discharge it without deserting the Office which God and his Church have laid upon him. But if he takes it, and be not able to discharge both; or being able, doth loiter and not discharge them; either of these is Vitium Hominis, the fault of the Person, but the thing is lawful.

As for the place of Scripture which his Lordship adds, I doubt his Lordship understands it not as the Apostle means it; for 'tis a Text very much abused by ignorant Zeal. For when he saith, Woe unto me if I preach not the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9. 16. what doth he mean? if he Preach not once a Quarter? No sure, that's too seldom. What then? if he Preach not once a Year in the King's Chapel? No sure, much less. For in those days there was no King in Corinth, nor any where else, that was Christian, to have a Chapel to Preach in. So this Lord might have let this Scorn alone, had it so pleased him. No; nor is it if a Man Prate not three or four times a Week in one of his Lordship's Independent Congregations, and then call it Preach­ing: The Apostle knew no such Schismatical Conventicles. No sure, None of this. Why but what is this Preaching then, the neglect where­of draws this Woe after it? This he tells you St. Paul interprets him­self, 2 Tim. 4. 2. 'tis to Preach the Word. 'Tis indeed, and neither Schism nor Sedition, which are the common Themes of these Times. 'Tis to be instant in Preaching the Word, as God gives Ability and Opportunity; 'tis to be instant in season and out of season; that is, to take God's Opportunity rather than our own, and not Preach out of season only, as some of this Lord's great Favourites use to do; 'tis to rebuke, exhort and instruct with Knowledge and Gravity, and not spend Hours in idle and empty Discourses. And all this is to be done with all long-Suffering and Doctrine; and let the Clergy but study hard, and provide that their Doctrine be sound and good, and I will pass my word this Lord and his Friends shall take order [Page 29] they shall do it with all the long Suffering that may be; and if they do not suffer enough, or not long enough, it shall not be his Fault, so dearly doth he love that they should Preach the Word.

Nay, I must go farther yet. To preach the Word in this manner, is not only to go up into the Pulpit, and thence deliver wholsom and pious Instructions, and necessary and Christian Reproof, though this be, as the commendable, so the ordinary way of publick Preaching, that most at once may hear. For he may be said to Preach the Gospel, that any ways declares Christ [...], and informs the Un­derstandings and Consciences of Men, for right Belief and true Obedience, be it privately or publickly; be it by word of Mouth or by Writing: and a Man may be seasonably instant this way sometimes, when in the publick way of Preaching he cannot. And if this be not so, how is it said of the Apostles, Acts 5. 42. that in the Temple and in every House, they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus Christ, Acts. 20. 20. I have taught you publickly, and from House to House. And I believe some Bishops, whom this Lord in this passage is pleased to jeer at, have preached more and to more purpose, than any of his Lordship's Divinity-darlings. That which follows is true, that he which hath an Office, must wait upon his Office, Rom. 12. 7. and especially this of the Ministery; of which Office there the Apostle principally treats. But this again no Man denies. And yet by his Lordship's good leave, no Man is bound to starve by waiting upon his Office. He must wait upon it, that's true; but he must provide necessarys too, that he may be able to wait. Next this Lord tells us,

The Practice of the Apostles is answerable to the Direction and Doctrine of our Saviour. There never was, nor will be, Men of so great Abilities and Gifts as they were endued withal, yet they thought it so inconsistent with their Calling, to take Places of Judi­cature in Civil Matters, and Secular Affairs and Employments upon them, that they would not admit of the Care and Distraction that a business far more agreable to their Callings than these would cast upon them, and they give the Reason of it in the Sixth of the Acts, v. 2. It is not Reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve Tables.

There is no doubt but that the Practice of the Apostles was answer­able to the Direction and Doctrine of our Saviour. And as certain­ly true it is, that there never were, nor ever will be, Men of so great Abilities and Gifts, in Supernatural and Heavenly things especial­ly, as they were endued withal. But how will this Lord prove, that they thought it a thing absolutely inconsistent with their Cal­lings to meddle with Temporal or Civil Affairs. No one of them hath in any place of Scripture expressed so much. Against entan­gling themselves with the World and the Affairs of it, I confess they have, but no more. Yet this Lord proves it thus: They would not admit of the Care and Distraction, that a business far more agreeable to their Calling than these would cast upon them. His Lordship means the Deacon's Office: And therefore surely they would not take these. But this Argument by his Lordship's leave is inconsequent: [Page 30] For if any Offices or Employments, how agreeable soever to their Calling, bring with them such Care and Distraction as shall in a man­ner quite take them off from Preaching the Gospel, the Apostles did not, and their Successours may not trouble themselves with them: When as yet the Apostles might, and their Successours may take on them other Employments, though in their Nature less agreeable to their Calling, if they be less distractive from it. Now the Deacon's Office (as it was then) brought more trouble upon them for the Poor and the Widows, than any Places of Judicature or Council do upon Clergy-men now. Which may appear by the very Reason they have given, and here remembred, that it was no Reason they should leave the Word of God and serve Tables. For there it is not said, that they might not at all meddle with the ordering of those Tables, but that it was not fit they should so meddle with them as [...] — leaving the word of God to attend them. And this to do no Man says is lawful now. But his Lordship presses this Argument yet farther.

And again, when they had appointed them to choose Men fit for that business, they institute an Office rather for taking Care of the Poor, than they by it would be distracted from the principal Work of their Calling, and then shew how they ought to apply themselves: But we (say they) will give ourselves continually unto Prayer, and to the Ministery of the Word. Did the Apostles, Men of extraordi­nary Gifis, think it unreasonable for them to be hinder'd from giving themselves continually to preaching the Word and Prayer, by taking care for the Tables of Poor Widows; and can Bishops now think it reasonable or lawful for them to contend for sitting at Council Tables, to govern States, to turn States-men instead of Churchmen, to sit in the highest Courts of Judicature, and to be employed in making Laws for Civil Polities and Government?

It is true indeed that the Apostles appointed the Disciples to choose Men fit for that business, and that they did institute the Office of Deacons to take care of the Poor, rather than they would be di­stracted from the principal Work of their Calling. But when was this done? When? Why not till the Disciples were multiplied; not till there arose Contentions between the Greeks and the Hebrews, that that their Widows were neglected in the daily Ministration, Acts 6. 1. Therefore till the Work grew so heavy, and the Contentions so warm, the Apostles themselves did order those Tables, and attend them too. Therefore the Work was not unlawful in its self for them, for then it had been Sin in them to do it at all at any time. For that which is simply evil in, and of it self, is ever so; therefore the most that can be made of this Example is, that it was lawful, very lawful and and charitable too, for the Apostles to take care of those Tables them­selves; and they did it. For all the Provision for the Poor was brought and laid at the Apostles feet, Acts 4. 35. which doubtless would never have been done, had it been unlawful for the Apostles to order and to distribute it. But when they found the encreasing Burthen too heavy for both the one Work and the other, then, [Page 31] though both were lawful, yet it was more expedient to leave the Tables than the Word of God, with which the World was then as little acquainted, as now 'tis full of; (and I pray God it be not full to a dangerous Surfeit.) Now this, as I conceive in Humility, states the Bishops Business: For to me it seems out of Question, that it is most lawful for Bishops to be conversant in all the Courts, Councils, and Places of Judicature, to which they have been called since the Reformation in the Church and State of England, till they find themselves, or be found unable to discharge the one Duty and the other. And then indeed I grant no serving of Tables, no nor Council Tables is to be preferred. But then you must not mea­sure Preaching only by a formal going up into the Pulpit: For a Bishop (and such Occasions are often offer'd) may Preach the Go­spel more publickly, and to far greater Edisication in a Court of Ju­dicature, or at a Council Table, where great Men are met together to draw things to an Issue, than many Preachers in their several Charges can; and therefore to far more Advancement of the Gospel, than any one of his Lordship's Sect at a Tables end in his Lordship's Parlour, or in a Pulpit in his Independent Congregation, wheresoever it be. And when he hath said all that he can, or any Man else, this shall be found true, that there is not the like Necessity of Preaching the Gospel lying upon every Man in Holy Orders, now Christianity is spread and hath taken Root, as lay upon the Apostles and Aposto­lical Men, when Christ and his Religion were Strangers to the whole World. And yet I speak not this to cast a Damp or Chilness upon any Man's Zeal or Diligence in that Work: No, God forbid! For, though I conceive there is not the same Necessity, yet a great Neces­sity there is still, and ever will be, to hold [...] both the Verity and Devotion which attend Religion; and — Non [...] est Virtus, quam quaerere, parta tueri. So there may be as great Vertue in the Action, though perhaps not equal Necessity of it.

Besides, Deacons were not Lay Men, but Men in Holy Orders, though inferiour to the Apostles; as appears by Stephen's under­taking Acts [...]. [...]. Acts 8. 5. [...]. Acts 6. 6. the Libertines and Cyrenians in the Cause of Christ; and Philip's Preaching of Christ in Samaria, and Baptizing. And if they were of the Seventy (as Epiphanius thinks they were, Haer.) then they were Presbyters before they had this Temporary Office (if such it were) put upon them. Therefore, if to meddle with these things were simply unlawful in themselves, or for Men in Holy Orders: Or, if all meddling with them were such a Distraction, as must needs make them leave the Preaching of the Gospel, then these Seventy might not discharge the Office to which they were chosen; and if this be so, then this Lord must needs infer that the Apo­stles, and all which chose them, did sin in Instituting such Men to take care of the Tables, and to distract them from Preaching of the Word; which they thought unfit for themselves to do. And yet, I hope, my Lord will not say this in his privatest Conventicle. Nay, yet more; though this Care was delivered over to the Deacons in ordinary, yet Calvin tells us plainly, that in things of moment they Calvin in Acts 21. could do nothing — Nec quicquam — without the Authority of the Presbyters. So they meddled still.

[Page 32] Next this Lord shews, since the Apostles did not think fit to distract themselves with Business about these Tables, how they ought to ap­ply themselves. And this he sets down in the Apostle's Words, Acts 6. 4. But we will give our selves continually to Prayer, and the Mini­stery of the Word. And yet I hope this Lord doth not think the A­postles by this word continually, meant to do nothing else but Pray and Preach: For if they did one of these two continually without any intermission, then they could do nothing else, which is most ap­parently false. And indeed (which it seems this learned Lord con­sidered not) this word continually is not in the Text. For in the Greek the word is [...], we will be constant and instant in Prayer and Ministration of the Word; which may and ought to be done, though neither of them continually; and which many of God's Servants have done, and yet meddled some way or other with tempo­ral or worldly Affairs.

The Argument is over: The rest of this Passage is this Lord's Rhe­torick, which I shall answer as I repeat it. Did the Apostles (saith his Lordship) Men of extraordinary Gifts, think it unreasonable for them to be hindred from giving themselves continually to Preaching the Word and Prayer, by taking care of the Tables of the poor Widows? No; sure they they did not think it unreasonable; that is this Lord's word to make the present business of the Bishops more Odious, as if it were a­gainst common Reason. But there's no such word in the Text. The word is, [...], it is not meet. Now many things may not be meet or comely, which yet are not altogether unreasonable: Nay, which at some times, and upon some occasions, may be meet and comely enough; nay, perhaps necessary for the very Gospel it self, and therefore no way unreasonable; howsoever at this time unfit for the Apostles, and worthily refused by them.

Well; the Rhetorick goes on. Did the Apostles thus, and can the Bishops now think it reasonable or lawful for them? Yes, the Times and Circumstances being varied, and many things become fit which in some former Times were not, they can think it both reasonable and lawful, nay, necessary for some of them. What? To contend for sit­ting at Council Tables? No; God forbid, perhaps not to sue for sit­ting there, but certainly not to contend for it; but to sit there being called unto it, and to give their best Advice there, never unlawful, and oft-times necessary: And here let me tell this Lord by the way, that the Bishop which he hath sufficiently hated, was so far from con­tending for this, that though he had that Honour given him by His Majesty to sit there many Years, yet I do here take it upon my Christiani­ty and Truth, that he did never move His Majesty directly or indirect­ly for that Honour, and was surprized with it as altogether unlook­ed for, when His Majesty's Resolution therein was made known unto him. Nor ever did that Bishop take so much upon him, as a Justice­ship of the Peace, or meddle with any Lay-Employment, save what the Laws and Customs of this Realm laid upon him in the High Com­mission and the Star-Chamber, while those Courts were in being; and continued Preaching till he was Threescore and four, and then was taken off by Writing of his Book against Fisher the Jesuit, being then not able at those Years to continue both. And soon after the World [Page 33] knows what trouble befel him, and in time they will know why too, I hope. Besides, the Care of Government, which is another part of a Bishop's Office, and a necessary one too, lay heavy upon him, in these Factious and broken Times especially. And whatsoever this Lord thinks of it, certainly, though Preaching may be more necessary for the first planting of a Church, yet Government is more noble and necessary too, where a Church is planted; as being that which must keep Preaching and all things else in order. And Preaching (as 'tis now used) hath as much need to be kept in order as any, even the greatest Extravagance that I know. Nor is this out of Christ's Com­mission, Pasce Oves, John 21. 15. for the feeding of his Sheep. For a Shepherd must guide, govern, and defend his Sheep in the Pasture, as well as drive them to it. And he must see that their Pasture be not tainted too, or else they will not thrive upon it. And then he may be answerable for the Rot that falls among them.

The Rhetorick goes farther yet. To contend for sitting at Council Tables to govern States. No, but yet to assist them being called by them. To have States-Men instead of Church-Men. No, but doing the Duty of Church-Men, to mingle pious Counsels with States-Mens Wisdom. To sit in the highest Courts of Judicature: And why not, in a Kingdom where the Laws and Customs require it? Not to be em­ployed in making Laws for Civil Polities and Government. And I con­ceive there is great Reason for this in the Kingdom of England, and greater since the Reformation than before. Great Reason, because the Bishops of England have been accounted, and truly been, grave and experienced Men, and far fitter to have Votes in Parliaments for the making of Laws, than many young Youths which are in either House: And because it is most fit in the making of Laws for a King­dom, that some Divines should have Vote and Interest to see (as much as in them lies) that no Law pass, which may perhaps, though unseen to others, intrench upon Religion it self, or the Church. And I make no doubt but that these and the like Considerations settled it so in England, where Bishops have had their Votes in Parlia­ments, and in making Laws, ever since there were Parliaments; yea, or any thing that resembled them in this Kingdom. And for my part, were I able to give no Reason at all why Bishops should have Votes in Parliament, yet I should in all Humility think that there was and is still some great Reason for it, since the Wisdom of the State hath successively in so many Ages thought it fit. And as there is great Reason they should have Votes in making Laws, so is there greater Reason for it since the Reformation than before. For before that time Clergy-Men were governed by the Church Canons and Constitutions, and the Common Laws of England had but little Power over them. Then in the Year 1532. the Clergy submitted; and an Act of Parliament was made upon it: So that ever since the Clergy of England, from the Highest to the Lowest, are as much sub­ject to the Temporal Laws as any other Men, and therefore ought to have as free a Vote and Consent to the Laws which bind them, as other Subjects have. Yet so it is, that all Clergy-Men are and have long since been excluded from being Members of the House of Commons, and now the Bishops and their Votes, by this last Act, are cast out of [Page 34] the Lord's House. By which it is at this Day come to pass, that by the Justice of England, as now it stands, no Clergy-Man hath a Con­sent, by himself or his Proxy, to those Laws to which all of them are bound.

In the mean time, before I pass from this Point, this Lord must give me leave to put him in mind of that which was openly spoken in both Houses; that the Reason why there was such a Clamour against the Bishops Votes was, because all or most of them Voted for the King, so that the potent Faction could not carry what they plea­sed, especially in the Vpper House. And when some saw they could not have their Will to cast out their Votes fairly, the Rabble must come down again, and Clamour against their Votes; not without danger to some of their Persons. And come they did in Multitudes. But who procured their coming I know not, unless it were this Lord and his Followers. And notwithstanding this is as clear as the Sun, and was openly spoken in the House, that this was the true Cause only why they were so angry with the Bishops Votes; yet this most Godly and Religious Lord pretends here a far better Cause than this; namely, that they may, as they ought, carefully attend to the Preaching of the Word, and not be distracted from that great Work, by being troubled with these Worldly Affairs. And I make no doubt, but that the same Zeal will carry the same Men to the devout taking away the Bishops and the Church Lands, and perhaps the Parsons Tythes too, and put them to such Stipends as they shall think fit, that so they may Preach the Gospel freely, and not be drawn away with these Worldly Affairs from the prin­cipal Work of that Function, Well! my Lord must give me leave here to Prophesie a little: and 'tis but this in short, Either the Bishops shall in few Years recover of this Hoarseness, and have their Honour and their Votes in Parliament again; or, before many Years be past, all Baseness, Barbarity and Confusion will go near to possess both this Church and Kingdom.

But this Lord hath yet somewhat more to say; namely, that

If they shall be thought fit to sit in such Places, and will undertake such Employments, they must not be there as ignorant Men, but must be knowing in Business of State; and understand the Rules and Laws of Government, and thereby both their Time and Studies must be ne­cessarily diverted from that which God hath called them unto. And this surely is much more Vnlawful for them to admit of, than that which the Apostles rejected as a distraction unreasonable for them to be inter­rupted by.

Why but yet if they shall be thought fit to sit in such Places, and will undertake such Employments, what then? Why then they must not sit there as ignorant Men, but they must be knowing Men, and understand the Rules and Laws of Government. This is most true; and if any Man sit in those places as an Ignorant, 'tis an ill Choice that is made of him, and he doth not well that accepts them. But sure, if Bishops sit there as Ignorants, they are much to be blamed. For if they spend their younger Studies before they meddle with Divi­nity, [Page 35] as they may and ought, sure there is some great Defect in them, if they be not as knowing Men in the Rules of Government as most Noblemen or others are, who spend all their younger time in Hawking and Hunting, and somewhat else: And this younger time of theirs, if Bishops have spent as they ought, they may with a little Care and Observation, and without any great Diversion of their Time and Studies from that which God hath called them unto, perform those Places with great Knowledge and much Happiness to the States in which they serve, as hath formerly in this, and doth at present in other Neighbouring States appear. And for ought this Lord knows, if some Counsels had been followed, which some Bishops gave, neither the King, nor the State, nor the Church, had been in that ill Condition in which they now are. Nor are these Places more Unlawful for Bishops to admit of in these Times and Conditions of the Church, than that which the Apostles rejected as a Distraction, but not as an unreasonable one, in those Times and Beginnings of Christianity, as is proved before. But the Zeal of this Lord burns still, and as it hath fired him already out of the Church, and made him a Separatist; so it would now sire the Bishops out of the State, and make them Members of Antichrist. His Lordship goes on therefore, and as before he told us the Practice of the Apostles was answerable to the Doctrine of Christ, so here he tells us again;

The Doctrine of the Apostles is agreeable to their Practice herein. For St. Paul, when he instructs Timothy for the Work of the Mini­stery, presseth this Argument from the Example of a good Soldier: No Man that warreth entangleth himself with the Affairs of the World.

The Doctrine of the Apostles is agreeable indeed to their Practice herein, and in all things else; and I would to God with all my Heart this Lord's Opinions were agreeable to either their Practice or their Doctrine; and then, I am sure, he would be a better Soldier for Christ, than this poor Church hath cause to believe he is. But his Lordship says that Paul when he instructs Timothy for the Work of the Ministery, presseth this Argument from the Example of a good 2 Tim. 2. 4. Soldier; That no Man that warreth, [...], entangles himself with the Affairs of the World. The word [...] signifies involvere & per­miscere se, to involve and, as it were, throughly to mingle himself with that which he undertakes; to be so busied, ut extricare se non possit, that he cannot untwist himself out of the Employment: And I easily grant that no good Christian, much less any good Bishop, may so entangle himself with the World, as either to Desert his Calling, or to be so distracted from it, as not to do his Duty in it, Annot. ibid. But this bars not all meddling with it. For the Geneva Note upon that place says plainly, he may not extangle himself; no, not so much as with his Houshold and other ordinary Affairs. But then if he shall not meddle with, or take care of these at all, he may beg or starve, unless he have better Means than the Competency which this Devout Age thinks sufficient for the Ministery. Nay, which is more, he may by so doing fall under that heavy Sentence of the [Page 36] Apostle, 1 Tim. 5. 8. That if he provide not for his own, he hath denied the Faith, and is worse than are Insidels. Nay, which is yet more, if all meddling with Temporal Affairs, all Care of the World be an Entanglement, the Clergy must needs be in a Perplexity whatsoever they do. For if they meddle with any Worldly Business, and en­tangle themselves, they do that they ought not, 2 Tim. 2. 4. And if they do not meddle with Worldly Affairs, and so do not provide for their own; and provide they cannot without some meddling. Then, for sear of this Lord's sowr Divinity, that all meddling with is en­tangling in them, they are worse than Infidels. Now a Perplexity which shall wrap a Man up in Sin which way soever he sets himself to Action, is so contrary to Divine Justice, as that no Law or Scrip­ture of God can command it, nor any right Reason of Man ap­prove it.

But examining this Text farther I find two things more observa­ble. The one, that the Soldier here, whose Example is the ground of this Argument, is not bound under Pain of any Sin, not to busie himself with the Affairs of this Life; but he doth it not (saith the Text) to the end he may please him whose Soldier he is. So then, if any Man, the better to please God, forbears this Employment, and his Conscience and Love to his Calling be his Motives so to do, he does well. But if another Man, who hath no scruple in himself, and finds he can do both without an Entanglement by the one to the prejudice of the other, and thereupon be so employ'd (for ought I know) he doth not sin. The other is, perhaps this Lord may find that St. Paul here in this place instructs Timothy, not so much for the Work of the Ministery (as here he affirms) as for the general Work of Christianity. For, Ver. 1. he exhorts to Constancy and Perseve­rance, that he be strong in the Grace which is in Jesus Christ. And then this Argument falls upon other Christians as well as upon Ministers, though not so much. And then I hope this Lord, who is so careful for our Spiritual Warfare, will take some care of his own also; if the great care which he takes at this present for the Militia of the Kingdom entangles him not. But his Lordship is now come to con­clude this Point.

I conclude; That which by the Commandment of our Saviour, by the Practice and Doctrine of the Apostles, and I may add by the Canons of ancient Councils grounded thereupon, is prohibited to Ministers of the Gospel, and shewed to be such a distraction unto them from their Calling and Function, as will bring a Woe upon them, and is not rea­sonable for them to admit of; if they shall notwithstanding entangle themselves withal, and enter into, it will bring a Guilt upon their Souls, and hurt them in respect of their Consciences.

His Lordship is now come (so he tells us) to conclude this Point; and in this Conclusion he artificially sums up, and briefly, all his Arguments. I shall as briefly touch at my Answers before given, and stay upon nothing, unless I find somewhat new. This done, I shall wait upon him (for that's his desire Clergy-Men should) to the next Point.

[Page 37] And truly, I find nothing new in the folding up this Conclusion, but that he says, he may add that Ministers are prohibited from meddling with Wordly Affairs, by the Canons of Antient Councils grounded upon the Apostles Doctrine. The Church is much behold­ing to this Lord that he will vouchsafe to name her Antient Coun­cils: He doth not use to commit this Fault often, and yet lest he should sin too much in this kind, he doth but tell you that he may add these, but he adds them not. It may be he doubts, that if he should name those Canons, some sufficient Answer might be given them, and yet the Truth remain firm, that it is not only lawful, but fit and expedient in some times and cases, for Bishops to in­termeddle with, and give Counsel in Temporal Affairs; and though this Lord names none, yet I will produce and examine such Canons and Antient Councils as I find, and see what they say in this business.

The first I meet withal is — But here I find my self met with and prevented too, by a Book entituled Episcopacy asserted, made Episcopacy as­serted §. 49. by a Chaplain of mine, Mr. Jer. Taylor, who hath learnedly looked into and answered such Canons of Councils as are most quick upon Bishops or other Clergy-Men for meddling much in Temporal Af­fairs. And therefore thither I refer the Reader, being not willing to trouble him with saying over another Man's Lesson; only I shall examine such Councils (if any I find) which my Chaplain hath not met with or omitted. And the last that I meet with is the Conc. Sardi­cens. edit. [...] apud Bion. To. 1. par. 1. p. 431. Council of Sardis; which though the last, is as high up in the Church as about the Year 347. And there was a Canon to restrain Prelats from their frequent resorts to the Court: Yet there are many Cases left at large in which they are permitted to use their own Judgment and Freedom. So that Canon seems to bring along with it rather Counsel than Command. And howsoever they are well left to their Liberty (as I conceive it) because to frequent the Court, as over-loving the place, is one thing; and to go thither, though often, when good Cause calls for them (be that Cause Spiritual or Temporal) is far from an Offence. For if it be Spiritual, they must go; that's their Office and Duty directly: And I see no Reason why the Physitians should be forbid to visit the places of greatest Sickness. This I am sure of, Euseb. de Vi­ta Constant. L. 1. c. 35. Constantine the Great commanded the personal attendance of Bishops and other Clergy-Men in his Court. And if it be Tempo­ral; they may go: that's their Duty by Consequence, especially, if they be called. For as their exemplary Piety may move much, so do I not yet know any designs of State, which are made the worse by Religion; or any Counsels of Princes hurt by being communi­cated with Bishops, in whom doth, or should reside the Care of Religion and Religious Conversation. But perchance I have known some Counsels miscarry for want of this.

The next is the first Conc. Car­thag. 1. Can. [...] Council at Carthage, and there the Prohibi­tion runs thus, They which are of the Clergy, non accedant ad Actus seu Administrationem, vel Procurationem domorum; which forbids (as I conceive it) this only, that they should not be Stewards of the Houses, or Bailiffs of the Lands of great Persons. And this may be both in regard of the great trouble belonging to such Places, and the hazard of Scandal which might arise, in case there should happen [Page 38] any failure in such great Accounts. And in the Cod. Can. Eccl. Affric. Can. 16. Code of the African Councils it is thus read, non sint Conductores & Procuratores, nec [...] & inhonesto negotio, victum quaerant: which I think is the truer Reading. And then this Council doth not fordid all meddling in in Secular Affairs, but such as by their dishonest gain draw Scandal upon the Church: And there is great Reason such should be forbid­den them.

A third I meet withal, and that is the Council of Episcopi, Presbyteri & Diaconi de locis suis Negotiandi causâ non diseedant, nec [...] Provin­cias quaestuosas [...] sectentur. Sane ad Victum suum conquirendum, aut Filium, aut Libertum, aut Mer­cenarium, aut Amicum, aut [...] mittant: & si voluerint negoti­ari intra Provinciam, negotientur. Conc. Eliberit. Can. 18. Eliberis about the Year of our Lord 306. where the Canon seems to be very strict against Clergy-Men's going to Markets and Fairs negotiandi causa, to make profit by negotiation; but require them to send their Son, their Friend or their Servant to do such business for them. And yet this Prohibi­tion as strict as it seems, is not absolute, nor bind­ing, farther than that they shall not pursue those matters of Gain out of their own Provinces; but if they will and think fit, they might for all this Canon negotiate, either for their neces­sary maintenance or improvement of their Fortunes, so that they wan­dred not abroad out of their own Province where they serve.

In the mean time when all these, or any other Councils are duly weighed, and their meaning right taken, this will be the result of all; that neither Bishop nor other Clergy-Man might or may, by the Canons of Holy Church, ambitiously seek, or voluntarily of himself assume any Secular Engagement. And as they might not ambitiously seek great Temporal Employments, so might they not undertake any low or base ones for sordid and covetous ends. Nor might they relinquish their own Charge to spend their Strength in the assistance of a foreign one. But though they might not seek or voluntarily assume Secular Employment, Aut negotijs [...] se im­miscere [...] pupillorum si forte Leges imponant in excusabilem cu­ram, aut Civitatis Episcopus Ec­clesiasticarum rerum solicitudinem habere praecipiat, aut Orphanorum & Viduarum, eorum qui sine [...] defensione sunt, ae personarum quae maxime indigent Ecclesiastico ad­jutorio, & propter timorem Domini causa deposcat. Conc. Chalced. Act. 15. Can. 3. yet they might do any lawful thing impos'd on them by their Superiours. And so might the Bishop (who had no Superiour in his Province) if the Prince required his Service; or that he thought it necessary for the present State of the Church in which he liv'd: Balsamon. in Concil. Chalcedon. c. 3. p. 327. For if he might transmit his Power to those of the inferiour Clergy, no doubt but he might deal himself in such Civil Affairs, as are agreeable to the dignity of his Place and Calling: and generally the Bishop, or any other Clergy-Man, may and might by the ancient Canons of the Church be employed in any Action of Piety, though that Action be attended with Secular care and trouble. And this is without any strain at all collected out of that great and famous Council of Chalcedon, one of the four first General Councils, approved of highly throughout all Christendom, and with great reverence acknowledged in the Laws of this King­dom. And therefore after the Canon of that Council had laid it down in general terms, that neither Bishop, Clerk, nor Monk, should farm Grounds, or immescere se, mix himself as it were with such Temporal Affairs, it adds some exceptions of like Nature to those by me expres­sed, especially the last of them. And some of these will expound [Page 39] the Canon of any Council which I have yet seen, that speaks most against Clergy-Mens embarking themselves in Secular Business. And therefore though this Lord would not, yet I have laid before you whatsoever is come to my Knowledge out of the Antient Councils; where by this last cited and great Council, his Lordship may see, that Bishops should meddle with and order some Temporal Affairs, as Per­sons in that kind fitter to be trusted than other Men of what Rank or Condition soever; and therefore excepts from its own general Canon the Cases of Orphans and Widows, and the Estates of such Persons as most need Ecclesiastical help, or where any Cause in the fear of God requires it. In which Cases the Widows and the Fatherless have had much cause to bless God, when they have been referred to the Con­science, Trust and Care of Bishops. But this were in a manner to make them Masters of the Wards or Guardians to them, which I know this Lord will not like by any means. It would come too near his Office; and then he would cry out indeed, that this was a greater Distraction of them from their Function to which God had called them, than that of the attending poor Widows Tables was to the Apostles: And yet he sees what some Canons of Antient Councils have decreed in this Case. Besides, we cannot have a better or a clearer Evidence of the true meaning of the Antient Canons than from the Practice of the Antient Fathers of the Church, who were strict and consciencious Observers of the Canons, and yet (as is before proved) meddled in many, and some the greatest Givil Affairs, being employ­ed as Ambassadors from great Emperors and Kings: And Balsam. in Conc. Carthag­prima, Can. 16. p. 328, 329. Balsamon observes, that whensoever it shall please the Prince to call any Bishops to such Employments, they neither are to be restrained by the afore­said Canons, nor censured by them.

I conclude this Point then, that Bishops are not prohibited to med­dle with Civil publick Affairs, either by Christ's command, or by the Apostle's either Doctrine or Practice (though all their Practice doth not give an absolute Rule for all future Obedience as their Doctrine doth) and I may add not by Canons of Antient Councils (rightly un­derstood) nor are all of them such Distractions as will bring a Woe upon Bishops or other Clergy-Men, though they meddle with them: I rather believe some things will be in a woful Case if they meddle not. And in some Cases there's all the Reason in the World they should be not only permitted, but some of them commanded to meddle; to the end that in all Consultations, especially the greatest, in Parliament, and at Council Table, it might be their care to see that Re­ligion were kept upright in all; and that nothing by Practice or other­wise pass, cum detrimento Religionis & Ecclesiae, with detriment to Re­ligion or the Church, always provided that they do not so entangle themselves in any of these Affairs, as shall much prejudice their Fun­ction; and this done, I know no Guilt that this meddling can bring upon their Souls, or hurt their Consciences. But this Lord having (as he thinks) concluded the contrary, proceeds now to the next Point, and says, that

In the next place this meddling in Temporal Affairs doth [...] them, and strike them in their Credits; so far from Truth is that Po­sition [Page 40] which they desire to possess the World withal, that unless they may have those outward Trappings, or worldly Pomp added to the Mi­nistery, that Calling will grow into Contempt and be despised.

Good God! How Pious this Lord is, and what a careful Friend over the Church! First, he takes care the Bishops Consciences may not be hurt, and now he is as jealous over their Credits. But I doubt he is jealous over them amiss: For he is of Opinion, that meddling in Civil Affairs strikes them in their Credit; and he thinks farther, that the Position with which they would possess the World in this case is far from Truth. Let's examine this Position then, what it is, and what it works. The Position is, (as this Lord reports it) That un­less they may have these outward Trappings, or worldly Pomp added to the Ministery, their Calling will grow into Contempt. First, there was never any Age in any Kingdom Christian, in which the Bishops were ridden with so much Scorn and Contempt as they are at this day in England; and this makes this Lord, though he be a very ordinary Horseman for any good Service, please himself with Trappings. Se­condly, for the worldly Pomp which he means and expresses, the Train of that hath been long since cut short enough in England; and he that will not look upon the Bishops with an evil Eye must needs ac­knowledge it. Well, but what then doth this Position work? Why they may not have these Trappings, there will follow Contempt upon their Calling; so he makes the Bishops say. Is this Lord of that Opi­nion too? No sure; for he says,

The Truth is, these things cast Contempt upon them in the Eyes of Men. They gain them Cap and Courtesie, but they have cast them out of the Consciences of Men; and the Reason is this, every thing is esteem­ed as it is eminent in its own proper Excellency; the Eye in seeing, not in hearing; the Ear in hearing, not in speaking. The one would be rather monstrous than comely, the other is ever acceptable, being proper. So is it with them: their proper Excellency is Spiritual, the denial of the World, with the Pomps, and Preferments, and Employments there­of. This they should teach and practice.

Well then, the question is, Whether the Honour of Bishops and their Employments in Temporal Affairs, as they are at this day mo­derated, in the Church and State of England, bring Contempt upon them and their Calling, as this Lord says; or help to keep off Con­tempt, as he says the Bishops would possess the World. First, I am clear of Opinion that Solomon was almost as wife as this Lord thinks himself, and yet he says plainly, Eccles. 9. 16. That though Wis­dom in its self be far better than Folly, yet the poor Man's Wisdom is despised, and his Words not heard. And we see in daily Experience, that a poor Minister's Words are as much slighted in the Pulpit, as a poor Man's in the Gate. And therefore these things which this Lord calls Trappings, are many times very necessary to keep off that Contempt and Despight which the boisterous Multitude, when their Sins are re­proved, are apt to cast upon them. And whatsoever this Lord thinks, tis a great Credit and Support to the rest of the Clergy, and being [Page 41] well used, a great advantage to their Calling, that the Bishops and other Eminent Men of the Clergy should have moderate Plenty for Means, and enjoy Honour and external Reputation; and though it be well known that the Church consider'd in Abstract, in and by its self only, is not promoted nor advanced by such Employ­ments, yet, as she is considered in her Peregrination and Warfare, she gains by them great both Strength and Encouragement.

Secondly, That which this Lord adds, that those things gain the Bishops Cap and Courtesie, but have cast them out of the Consciences of Men. 'Tis well that these things gain them that. For the Age is grown so churlish to that Calling, that I believe they would have very little of either, were it not for these things; as will too soon ap­pear now this last Act of Parliament hath taken away their Trappings. As for that which follows next, that these things have cast them out of the Consciences of Men, that's not so: For in other Kingdoms that are Christian, and some Reformed as well as other, they have more Employment in Civil Affairs than with us, and yet are in high esteem in the Consciences of Men. But the Truth is, Schisin and Se­paration have so torn Men from Clergy and Church, from God and Christ and all, that they have not only cast Bishops, but Religion too out of their Consciences, and their Consciences are thrown after, God knows whither.

Now for the Reason which this Lord gives, he is quite wide in that also. For every thing is not esteemed as it is eminent in its own pro­per Excellency (as he says it is): Indeed it ought to be so, but so it is not. For in the place before cited, Eccles. 9. 16. Wisdom is better than Folly, and is most eminent in its own proper Excellency, but is it always esteemed so? No sure; for the poor Man's Wisdom is de­spised. There, however it ought to be esteemed for its proper Ex­cellency, yet if it be found in a poor Subject, 'tis despised and ac­counted as mean and vile as he is that hath it. And as for the Illu­stration which his Lordship makes of this his Proposition, 'tis meerly fallacious. For Arguments drawn from Natural Things, which ever work constantly the same way, to Moral Things, which depend upon voluntary and mutable Agents, will seldom or never universally fol­low: And therefore though it be true, that the Eye is esteemed for seeing, not hearing; and the Ear for hearing, not speaking; and should it be otherwise it would be rather monstrous than comely. That's true, because they are Agents determined ad unum, to that one Ope­ration, and cannot possibly do the other; but then, by his Lordship's leave, so it is not with Bishops; for though their proper Excellency be indeed Spiritual, yet they may meddle with other things so long as they can observe the Apostle's Rule, 1 Cor. 7. 31. and use this World as if they used it not; that is, use it so long and so far as may help their Service of God, and cast it off when it shall hinder them. But this Lord thinks all use of these things, and Employments in them, to be unlawful for our Calling. And therefore he adds,

That when they, contrary hereunto, seek after a worldly Excellency, like the great Men of the World; and to Rule and Domineer as they do, contrary to our Saviour's Precept, Vos autem non sic, But it shall not [Page 42] be so amongst you: Instead of Honour and Esteem, they have brought upon themselves, in the Hearts of the People, that Contempt and [...] which they now lie under; and that justly and necessarily, because the World sees that they prefer a worldly Excellency, and run after it, and contend for it, before their own; which being Spiritual is far more ex­cellent, and which being proper to the Ministery, is that alone which will put a Value and Esteem upon them that are of that Calling.

All this which follows is but matter of Ampliation, to help ag­gravate the business, and to make Bishops so hateful to other Men, as they are to himself. For I hope no Bishops of this Church do seek after worldly Excellency contrary to their Function; at least I know none that do: And they are far from being like the Great Men of the World. As to Ruling, 'tis proper enough to them, so far as Au­thority is given, but Domineer they do not. This comes from this Lord's Spleen, not from their Practice: And by that time his Lord­ship hath sat a while longer in the State, Men will find other manner of Domineering from him, than they found from the Bishops. Nor do they in their meddling with Civil Affairs in such sort as is now practised in England, go contrary to our Saviour's Precept, Vos autem non sic, It shall not be so amongst you, as I have proved before.

Most true indeed it is, that the poor Bishops of this Church do now instead of Honour and Esteem lie under Contempt and Odium in the Hearts of the People. Of some, not of all; no nor either of the greater or the better part, for all the noise that hath been raised against them; and this Lord is much deceived to say they have brought it upon themselves. For it is but part of the Dirt which this Lord and his fellow Sectaries have most unchristian-like cast upon them: And this only to wrest their Votes out of Parliament, that now they are gone, they may the better compass their ends against Church and State, which God preserve against their Malice and Hy­pocrisie. But this Lord says farther, That the Bishops have brought this Contempt upon themselves justly and necessarily. Now God for­bid that it should be either; and his Lordship proves it but by saying the same thing over again, namely, because the World sees that they prefer a worldly Excellency, and run after it, and contend for it before their own. And surely if they do this, they are much to blame; but I believe the World sees it not, unless it be such of the World as look upon them with this Lord's Eyes, and that when they are at the worst too. And I verily persuade my self and I think upon very good grounds, that the present Bishops of this King­dom, all or the most of them, are as far from any just tax in this or any other kind, as they have been in any former Times since the Reformation. 'Tis true, that their own Calling being Spiritual, is far more excellent; and I shall the better believe it, when I see this Lord and the rest value it so. For I have told his Lordship already, that every thing which is more excellent in its self, is not always so estee­med by others: And though this Excellency be never so proper, yet by his good leave, it is not that alone which will put a value and esteem upon them and their Calling. There must be some outward helps to encourage, and countenance, and reward them too, or else [Page 43] Flesh and Blood are so dull, that little will be done. And suppose this Religious Lord, and some few like himself, would value and esteem them for their Spiritual Calling only, yet what are these to so many as would [...] them? And yet to speak the Truth freely, I do not see this Lord, nor any of that Feather, put a value upon that Calling for the Spiritual Excellency only; for then all Ministers that do their Duty should be valued and esteemed by them, the Calling being alike Spiritual and alike Excellent in all: whereas the World sees they neither care for nor countenance any Ministers, but such as separate with them from the Church of England, or are so near to it, as that they are ready to step into an Independent Congregation, so soon as by the Artifice of this Lord and others, it may be made ready to receive them. Now this Lord having thus belaboured these two Points, that Bishops by meddling in Civil Affairs do hurt them­selves in their Consciences and in their Credits; he proceeds to in­struct us farther. And thus,

As these things hurt themselves in their Consciences and Credits, so have they, and if they be continued, still will make them hurtful to others. The Reason is, because they break out of their own Orb and move irregularly. There is a Carse upon their leaving their own Place.

My Lord is now come to his second general part of his Speech, and means to prove it if he can, that Bishops by any kind of med­dling in Civil Affairs do not only hurt themselves in Conscience and in Credit, but also, if they continue in them, they will make them hurtful to others also. And that he may seem to say nothing with­out a Reason, his Lordship tells us the Reason of this is, because they break out of their own Orb and move irregularly. But I conceive this Reason weak enough. For first (as is before proved) these Stars (to follow my Lord in his Metaphor) are not so fixed to their Orb of Preaching the Gospel, but that they may do other things also at other times, so this be not neglected. And therefore it will not fol­low that all their Motions out of this Orb are irregular. Secondly, when they do thus move, they are not violently to break out of their Orb, but to sit still till Authority find cause to call any of them a little aside, to attend Civil Affairs, that they may proceed never the worse, and the Gospel the better. As for that Curse which this Lord speaks of, which follows upon their leaving of their own Place; I know of none, nor any leaving of their own Place. This I am sure of, whatever this Lord says, that many extraordinary Blestings and Successes have come both upon this Kingdom and other Nations, by Counsels given by Clergy-Men; and I pray God his Counsels, such as they have been, do not bring Dishonour, and a Curse to boot, upon this Church and Kingdom. But his Lordship goes on with his Metaphor, and argues very strongly by Similitudes; which hath but a Similitude of Argumentation.

The Heavenly Bodies while they keep within their own Spheres give Light and Comfort to the World, but if they should break out and [...] from their regular and proper Motions, they would set the World on [...] [Page 44] So have these done. While they kept themselves to the Work of the Mi­nistery alone, and gave themselves to Prayer and the Ministery of the Word, according to the Example of the Apostles, the World received the greatest Benefits from them; they were the Light and Life thereof. But when their Ambition cast them down like Stars from [...] to Earth, and they did grow once to be advanced above their Brethren; I do appeal to all who have been versed in the antient Ecclesiastical Hi­story, or modern Histories, whether they have not been the common In­condiaries of the Christian World, never ceasing from Contention one with another about the Precedency of their Sees and Churches, Excom­municating one another, drawing Princes to be Parties with them, and thereby casting them into bloody Wars.

This Argument is grounded upon si [...] ruat, if Heaven falls we shall get store of Larks. But Heaven cannot sall, and so 'tis here. The Heavenly Bodies while they keep within their own Spheres, give Light and Comfort to the World; but if they should break out, which is impossible, and fall from their Regular Motions, which cannot possibly be, they would set the World on fire; or perhaps drown it again (had not God promised the contrary) according as the Irre­gular Motion bended. So have these done. Nay, not so with this Lord's leave. For First, Clergy-Men are not so fixed to their Orbs as those Heavenly Bodies are, but in themselves are free and voluntary Agents, which those Bodies are not. And Secondly, they may and ought as occasion is offered them, do many things in publick Civil Affairs, which may much advantage the Gospel of Christ, and they will never Fire the World by such attendance upon them; and they may and ought give themselves to Prayer and to the Ministery of the Word notwithstanding this: and they may be the same Benefits to the World of Light and Life as before. Yea, and I make no doubt, but that when this Lord and his Followers will be as liberal and devout as the Primitive Christians were, who sold their Land and [...] the Money, and laid it at the Apostles Feet, Acts 4. 37. to make a Stock for their and the Church's Wants, the Bishops will be well content to follow the Apostles Example, as far and as well as they can. But if the Bishops may meddle with no Temporal Affairs, ac­cording to the Example of the Apostles; how came the Apostles to meddle with the Receiving first, and after with the Layings out of all this Money? For, say it was to be employed on charitable Actions, yet some Diversion more or less it must needs be to the Preaching of the Gospel. But since the Example and Practice of the Apostles is so often pressed by this Lord, I would willingly his Lordship should tell me (if he will make their Practice a Rule general and binding) why now among Christians all should not be common, as the Apostles and other Believers had it; and that no Man might say that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, Acts 4. 32. and then where is the Property of the Subject? And then why do we not go up and down and Preach at large, according to the Examples of the Apostles, and endure neither Division of Parishes nor Parish Churches? And why do we not receive the Communion after Supper, at 'tis well known Christ and his Apostles. did? Indeed, if any Bishops or other Clergy-Men [Page 45] should become falling Stars from Heaven to Earth; especially if their Sin should be so like the Devil's as to cast themselves down by their own Ambition: That, as it makes the Fall heavy to them, so yet I must say to this Lord, that both Fall and Fault is the Person's; the Episcopal Office is not the cause of it, as is here charged by him. Nor did they become falling Stars so soon as they did once grow to be advanced above their Brethren, as this Lord insinuates it. For a­mong the Apostles themselves there was a Chief in order, S. Luke 22. 26. and some were advanced to Dignity and Power above their Brethren, even in the Apostles Days; whom yet, I presume, this Lord will not be so ill advised as to call fallen Stars.

As for the Appeal which he makes to all them who have been ver­sed in Antient or Modern Ecclesiastical Histories; that's no great mat­ter. For in all Histories you shall find great Men of all sorts doing what in Honour and Duty should not be done; and Ambition hath been the cause of very much of this, and Ambition sticks so close to Humane Nature, as that it follows it into all Professions and Estates of Men: And I would to God Clergy-Men had been freer from this Fault than Histories testifie they have. But this hath been but the fault of some; many Reverend Bishops in all Ages have been clear of it, and 'tis a personal Corruption in whomsoever it is, and cannot justly be charged upon the Calling, as this Lord lays it. Neither have the worst of them (some Popes of Rome excepted) been the common Incendiaries of the Christian World. But Incendiaries is grown a great word of late with this Lord; and some of the poor Bishops of Eng­land have been made Incendiaries too by him and his Party. But might it please God to shew some token upon us for good, that they which hate us may see it, and be ashamed, Psalm 86. 17. there would be a full discovery who have been the Incendiaries indeed in these Troubles of England; and then I make no question but it will appear that this Lord flames as high and as dangerously as any Man living. But be­hold (saith God) all ye that kindle a Fire, that compass your selves about with Sparks; walk in the light of your own Fire, and in the Sparks which your selves have kindled. This shall ye have of my hand, ye shall lie down in Sorrow, Isai. 50. 11.

Next I pray be pleased to consider, how unworthily, and fallaciously withal, this Lord manages this Proof. For all this Discourse tends to prove it unlawful for Bishops to intermeddle in Secular Affairs; that so to do is hurtful to themselves in Conscience and in Credit, and to others also by this their irregular Motion. And this he proves by their never ceasing from Contention one with another, either about the Precedency of their Sees or Churches. They have indeed some, and sometimes, contended too eagerly for their Sees and Churches; but neither all, nor any that I know with a never-ceasing, but the Bishop of Rome for his Supremacy. And say this were so, yet these Contentions were about their own proper Places, not about Civil Af­fairs, which now should lie before his Lordship in Proof; and there­fore was no irregular Motion of theirs in regard of the Object, but only in regard of the manner. Nor were they out of their Orb for this, though faulty enough. The like is to be said for that which follows, their Excommunicating one another upon these Quarrels. As [Page 48] for their drawing of Princes to be Parties with them, thereby casting them into bloody Wars; this hath seldom happened, and when­ever it hath happened, some Church business or other hath unhap­pily set it on, not their meddling in Temporal Affairs. But whatever caused it, the Crime of such misleading of Princes is very odious, and as hateful to me as it can be to his Lordship. But the Persons must bear their own Faults, and not the Calling; and, sure I am, this Lord would think me very wild, if I should charge the antient Barons Wars in England, upon his Lordship and the Honourable Barons now living. But howsoever by this 'tis plain, that this Lord would not only have the Bishops turned out of all Civil Employments, but out of their Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions also: They must have no Power nor Superiority there neither; their Sees must be laid as level as Parity can make them. For all these Mischiefs came on (saith he) as soon as they were once advanced above their Brethren.

And one thing more I shall take occasion to say. Here's great Cla­mour made against the Bishops, and their meddling in Civil Affairs; but what if the Presbytery do as much or more? Do they Sin too by breaking out of their Orb, and neglecting the Work of the Ministery? No, by no means: Only the Bishops are faulty. For do you think that Calvin would have taken on him the Umpirage, and composing of so many Civil Causes as he did order between Neighbours, if so great Sin had accompanied it? For he dealt in Ci­vil Causes, and had Power to Omnes in Carcerem conjecti sunt, &c. Calvin. Epist. ad Fa­rellum. inflict Civil Punish­ments in his Consistory. For he committed divers to Prison for Dancing, and those not mean ones nei­ther; and he Calvin. Epist. ad Viretum, fol. 373. Edit. 1575. arbitrated divers Causes; and in a great Controversie between the Senate of Geneva, and a Gentleman, he tells one Frumentius who laboured for a Reconciliation, that the Church of Geneva was not so destitute, but that Calvin. Epist. ad Farellum, sol. 384. Fratres mei (saith he) huic Provinciae subeundae pares futuri essent, some of his Brethren might have been fit for that Work. Belike he took it ill, that in such a Business, though meerly Civil, he and his Fellow-Ministers should be left out. And for matters in the Common­wealth he had so great Power in the Senate, and with the People, that all things were carried as he pleased. And him­self brags of it, that the Senatum esse nostrum. Calvin. ad Farellum, fol. 72. Populum esse nostrum. Calvin. ad Viretum, fol. 73. Senate was his and the People his. And to encrease his Strength, and make it more formidable, he brought in Fifty or more of the French his Country-men and Friends, and by his solicitation made them Free Denizons of the City; Calvin. Epist. ad Viret. sol. 163. of which and the Troubles thence arising he gave an account to Bullinger, Anno 1555.

Or can you think that Beza would have taken upon him so much Secular Employment, had he thought it unlawful so to do? For where­as in the Form of the Civil Government of that City, out of the Two hundred prime Men there was a perpetual Senate chosen of Sixty, as Bodin, l. 2. de Repub. c. 6. Bodin tells us; my worthy Predecessour Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline, c. 26. Arch-Bishop Bancroft assures me, Beza was one of these Threescore. And yet what a cry­ing Sin is it grown in a Bishop to be honoured with a Seat at the [Page 49] Council-Table? Besides this; when Geneva sent a solemn Embassie to Henry IV. of France, about the razing of a Fort which was built near their City by the Duke of Savoy, Thuan. Hist. Anno 1600. c. 125. Beza would needs go along to com­mend that Spiritual Cause unto the King; and how far he dealt, and laid Grounds for others to deal in all such Civil Causes, as were but in Ordine ad Spiritualia, is manifest by Beza de Ex­commun. p. 47. himself. And I am sure Lae­sus proximus may reach into the Cognizance of almost all Civil Cau­ses. Or can any Man imagine that so Religious a Man as Mr. Dam­port, the late Parson of St. Stephen's in Coleman-street, would have done the like to no small hindrance to Westminster-Hall, had he thought that by this meddling he had hurt both his Conscience and his Credit, whereas (good Man) he fled into New-England to preserve both. Or, if Mr. Alexander Henderson would have come along with the Scottish Army into England, and been a Commissioner (as he was) in that whole Treaty, wherein many of their Acts of Parliament con­cerning the Civil Government of that Kingdom were deliberated up­on and confirm'd; if he had thought his so doing inconsistent with his Calling? Or that the Scots (being so Religious as they then were, even to the taking up of Arms against their King for Religion) would have suffered him to take that place upon him, so contrary to the command of Christ, and the Practice of the Apostles, if it had been so indeed? Or, would they have suffer'd their Preachers, which then attended their Commissioners at London, not only to meddle with, but to preach so much temporal Stuff as little belonged to the Purity of the Gospel, had they been of this Lord's Opinion? Surely, I cannot think it. But let the Bishops do but half so much, yea, though they be commanded to do that which these Men assume to themselves; and 'tis a venture but it shall prove Treason against the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, and an endeavouring to bring in an Arbitrary Go­vernment. Well! I'll tell you a Tale. There's a Minister at this day in London, of great Note among the Faction, well esteem'd by this Lord and others of this Outcry against the Bishops Votes in Parliament, and their meddling in Civil Affairs; this Man (I'll spare his Name) being pressed by a Friend of his, how he came to be so eager against the Church, of which and her Government he had ever heretofore been an Upholder, and had Subscribed unto it, made this Answer; Thou art a Fool; thou knowest not what it is to be the Head of a Party. This Man is one of the great Masters of the present Reformation; and do you not think it far more inconsistent with his Ministerial Function to be in the Head of a turbulent Faction (to say the least of them) than for a Bishop to meddle in Civil Affairs? Yet such is the Reli­gion of our Times. But 'tis no matter for all this; his Lordship hath yet more to say against the Ambition of the Prelates. For,

Their Ambition and intermeddling with Secular Affairs and State Business, hath been the cause of shedding more Christian Blood than any thing else in the Christian World; and this no Man can deny that is versed in History.

This is the same over and over again; saving that the Expression contains in it a vast Untruth. For they that are versed in History must [Page 48] needs say 'tis a loud one, that Bishops meddling in Temporal Affairs hath been the cause of shedding more Christian Blood, than any thing else in the Christian World. What a happiness hath this Lord that his pale Meagerness cannot blush at such thing as this. Yea, but he will prove it here at home in this Kingdom. For, says he,

We need not go out of our own Kingdom for Examples of their Insolency and Cruelty. When they had a dependency upon the Pope, and any footing thereby out of the Land, there were never any that carryed themselves with so much Scorn and Insolency towards the Princes of this Kingdom, as they have done. Two of them the Bishop that last spake hath named, but instances of many more may be given, whereof there would be no end.

'Tis true indeed we need not go out of our own Kingdom for Examples of their Insolency and Cruelty. For in so many Ages 'tis no wonder in any Kingdom to find some bad Examples, be it of Insolency, Cruelty or what you will: Especially in the midst of so much Prosperity as accompanied Clergy-Men in those times. But 'tis true too, that there are far more Examples of their Piety and Charity, would this Lord be pleased to remember the one with the other. As for their bad Examples his Lordship gives a Reason why not all, but some of them, carryed themselves with so much Scorn and Insolency towards their Princes, even with almost as much as this Lord and his Faction carry themselves at this day towards their mild and gracious King. And the Reason is a true one; it was their dependency upon the Pope, and their footing which thereby they had to subsist out of the Land: which may, and I hope will be a sufficient warning to his Majesty and his Successours, never to let in again a foreign Supream Power into any of his Dominions. For 'tis to have one State within, yet not dependent upon the other, which can never be with Safety or Quiet in any Kingdom: And I would have the World consider a little with what Insolency, and perhaps Disallegiance this Lord and his Round-head Crew would use their Kings, if they had but half so strong a foreign dependance as the Bishops then had, that dare use the most gracious of Kings as they do this present day. Two of these Insolent ones (this Lord says) the Bishop that last spake named. Lincoln stands in the Margin, by which it appears that Dr. John Williams then Bishop of Lincoln, and since Arch-Bishop of York, was the Man that named two; but because this Lord names them not, I know not who they are, and therefore can say nothing for or against them, but leave them to that Lord which censured them. As for that which follows, that the instances of many more may be given, whereof there would be no end. This is a piece of this Lord's loud Rhetorick, which can have no Truth in it, especially relating, as it doth, to this Kingdom only.

But whereas this Lord said immediately before, that their med­dling in State business hath been the cause of shedding more Christian Blood, than any thing else in the Christian World, and in the very next words falls upon the proof of it in this Kingdom; I must put him in mind that one Parliament in England, namely, that which most [Page 49] irreligiously and trayterously deposed Richard II. was the cause of the effusion of more Christian Blood amongst us, than all the Bishops that ever were in this Kingdom. For that base and unjust Parliament was the cause of all the Civil Wars, those Bloody Wars which began in the Heir's time after the Usurpation of Henry IV. and ceas­ed not till there were slain of the Royal Blood and of Nobles and the common People a Numberless Number: And I heartily beg it of God, that no disloyal Parliament may ever bring this Kingdom into the like distress. For our Neighbours are far stronger now than they were then, and what desolation it might bring upon us, God in Heaven knows. So this Lord may see, if he will, what a Parlia­ment it self being misgoverned may do. But will his Lordship think it Reason to condemn all Parliaments because this, and some few more, have done what they should not do, as he here deals by Bishops? Sure he would not. But having done with the Bishops dependency on the Pope, he goes on and tells us farther, that

Although the Pope be cast off, yet now there is another Inconvenience, no less prejudicial to the Kingdom, by their sitting in this House; and that is, they have such an absolute dependency upon the King, that they sit not there as free Men.

I am heartily sorry to see this Lord thus far transported: The Pope is indeed cast off from domineering over King, Church, and State. But I am sorry to hear it from this Lord, that this other Inconvenience by Bishops sitting in the House of Parliament, is no less prejudicial to the Kingdom. Where, first I observe that this Lord accounts the Pope's ruling in this Kingdom, but a matter of inconvenience; for so his words imply. For that must be one In­convenience, if the Bishops voting be the other; and I am sure the Laws both of this Church and State, make it far worse than an Incovenience. Had I said thus much, I had been a Papist out of Question. Secondly; I'll appeal to any prudent and moderate Pro­testant in the Christian World, whether he can possibly think that the Bishops having Votes in the Parliaments of England can possibly be as great, or no less an Inconvenience, than the Pope's Supremacy here. And I believe this Lord when he thinks better of it, will wish these words unsaid.

Well! but what then is this inconvenience that is so great? Why, my Lord tells us, 'tis because they have such an absolute dependency upon the King that they sit not there as free-Men. Where first, 'tis strange to me and my Reason, that any dependency on the King, be it never so absolute, can be possibly so great an Inconvenience to the King, as (that upon) an Independent foreign Power is; the King being sworn to the Laws, but the Pope being free, and (as he challenges) not only independent from, but superiour to, both King and Laws. Secondly, I conceive the Bishops dependency is no more absolute upon the King than is the dependence of other Honourable Members of that House, and that the Bishops sit there as absolute free-men as any others, not excepting his Lordship. And of this Belief I must be till the contrary shall be proved; which his Lordship goes thus about to do.

[Page 50]

That which is requisite to Freedom is, to be void of Hopes and Fears; he that can lay down these is a Free-man, and will be so in this House: But for the Bishops, as the case stands with them, it is not likely they will lay aside their Hopes; greater Bishopricks being still in expectancy; and for their Fears they cannot lay them down, since their Places and Seats in Parliament are not invested in them by Blood, and so hereditary; but by annexation of a Barony to their Office, and depending upon that Office; so that they may be [...] of their Office, and thereby of their Places at the King's pleasure.

My Lord's Philosophy is good enough; for to be void of Hopes and Fears is very requisite to Freedom, and he that can lay these down, is a Free-man, or may be if he will: But whether he will be so in that great House, I cannot so well tell. For though no Man can be free that is full charg'd with Hopes or Fears; yet there are some other things which collaterally work upon Men, and consequently take off their Freedom, almost as much as Hopes and Fears can do. Such are Consanguinity, Affinity, especially if the Wife bears any sway; private Friendship, and above all Faction. And therefore though I cannot think that every Man will be a Free-man in that House, that is void of Hopes and Fears, yet I believe he may if he will. Now I conceive that in all these collateral Stiflings of a Man's Freedom, the Lay Lords are by far less free than the Bishops are.

Again, for the main bars of Freedom, Hopes and Fears, into which all the rest do some way or other fall, I do not yet see but that Bishops, even as the case stands with them, may be as free, and I hope are, in their Voting as Temporal Lords. For their Hopes, this Lord tells us 'tis not likely they will lay them aside, greater Bishopricks being still in expectancy. Truly, I do not know why a deserving Bishop may not in due time hope for a better Bishoprick; and yet retain that Freedom which becomes him in Parliament, as well as any Noble-man may be Noble and Free in that great Court, and yet have moderated Hopes of being called to some great Office, or to the Council-table, or some honourable and profitable Embassage, or some Knighthood of the Garter; of all, or some of which, there is still expectancy. Lay your Hand on your Heart, my Lord, and examine your self.

As for Fears, his Lordship tells us roundly the Bishops cannot lay them down. Cannot? Are all the Bishops such poor Spirits; But why can they not? Why, because their Places in Parliament are not hereditary, but by annexation of a Barony to their Office, and depending upon it; so that they may be deprived of their Office, and thereby of their Place at the King's pleasure. First; I believe the Bishops gave their Votes in Parliament as freely to their Con­science and Judgment as this Lord or any other. Secondly; If any of them for Fear or any other motive have given their Votes un­worthily; I doubt not but many Honourable Lords have at some time or other forgot themselves and born the Bishops company: though in this I commend neither. Thirdly; I know some Bishops who had rather lose not their Baronies only, but their Bishopricks also, than Vote so unworthily as this Lord would make the World [Page 51] believe they have done. Lastly, it is true their Seat in Parliament depends on their Barony, their Barony on their Office; and if they be deprived of their Office, both Barony and Seat in Parliament are gone. But I hope my Lord will not say we live under a Tyrant; and then I will say Bishops are not deprivable of their Office, and consequently not of the rest, at the Kings Pleasure. But this Lord proceeds into a farther Amplification: And to whet his inveterate Malice against the King, says as follows. Nay,

They do not so much as sit here, dum bene se gesserint, as the Judges now by your Lordships Petition to the King have their Places granted them, but at Will and Pleasure; and therefore as they were all excluded by Edward the First, as long as he pleased, and Laws made excluso Clero, so may they be by any King at his Pleasure in like man­ner. They must needs therefore be in an absolute dependency upon the Crown, and thereby at Devotion for their Votes, which how prejudicial it hath been, and will be to this House, I need not say.

If I could wonder at any thing which this Lord doth or says in such Arguments as these, when his Heart is up against the Clergy, I should wonder at this. For if he will not suppose the King's Govern­ment to be Tyrannical, the Bishops have their Places during Life, and cannot justly be put out of them, unless their Miscarriage be such as shall merit a Deprivation. And therefore, by this Lord's good leave, they have as good a Tenure as the Judges is of a Quamdiu bene se gesserint. And this they have without their Lordships Petition to the King, as his Lordship tells us was fain to be made for the Judges, there­by galling the King for giving some Patents to the Judges during Plea­sure; which, as the Case stood with them, whether he had Reason to do or not, I will not dispute. So that manifest it is, that the Bishops do not hold their Bishopricks at the King's Will and Pleasure, and consequently neither their Baronies nor their Places in Parlia­ment.

And I would have my Lord consider, whether all the Noblemen that sit in that House, by Blood and Inheritance, be not in the same Condition upon the matter with the Bishops. For as Bishops may commit Crimes worthy Deprivation, and so consequently lose their Votes in Parliament; so are there some Crimes also which Noblemen may commit (God preserve them from them) which may consequent­ly void all their Rights in Parliament, yea, and taint their Blood too.

And as for the Bishops Baronies, they are not at the King's Will and Pleasure neither: For they hold their Baronies from the Crown indeed, but by so long Prescription as will preserve them from any Disseisure at Will and Pleasure of the King. So if they merit not Deprivation by Law and Justice, their Baronies are safe, and that by as good Right, and far antienter Descent, than any the antientest No­bleman of England can plead for himself.

For Edward the First, he was a brave Prince, and is of glorious Memory, and respected the Dutifulness of his Clergy very Royally. As for the Acts of Parliament made in his Time, and the Time of his Royal Successor Edward the Third, I conceive nothing can be gather­ed [Page 52] out of the Titles or Prefaces of those Acts, against either the Bi­shops presence at, or their Voting to those Laws, by any Prohibition of Exclusion of them, by those famous Kings. For though the Sta­tute of Carlisle, 35 Edw. I. not Printed, be recited in the Statute Et Similiter in the Statute of 27 Ed. 3. and 38 Ed. 3. both of Provisces. 25 Edw. III. of Provisoes, and says, that by the Assent of the Earls, Barons, and other Nobles, and all the Commonalty, at their Instances and Requests in the said full Parliament, it was ordained. &c. with­out any mention at all of the Prelates; yet it is more than probable, that the Prelates were Summoned to, and present at these Parliaments. For first, it appears expresly that the Statute of the Staple, 27 Edw. III. made in the same Parliament with the Statute of Provisoes, that the Prelates were Assembled and Present there: And I rather think that in all these Statutes of Provisoes (being professedly made against the Liberty and Jurisdiction of the Pope, in those Times challenged in this Kingdom, to whose Power the Bishops were then Subject) they voluntarily chose to be absent, rather than endanger themselves to the Pope, if they Voted for such Laws; or offend the King and the State, if they Voted against them. But these Laws were not made excluso Clero, and that as long as the King pleased (as this Lord affirms) and this is very plain in the Statute it self of 38 Edw. III. For in the last Chapter of that Statute, though the Prelates be omitted in the Pre­amble, yet there 'tis expresly said, That the King, the Prelates, the Dukes, Earls and Barons, &c. So here was not exclusion of the Bi­shops by the King, but their own voluntary Absence, which made those kind of Laws pass without them.

As for the Parliament at Carlisle, I conceive the Books are misprint­ed, and a common Errour risen by it. For that Parliament was held Anno 35 Edw. I. and was the first of Provisoes; and as appears in the Records, the Prelates were present. Rotulo [...]. 25 Ed. 1. M. 6. [...]. But in 25 Edw. I. the Parlia­ment was Summoned to London, and the Bishops called to it. And there was M. 25 Dorso. another Summons to Salisbury in the same Roll, to which the Prelates were not called. But this, I conceive, was a Summons of the King's Great Council only, and not of a Parliament, the Com­mons not being called any more than the Prelates: Nor were there any other Summons, 25 Edw. I. but these two. That which his Lordship infers upon this, is, that therefore the Bishops are in abso­lute dependency upon the Crown; which is manifestly untrue, since they cannot be outed at Will and Pleasure, but for Demerit only; and that may fall upon Temporal Lords as well as Bishops. And therefore neither are they at Devotion for their Votes; and there­fore, in true Construction, no Prejudice can come by them to that Honourable House. And I pray God their casting out be not more prejudicial both to State and Church than I am willing to forespeak. After this his Lordship tells us what he hath done in this great Argu­ment, saying,

I have now shewed your Lordships how hurtful to themselves and o­thers these things, which the Bill would take away, have been. I will only Answer some Objections which I have met withal, and then crave your Pardon for troubling you so long.

[Page 53] His Lordship tells us he hath shewed how hurtful these things are both to the Bishops and others, which this Bill would hew down; and out of his Zeal and Love to the Church he hath gone farther than any Man in this Argument; yet I conceive he hath not shewed what he thinks he hath. 'Tis true, he hath strongly laboured it, but I hope it will appear he hath not master'd it. I shall now see how he Answers such Objections, as his Lordship says he hath met with. And the First Objection is, his Lordship says,

  • 1. That they have been very Antient.
  • 2. That they are Established by Law.
  • 3. That it may be an Infringement to the House of Peers, for the House of Commons to send up a Bill to take away some of their Members. To these three the Answer will be easie.

I know not how easie the Answer will be, but these must needs be hard Times for Bishops, if neither Antiquity can fence them against Novelty, nor Law defend them against Violence, nor fear of weak­ning the House of Peers preserve them against the Eagerness of the House of Commons; and that in the very House of Peers it self. Let us see then and consider how easie the Answer will be to these, and how sufficient also.

To the First. Antiquity is no good Plea; for that which is by Ex­perience found hurtful, the longer it hath done hurt, the more cause there is now to remove it, that it may do no more. Besides, other Irregula­rities are as antient which have been thought fit to be redressed; and this is not so antient, but that it may truly be said, Non fuit sic ab initio.

This Answer may be easie enough; but sure 'tis not sufficient: Nor do I wonder that Antiquity is no good Plea in this Lord's account; for he is such an Enemy to it, that he will have his very Religion new. If any thing be antient it smells of Antichrist. Yea, but if it be found hurtful, the longer it hath done hurt, the more cause to remove it. That's true; if it be hurtful in and of it self; so is not this. If it does hurt constantly or frequently; else you must cast out the Lay Lords Votes too, and his Lordship's with the rest. For out of all doubt their Votes do hurt sometimes, and it may be more often and more dange­rously than the Bishops Votes: And when this Lord shall be pleased to tell us what those other Irregularities are, which are as antient and yet redressed, I will consider of them, and then either grant or deny. In the mean time, I think it hath been proved that it is no Irregularity for a Bishop that is called to it by Supreme Authority, to give Coun­sel, or otherwise to meddle in Civil Affairs, so as it take him not quite off from his Calling. And for his Lordship's Close, That this is not so antient, but that it may be truly said, Non fuit sic ab initio; his Lordship is much deceived. For that Speech of our Saviour's, St. Matthew 19. 8. is spoken of Marriage which was instituted in Pa­radise, and therefore ab initio, from the beginning, must there be taken from the Creation, or from the Institution of Marriage soon after [Page 52] [...] [Page 53] [...] [Page 54] it. But I hope his Lordship means it not so here, to put it off that Bishops had not Votes in the Parliaments of England from the Creati­on: For then no question but it may be truly said, Non fuit sic ab initio. But if his Lordship, or any other, will apply this Speech to any thing else, which hath not its beginning so high, he must then refer his Words and meaning to that time, in which that thing he speaks of took its beginning; as is this particular to the beginning of Parlia­ments in this Kingdom. And then, under Favour of this Lord, the voting of Bishops in Parliament is so antient that it cannot be truly said, Non fuit sic ab initio: For so far as this Kingdom hath any Re­cords to shew, Clergy-Men both Bishops and Abbots, had free and full Votes in Parliament; so full, as that in the first Parliament of which we have any certain Records, which was in the Forty and ninth Year of Henry the Third, there was Summoned by the King to Vote in Parliament, One hundred and twenty Bishops, Abbots and Priors, and but Twenty three Lay-Lords. Now there were but Twenty six Bi­shops in all, and the Lords being multiplied (to the unspeakable Pre­judice of the Crown) into above One hundred, besides many of their young Sons called by Writ in their Father's Life-time, have ei­ther found or made a troubled time, to cast the Bishops and their Votes out of the House.

2. To the Objection for being Established by Law, his Lordship says, The Law-makers have the same Power and the same Charge to alter old Laws inconvenient, as to make new that are necessary.

The Law-makers have indeed the same Power in them, and the same Charge upon them, that their Predecessors in former Times had; and there's no question but old Laws may be Abrogated and new ones made: But this Lord, who seems to be well versed in the Rules and Laws of Government (which the poor Bishops understand not) can­not but know that it's a dangerous thing to be often changing of the Laws; especially such as have been antient, and where the old is not inconvenient, nor the new necessary; which is the true State of this Business, whatever this Lord thinks.

3. And for the Third Objection, the Privileges of the House, this Lord says, it can be no Breach of them. For either Estate may propose to the other by way of Bill, what they conceive to be for publick Good, and they have Power respectively of accepting or refusing.

This is an easie Answer indeed, and very true. For either Estate in Parliament may propose to the other by way of Bill, and they have Power respectively of accepting or refusing; and there is no Breach of Privilege in all this. But this easie Answer comes not home. For how my Lord understands this Objection, I know not; it seems as if it did reach only to the external Breach of some Privilege, but I con­ceive they which made the Objection meant much more. As name­ly, that by this Bill there was an aim in the Commons to weaken the Lords House, and by making their Votes fewer, to be the better able to work them to their own Ends in future Businesses. So the Argu­ment [Page 55] is of equal, if not greater strength against the Lord's yielding to the Bill to the Iufringement of their own strength, than to the Commons proposing it, and there is no doubt but that the Commons might propose their Bill without Breach of Privilege; but whether the Lords might grant it without impairing their own strength, I leave the future Times, which shall see the Success of this Act of Parlia­ment, to judge of the Wisdom of it, which I shall not presume to do. I thought his Lordship had now done, but he tells us,

4. There are two other Objections which may seem to have more force; but they will receive satisfactory Answers. The one is, that if they may remove Bishops, they may as well next time remove Barons and Earls.

This Lord confesses the two Arguments following are of more force, but he says they will receive satisfactory Answers. And it may be so. But what Answers soever they may receive, yet I doubt whether those which that Lord gives be such: For to this of taking away of Barons and Earls next, his Lordship Answers two things. First he says,

The Reason is not the same; the one sitting by an Honour invested in their Blood and Hereditary, which though it be in the King alone to grant, yet being once granted he cannot take away. The other sitting by a Barony depending upon an Office, which may be taken away; for if they be deprived of their Office, they sit not.

To this there have been enough said before, yet that it may fully appear this Reason is not Satisfactory, this Lord should do well to know, or rather to remember, for I think he knows it already, that though these great Lords have and hold their Places in Parliament by Blood and Inheritance, and the Bishops by Baronies depending upon their Office; yet the King, which gives alone, can no more justly or lawfully alone away their Office without their Demerit, and that in a legal way, than he can take away Noblemens Honours. And there­fore, for ought is yet said, their Cases are not so much alike as his Lordship would have them seem. In this indeed they differ somewhat, that Bishops may be deprived upon more Crimes, than those are for which Earls and Barons may lose their Honours; but neither of them can be justly done by the King's Will and Pleasure only. But Se­condly, for farther Answer this Lord tells us,

The Bishops sitting there is not so essential. For Laws have been, and may be made, they being all excluded; but it can never be shewed that ever there were Laws made by the King and them, the Lords and Earls excluded.

This Reason is as little satisfactory to me as the former. For cer­tainly, according to Law and Prescription of Hundreds of Years, the Bishops sitting in that House is as essential as the Lords. And this about the Laws made without them, is built only upon some difficult emergent Cases, from which they desired to be exempt and free themselves: Not from any constraint of the State; nor from any [Page 56] Opinion of the King, Peers or People, that it was fit to make Laws without them. But to this we have given an Answer before.

But this Objection of taking away the Earls and Barons next, strikes (as I conceive) another way at the Lord's House, than either of those Answers or Reasons seem to meet with. And perhaps this Lord him­self is willing to pass it by, if he does see it; and 'tis thus. The House of Commons sees and knows well enough, that should they bring up a Bill open, and with a bare edge to take away the Votes from the Lords, it could not possibly be endured by either King or Peers. Therefore the Bill which may come to take them away next, and which may be meant in this Objection, may be a Bill to make one House of both, and set them altogether, under the pretence of grea­ter Unity, and more free and quick dispatch of all Business, all Mes­sages and Conferences, and breach of Correspondencies, and Diffe­rences happening between the Two Houses, while they are Two, being by this means taken away. And this I am sure hath been much spoken of since this Parliament began, and may with far more ease be next compassed now the Bishops are thrust out; both because there are fewer in the Lord's House to help to cast out such a Bill, and because the Commons House, which would willingly receive the Lords in among them, would never admit the Bishops into their House. So that both ways this is made far more easie to Pass. And, should this happen, I would fain know of this Lord, wherein this Objection would fail, that they might the next time remove the Barons and the Earls. Not remove them from making Laws (as his Lordship speaks of it) but remove them into the House of Commons, where their Votes shall be swallow'd up among the many, and might be quite over­master'd, though they should not all Agree and Vote one way. For then the meanest Commoner in that House would have his Vote as great as the greatest Earls. Whereas now in their own House being distinct, though all the House of Commons agree upon a Bill, or any thing else; the Lords may, if they see Reason, alter or reject it. So that if hereafter they be reduced to one House, I make no question but their Votes are gone next after the Bishops. And if his Lordship shall think this an impossible Supposition; let him know, it is not half so impossible, as that which he made before, of the Heavenly Bodies breaking out of their own Spheres. But we are now come to the last Objection, the other of the two, which his Lordship says are stronger. And,

5. The other Objection is this, That this Bill alters the Foundation of this House; and Innovations, which shake Foundations, are dan­gerous.

And truly this Objection seems to me very strong; but perhaps that is by reason of my Weakness; for my Lord tells us before, that it is capable of a satisfactory Answer; and here his Lordship gives two for failing.

I Answer, First, That if there should be an Errour in the Founda­tion, when it shall be found, and the Master-Builders be met together, [Page 57] they may, nay, they ought rather to amend it, than to suffer it to run on still to the prejudice and danger of the whole Structure.

This Answer, whatever this Lord thinks of it, is not satisfactory; and the thing will be full of danger, whensoever it shall be put to trial. For Foundations are seldom meddled withal but with great hazard, and a Fundamental Errour in a Kingdom is born with more Safety to the whole than it can be taken away. And this happens partly because among the many Subjects of a Kingdom there are different Judgments, and as different Affections; whence it follows, that all Men are not of Opinion, that that which is called an Er­rour in the Foundation, is so indeed: Nor do the Affections of all Men dislike it, nay perhaps the greater, perhaps the better part will approve it. In this Case, if the Master-Builders fall to mend­ing of this somewhat boisterously, may they not rend all in pieces, to fall about their own Ears, and other Mens? And partly, because the Master-Builders which are to meet to repair the decays of the State, though in all Ages they have the same Authority to make Laws, yet they have not in all Ages the same Skill and Wisdom, for the making or the mending of them. Whence it follows, that even the Master-Builders themselves may mistake, and call that the Errour, which is indeed a great part of the Strength of the Foun­dation: And so by tampering to mend that which is better already, endanger the shaking, if not the fall, of the whole Structure, which they would labour to preserve. And I pray God Posterity do not find it, that even the Master-Builders which are now met, be not so deceived, and with as ill Success, in casting the Bishops Votes out of the House, under the Name of an Errour in the Foundation. But if this Answer satisfie not, his Lordship may hope his next will. For,

Secondly; he says This is not Fundamental to this House. For it hath stood without them, and done all that appertains to the Power thereof without them, yea, they being wholly [...]: and that which hath been done for a time at the King's pleasure, may be done with as little danger for a longer time; and when it appears to the fit, and for publick good, not only mahy, but ought to be done altogether by the Supreme Power.

It seems this Lord distrusts his former Answer about mending Fun damental Errours in a State, and therefore here he denies that Bi­shops and their Votes are Fundamental to the Lords House. But I doubt his Lordship is mistaken in this. For that is Fundamental in any Court, which in that Court is first laid and settled, upon which all the future Structure is raised. Now in the Lords House of Parliament, the Bishops Votes were laid at the very first, as well as the Votes of the Lords Temporal. Nay, with a Precedency both in Place and Number, and all the Ordinances and Powers of that great Court have equally proceeded from the Votes of the Bishops and the Lords: and therefore for ought which yet appears to me, either the Lords Vote are not Fundamental to that House, or the Bishops are.

[Page 58] But his Lordship proves they are not Fundamental to that House, because that House hath stood without them. But weakly enough, God knows, like a House whose Foundations are shaken upon one side, and because that House hath done all that appertains to the Power of it without them. It may be so. But I doubt whether it did all that ap­pertains to the Wisdom of it without them. For this relation again to that Parliament under Edward the First, from which, his Lordship says Bishops were excluded; and we know that Parliament is called In­doctum Parliamentum, the unlearned Parliament: For all the Lawyers were excluded from that Parliament as well as the Clergy-Men. And therefore were this Lord indifferent, he might argue that Lawyers Votes are not Fundamental in the Commons House; which is true, tho' no way convenient, rather than that Bishops Votes are not Fundamen­tal in the Lords House; which is utterly against all Truth and Con­venience. But his Lordship's Tooth is so sharp, and so black against that Order, that he snaps at them upon all, and upon no Occasion, and would invenom them had he Power.

To make this seem the better, his Lordship ends this Speech with a piece of Philosophy, which I cannot approve neither. For he says, That which hath been done for a time at the King's Pleasure, may be done with as little danger for a longer time. For First, this Propo­sition is unsound in it self: For many Cases may happen, in which divers things may be done for a Prince's Pleasure once, or for a time, and with no great danger; which continued or often repeated, will be full of danger, and perhaps not endured by the Subject. Secondly, I am confident, let the Tables be but turned from a Bishop to a Lay-Man, and this Lord shall eat his own Proposition. For in­stance; in another Parliament, and in a time generally received to be as good as that of Edward the First, in Queen Elizabeth's time, and within my own Memory, Mr. Peter Wentworth moved in the House of Commons to have an Heir apparent declared for the better and securer Peace of the Kingdom in After-times. The Queen, for her meer Will and Pleasure (for that which he did was no Offence against Law) took him either out of the House, or so soon as he came out of the House, clap'd him up in the Tower, where he lay till his Death. What will this Lord say to this? Will he say this was done once at the Prince's Pleasure? Why then I return his Proposition upon him, and tell him, that that which was done once at one Prince's Pleasure, may be done oftner at other Prince's Pleasure with as little danger. Or will this Lord say this was not done at the Queen's Pleasure, but but she might justly and legally do so? Then other Princes of this Realm having the same Power residing in them, may do by other Parliament Men, as she did with this Gentleman. And which soever of the two he shall say, King Charles had as good Right, and with as little Breach of Parliament-Privilege, to demand the Six Men which by his Attorney he had accused of Treason, as that great Queen had to lay hold on Mr. Wentworth.

Since I had written this, the Observer steps in and tells us, That a Observations upon some of His Majesty's late Answers, p. 7. meer Example (though of Queen Elizabeth) is no Law; for some of her Actions were retracted: and that yet without question Queen Eli­zabeth might do that which a Prince less beloved could never have [Page 59] done. 'Tis true, that a meer Example is not a Law, and yet the Par­liaments of England, even in that happy Queen's Time, were not apt to bear Examples against Law; and if that she did were not against Law, that's as much as I ask. For then neither is that against Law which King Charles did upon a far higher Accusation, than could be charged against Mr. Wentworth. 'Tis true again, that Queen Eliza­beth might do that which a Prince less beloved could not have done; that is, she might do that with safety, which a Prince less beloved could not do, that is, not do with safety. But whatsoever is lawful for one Prince to do, is as lawful for another; though perhaps not so expedient, in regard of what will be well or ill taken by the People. But otherwise the Peoples Affection to the Prince can be no Rule nor Measure of the Princes Justice to the People.

I will be bold to give him another Instance. King Charles demand­ed Ship-Money all over the Kingdom: Either he did this justly and legally for the Defence of himself and the Publick; or he did it at his Will and Pleasure, thinking that an honourable and fit way of De­fence. I am sure this Lord will not say he did it legally, for his Vote concurred to the condemning of it in Parliament: And if he say he did it at his own Will and Pleasure, then I would fain know of his Lordship, whether this which was done for a time at the King's Plea­sure, may be done with as little danger to the Liberty of the Subject, and the Property of his Goods, for a longer time, and so be conti­nued on the Subject? And if he says it may, why did he Vote against it as a thing dangerous? And if he says it may not, then he must Condemn his own Proposition. For he cannot but see, that that which is once done, or done for a short time at a Prince's Will and Pleasure, cannot be often repeated or continued, but with far greater danger than it was once done. Though for the thing it self, if it were not legal, I am sorry it is not made so. For it would be, under God, the greatest Honour and Security that this Nation ever had: Whereas now the Tugging which falls out between the King's Power, and the Peoples Liberty, will in time (unless God's infinite Mercy prevents it) do that in this Kingdom, which I abhor to think on.

This Lord goes on yet and tells us, That that which hath been so done for a time, when it appears to be fit and for publick Good, not only may, but ought to be done altogether by the Supream Power. So then here this is his Lordship's Doctrine, that that which was once done at a Prince's Will and Pleasure, when it shall appear to be fit, and for the publick Good (as he supposeth here the taking away of Bishops Votes to be) it not only may, but ought to be done altogether by the Supream Power, as now that is done by Act of Parliament. Not only may, but ought! Soft a little; His Lordship had the same Phrase immediately before. Why but, First, every thing that is fit, ought not by and by to be made up into a Law: For fitness may vary very often, which Laws should not. Secondly, Every thing that is for the publick Good, is not by and by to be made up into a Law. For many things in Times of Difficulty and Exigency may be for publick Good, which in some other Times may be hurtful, and there­fore not to be generally bound within a Law. And if his Lordship shall say, as here he doth, that they ought to be done altogether, and [Page 60] be made up into a Law by the Supream Power, but fitted only to such Times; under his Lordship's Favour, that ought not to be neither. For let such a Law be made, and he that is once Master of the Times, will have the Law ready to serve his turn and theirs, whether the Times bear the like Necessity or not.

And since every thing that is fit, and is for publick Good, ought not by and by, without more Experience of it, to be made up into a Law; then much less that which appears so; yea, though it appear never so evidently; yea, and to the wisest Parliament that ever sat. 'Tis true, they may make such a thing into a Law, and 'tis fit for the most part so to do; but to say they ought to do it, is more than I can believe. For no Parliament is or can be so wise as to be infal­lible, and no Evidence can be so apparent unto them in those things of infinite variety for the publick Good, and in which is so much uncertainty; but that they may both piously and prudently forbear the making of some of them into a Law if they please. But no Man may forbear that which he ought to do, when he ought to do it: And till that time comes, he ought not. This Lord hath now done, and so have I: And I shall end with my Prayers to God, that this Act of Parliament now made to cast the Bishops and their Votes out of the Parliament, how fit soever it seems, and how much soever it appears to this Lord to be for the publick Good, do not turn to the decay of Religion, and the great Damage and Detriment of King and Peers, of Church and State.

Amen.

A SPEECH Delivered in the STAR-CHAMBER, On Wednesday the Fourteenth of June, 1637. AT THE CENSURE OF J. Bastwick, H. Burton, and W. Prinn; CONCERNING Pretended Innovations IN THE CHURCH.By the Most Reverend Father in GOD, WILLIAM LAUD, Then Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury.

TO HIS MOST Sacred Majesty, CHARLES, By the Grace of GOD, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.

Most Gracious and Dread Sovereign,

I Had no purpose to come in Print, but Your Majesty com­mands it, and I obey. Most sorry I am for the Occasion that induced me to speak, and that since hath moved You to command me to Print. Nor am I ignorant that many things, while they are spoken and pass by the Ear but once, give great Content; which when they come to the Eyes of Men, and their often Scanning, may lie open to some Exceptions. This may fall to my Lot in this particular, and very easily, considering my many Diversions, and the little time I could snatch from other Imployment to attend this. Yet chuse I rather to obey Your Majesty, than to Sacrifice to mine own Privacy and Content.

Since then this Speech uttered in publick in the Star-Cham­ber, must now come to be more publick in Print; I humbly desire Your Sacred Majesty to Protect me, and it, from the undeserved Calumny of those Men, whose Mouths are spears and arrows, and their Tongues a sharp sword, Psal. 57. 4. Though as the wise Man speaks, their foolish Mouths have already called for their own stripes, and their Lips (and Pens) been a snare for their Souls, Prov. 18. 6, 7.

The Occasion which led me to this Speech is known. There have of late been divers Libels spread against the Prelates of this Church. And they have not been more bitter, which is the Shame of these raging Waves, than they are utterly [...]. 13. false, which is Our Happiness. But I must humbly beseech Your Majesty to consider, That 'tis not We only, that is, the [Page 64] Bishops, that are struck at, but, through our sides, Your Ma­jesty, Your Honour, Your Safety, Your Religion, is im­peached. For what Safety can You expect, if You loose the Hearts of Your People? And how can You retain their Hearts, if You change their Religion into Superstition? And what Honour can You hope for, either present, or derivative to Po­sterity, if You attend Your Government no better than to suffer Your Prelates to put this Change upon You? And what Ma­jesty can any Prince retain, if he lose his Honour and his People?

God be thanked 'tis in all Points otherwise with You: For God hath blessed You with a Religious Heart, and not subject to Change. And he hath filled You with Honour in the Eyes of Your People: And by their Love and Dutifulness He hath made You safe. So that Your Majesty is upheld, and Your Crown flourishing in the Eyes of Christendom. And God forbid any Libellous Blast at Home from the Tongues or Pens of a few, should shrivel up any growth of these.

We have received, and daily do receive from God, many and great Blessings by You: And I hope they are not many that are unthankful to You, or to God for You. And that there should be none in a Populous Nation, even Enemies to their own Happiness, cannot be expected. Yet I shall desire even these to call themselves to an Account, and to remember, that Blasphemy against God, and slandering the Footsteps of his Anointed, are joined together, Psal. 89. For Psal. 89. v. 50. Wherewith thine Enemies hath Blasphemed Thee, and slandered the Footsteps of thine A­nointed. he that Blasphemes God, will never stick at the Slander of his Prince; and he that gives himself the liberty to Slander his Prince, will quickly ascend to the next Highest, and Blaspheme God.

But then, as I desire them to remember, so I do most hum­bly beseech Your Majesty to account with Your self too: And not to measure Your Peoples Love by the Vnworthiness of those few. For a Loyal and Obedient People You have, and such as will spare nor Livelihood, nor Life, to do You Service; and are joyed at the Heart to see the Moderation of Your Go­vernment, and Your Constancy to maintain Religion, and Your Piety in Exampling it.

And as I thus beseech You for Your People in General, so do I particularly for the Three Professions which have a little suffer'd in these Three most Notorious Libellers Persons.

[Page 65] And first for my own Profession, I humbly beg of Your Majesty to think Mr. Burton hath not in this many Followers, and am heartily sorry he would needs lead. The best is, Your Majesty knows what made his Rancour swell; I'll say no more.

And for the Law, I truly Honour it with my Heart, and believe Mr. Prynn may seek all the Inns of Court, (and with a Candle too if he will) and scarce find such a Malevolent as himself against State and Church. And because he hath so frequently thrust mistaken Law into these Pamphlets, to wrong the Governors of the Church, and abuse your good and well­minded People, and makes Burton and Bastwick utter Law which, God knows, they understand not, (for I doubt his Pen is in all the Pamphlets) I do humbly, in the Church's Name desire of Your Majesty, that it may be resolved by all the Reverend Judges of England, and then published by Your Majesty, That our keeping Courts, and issuing Process in our own Names, and the like Exceptions formerly taken, and now renewed, are not against the Laws of the Realm, (as 'tis most certain they are not) that so the Church-Govern­nors may go on chearfully in their Duty, and the Peoples Minds be quieted by this Assurance, that neither the Law, nor their Liberty, as Subjects, is thereby infringed.

And for Physick, the Profession is honourable, and safe; and I know the Professors of it will remember that, Corpus Humanum, Man's Body, is that, about which their Art is con­versant, not Corpus Ecclesiasticum, or Politicum, the Body of the Church, State, or Commonwealth. Bastwick only hath been bold that way. But the Proverb in the Gospel, in the St. Luke 4. 23. Fourth of St. Luke is all I'll say to him, Medice, cura teip­sum, Physician, heal thy self. And yet let me tell Your Ma­jesty, I believe he hath gained more by making the Church a Patient, than by all the Patients he ever had beside.

Sir, both my self, and my Brethren have been very course­ly used by the Tongues and Pens of these Men, yet shall I never give Your Majesty any sow'r Counsel; I shall rather manifie Your Clemency, that proceeded with these Offenders in a Court of Mercy as well as Justice: Since (as the Re­verend Judges then declared) You might have justly called the Offenders into another Court, and put them to it in a way [Page 66] that might have exacted their Lives, for their stirring (as much as in them lay) of Mutiny and Sedition.

Yet this I shall be bold to say, and Your Majesty may con­sider of it in Your Wisdom, That one way of Government is not always either fit or safe, when the Humours of the People are in a continual Change: Especially, when such Men as these shall work upon Your People, and labour to infuse into them such malignant Principles, to introduce a Parity in the Church or Commonwealth. Et si non satis sua sponte in­saniant, instigare, And to spur on such among them as are too sharply set already: And by this means make and prepare all Advantages for the Roman Party to scorn Vs, and pervert Them.

I pray God bless Your Majesty, Your Royal Consort, and Your hopeful Posterity, that You may Live in Happi­ness; Govern with Wisdom; Support Your People by Ju­stice; Relieve them by Mercy; Defend them by Power and Success; And Guide them in the true Religion by Your Laws and most Religious Example, all the long and lasting Days of Your Life: Which are and shall be the daily Prayers of

Your Sacred Majesty's most Loyal Subject, and Most Dutiful Servant, as most bound, W. Cant.

Arch-Bishop LAVD's SPEECH AT THE CENSURE OF J. Bastwick, H. Burton, and W. Prinn.

My LORDS,

I Shall not need to speak of the infamous Course of Libelling in any kind: Nor of the Punishment of it, which in some Cases was Capital by the Imperial Laws; as appears, Cod. l. 9. T. 36. Nor how patiently some great Men, very great Men indeed, have born Animo civili (that's Sueton. his word In Jul. c. 75.) laceratam existi­mationem, The tearing and rending of their Credit and Reputation, with a gentle, nay, a generous Mind.

But of all Libels, they are most odius which pretend Religion: As if that of all things did desire to be defended by a Mouth that is like an open Sepulchre, or by a Pen that is made of a sick and a loath­som Quill.

There were Times when Persecutions were great in the Church, even to exceed Barbarity it self: Did any Martyr or Confessor, in those Times, Libel the Governours? Surely no; not one of them to my best Remembrance: yet these complain of Persecution without all shew of cause; and in the mean time Libel and Rail without all measure. So little of kin are they to those which suffer for Christ, or the least part of Christian Religion.

My Lords, It is not every Man's Spirit to hold up against the Ve­nome which Libellers spit. For S. Ambrose, who was a stout and a worthy Prelate, tells us, not that himself, but that a far greater Man than he, that's King David, had found out (so it seems in his Judg­ment 'twas no matter of ordinary Ability) Grande inventum, a great and mighty Invention, how to swallow and put off those bitter Con­tumilies of the Tongue In Apol. 1. David. c. 6.: And those of the Pen are no whit less, and spread farther. And it was a great one indeed, and well beseemed the greatness of David. But I think it will be far better for me to look upward, and practise it, than to look downward, and discourse upon it.

[Page 68] In the mean time I shall remember what an Antient, under the name of S. Hierom, tells me *, Indignum est & praeposterum, 'Tis un­worthy Ad Ocean. de Ferend. Opprob. in it self, and preposterous in demeanour for a Man to be asha­med for doing good, because other Men glory in speaking ill.

And I can say it clearly and truly, as in the presence of God, I have done nothing, as a Prelate, to the uttermost of what I am conscious, but with a single Heart, and with a sincere Intention for the good Govern­ment and Honour of the Church, and the maintenance of the Orthodox Truth and Religion of Christ, professed, established, and maintained in this Church of England.

For my Care of this Church, the reducing of it into Order, the up­holding of the external Worship of God in it, and the setling of it to the Rules of its first Reformation, are the Causes (and the sole Causes, whatever are pretended) of all this malicious Storm, which hath lowred so black upon me, and some of my Brethren. And in the mean time, they which are the only, or the chief Innovators of the Christian World, having nothing say, accuse us of Innovation; They themselves and their Complices in the mean time being the greatest Innovators that the Christian World hath almost ever known. I deny not but others have spread more dangerous Errors in the Church of Christ; but no Men, in any Age of it, have been more guilty of Innovation then they, while themselves cry out against it: Quis tulerit Gracchos?

And I said well, Quis tulerit Gracchos? For 'tis most apparent to any Man that will not wink, that the Intention of these Men, and their Abettors, was and is to raise a Sedition, being as great Incen­diaries in the State (where they get Power) as they have ever been in the Church; Novatian himself hardly greater.

Our main Crime is (would they all speak out, as some of them do) Burton's Apol. p. 110. that we are Bishops; were we not so, some of us might be as passable as other Men.

And a great trouble 'tis to them, that we maintain that our Calling of Bishops is Jure Divino, by Divine Right: Of this I have said enough, and in this place, in Leighton's Case, nor will I repeat. Only this I will say, and abide by it, that the Calling of Bishops is Jure Divino, by Divine Right, tho' not all Adjuncts to their Calling. And this I say in as direct opposition to the Church of Rome, as to the Puritan Humour.

And I say farther, that from the Apostles times, in all Ages, in all Places, the Church of Christ was governed by Bishops: And Lay-Elders never heard of, till Calvin's new-fangled Device at Geneva.

Now this is made by these Men, as if it were Contra Regem, against the King, in Right or in Power.

But that's a meer ignorant shift; for our being Bishops, Jure Divino, by Divine Right, takes nothing from the King's Right or Power over us. For though our Office be from God and Christ immediately, yet may we not exercise that Power, either of Order or Jurisdiction, but as God hath appointed us, that is, not in His Majesty's, or any Chri­stian King's Kingdoms, but by and under the Power of the King gi­ven us so to do.

And were this a good Argument against us, as Bishops, it must needs be good against Priests and Ministers too; for themselves grant that [Page 69] their Calling is Jure Divino, by Divine Right; and yet I hope they will not say, that to be Priests and Ministers is against the King, or any his Royal Prerogatives.

Next, Suppose our Callings, as Bishops, could not be made good Jure Divino, by Divine Right, yet Jure Ecclesiastico, by Ecclesiastical Right, it cannot be denied. And here in England the Bishops are con­firmed, both in their Power and Means, by Act of Parliament. So that here we stand in as good Case as the present Laws of the Realm can make us. And so we must stand till the Laws shall be repealed by the same Power that made them.

Now then, suppose we had no other string to hold by (I say sup­pose this, but I grant it not) yet no Man can Libel against our Calling (as these Men do) be it in Pulpit, Print or otherwise, but he Libels against the King and the State, by whose Laws we are establi­shed. Therefore, all these Libels, so far forth as they are against our Calling, are against the King and the Law, and can have no other purpose, than to stir up Sedition among the People.

If these Men had any other Intention, or if they had any Christian or charitable desire to reform any thing amiss; why did they not modestly Petition his Majesty about it, that in his Princely Wisdom he might set all things right, in a Just and Orderly manner? But this was neither their Intention nor Way. For one clamours out of his Pulpit, and all of them from the Press, and in a most virulent and unchristian manner set themselves to make a Heat among the People; and so by Mutiny, to effect that which by Law they cannot; and by most false and unjust Calumnies to defame both our Callings and Persons. But for my Part, as I pity their Rage, so I heartily pray God to forgive their Malice.

No Nation hath ever appeared more jealous of Religion, than the People of England have ever been. And their Zeal to God's Glory hath been, and at this day is a great honour to them. But this Zeal of theirs, hath not been at all times and in all Persons, alike guided by knowledge. Now Zeal, as it is of excellent use, where it sees its way; so it is very dangerous company, where it goes on in the You may see it in the Examplé of S. Paul him­self, whose ve­ry zeal in the darkness of his Vnderstanding, which he then had, made him persecute Christ and his Church, Act. 22. 3, 4. And he was very dange­rous company then; for he breath'd out threatnings against the Disciples, Act. 9. 1. So true is that of Saint Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. Zelus Iracundiam acuit: All Zeal puts an edge to Anger it self: And that must needs be dangerous in the dark. dark: And these Men knowing the Disposition of the People, have laboured nothing more, than to misinform their knowledge, and misguide their Zeal, and so to fire that into a Sedition, in hope that they whom they causlesly hate, might miscarry in it.

For the main scope of these Libels is to kindle a Jealousie in Mens Minds, that there are some great Plots in Hand, dangerous Plots (so Page 5. says Mr. Burton expresly) to change the Orthodox Religion established in England; and to bring in, I know not what, Romish Superstition in the room of it. As if the external decent worship of God could not be upheld in this Kingdom, without bringing in of Popery.

Now by this Art of theirs, give me leave to tell you that the King is most desperately abused and wounded in the Minds of his People, and the Prelates shamefully.

[Page 70] The King most desparately: For there is not a more cunning trick in the World, to withdraw the Peoples Hearts from their Sovereign, than to persuade them that he is changing true Religion, and a­bout to bring in gross Superstition upon them.

Aud the Prelates shamefully: For they are charged to seduce, and lay the Plot, and be the Instruments.

For his Majesty first. This I know, and upon this occasion take it my Duty to speak: There is no Prince in Christendom more sincere in his Religion, nor more constant to it, than the King. And he gave such a Testimony of this at his being in Spain, as I much doubt whether the best of that Faction durst have done half so much as his Majesty did, in the Face of that Kingdom. And this you, my Lord, the Earl of Holland, and other Persons of Honour, were Eye and Ear Witnesses of, having the happiness to attend Him there. And at this day, as his Majesty (by God's great Blessing both on him and us) knows more, so is he more settled and more confirmed, both in the Truth of the Religion here established, and in Resolution to maintain it.

And for the Prelates; I assure my self, they cannot be so base, as to live Prelates in the Church of England, and labour to bring in the Superstitions of the Church of Rome upon themselves and it. And if any should be so foul, I do not only leave him to God's Judgment, but (if these Libellers, or any other, can disdover that his base and irreligious falshood) to shame also, and severe Punishment from the State: And in any just way, no Man's Hand shall be more, or sooner against him, than mine shall be.

And for my self, to pass by all the scandalous reproacbes, which they have most injuriously cast upon me, I shall say this only.

First, I know of no Plot, nor purpose of altering the Religion established.

Secondly, I have ever been far from attempting any thing that may truly be said to tend that way in the least degree: And to these two, I here offer my Oath.

Thirdly, If the King had a mind to change Religion, (which I know he hath not, and God forbid he should ever have) he must seek for other Instruments. For as basely as these Men conceive of me, yet I thank God, I know my Duty well, both to God and the King: And I know that all the Duty I owe to the King, is under God. And my great happiness it is (though not mine alone, but your Lordships and all his Subjects with me) that we live under a Gracious and a Religious King, that will ever give us leave to serve God first, and Him next. But were the days otherwise, I thank Christ for it, I yet know not how to serve any Man against the Truth of God, and I hope I shall never learn it.

But to return to the business; what is their Art to make the World believe a change of Religion is endeavoured? What? Why forsooth, they say, there are great Innovations brought in by the Prelates, and such as tend to the advancing of Popery.

Now that the Vanity and Falshood of this may appear, I shall humbly defire your Lordships to give me leave to recite briefly all the Innovations charged upon us, be they of less or greater Moment, [Page 71] and as briestly to answer them. And then you shall clearly see, whe­ther any cause hath been given of these unsavory Libels; and with­all, whether there be any shew of cause to fear a change of Religi­on. And I will take these great pretended Innovations in order, as I meet with them.

First, I begin with the News from Ipswich.

Where the First Page. [...] Innovation is, that the last Years Fast was enjoyned to be without Sermons in London, the Suburbs, and other infected Places, contrary to the Orders for other Fasts in former times: Whereas Sermons are the only means to humble Men, &c.

To this I say First. That an after-Age may without Offence, learn to avoid any visible Inconvenience observed in the former. And there was visible Inconvenience observed in Mens former flocking to Sermons in Infected Places.

Secondly, This was no particular Act of Prelates; but the business was debated at the Council-Table, being a matter of State, as well as of Religion. And it was concluded for no Sermons in those Infected Places, upon this Reason, that Infected Persons or Families, known in their own Parishes, might not take occasion upon those by-days to run to other Churches where they were not known, as many use to do, to hear some humorons Men Preach; For on the Sundays, when they better kept their own Churches: The Danger is not so great altogether.

Nor Thirdly, is that true, that Sermons are the Only means to humble Men. For though the Preaching of God's Word, where it is performed according to his Ordinance, be a great means of many good Effects in the Souls of Men; Yet no Sermons are the only means to humble Men. And some of their Sermons are fitter a great deal for other Operations: Namely, to stir up Sedition, as you may see by Mr. [...]; for this his printed Libel was a Ser­mon first, and a Libel too. And 'tis the best part of a Fast to ab­stain from such Sermons.

2. The Second Innovation is, Page. [...] That Wednesday was appointed for the Fast-day, and that this was done with this Intention, by the Example of this Fast without Preaching, to suppress all the Wednesday Lectures in London.

To this I answer First, That the appointing of Wednesday for the Fast-day was no Innovation. For it was the day in the last Fast be­fore this: And I my self remember it so, above forty years since more than once.

Secondly, If there be any Innovation in it, the Prelates named not the day; my Lord Keeper, I must appeal to your Lordship: The day was first named by your Lordship, as the usual and fit­test day. And yet I dare say, and swear too, that your Lordship had no aim to bring in Popery; nor to suppress all, or any the Wednesday Lectures in London. Besides, these Men live to see the Fast ended, and no one Wednesday Lecture suppressed.

[Page 72]

3. The Third Innovation Page. 3 is, that the Prayer for seasonable weather was purged out of this last Fast-Book, which was (say they) one cause of Ship-wrecks and tempestuous weather.

To this I say, First in the General; this Fast-Book, and all that have formerly been made, have been both made and published by the command of the King, in whose sole Power it is to call a Fast. And the Arch-Bishop and Bishops to whom the ordering of the Book is committed, have power under the King, to put in, or leave out, whatsoever they think fit for the present Occasion; as their Predecessors have ever done before them. Provided that nothing be In contrary to the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church of England

And this may serve in the General for all Alterations, in that or any other Fast-Book, or Books of Devotion upon any particular Occasions, which may and ought to vary with several times, and we may, and do, and will justifie, under his Majestys Power, all such Alterations made therein.

Secondly, For the particular. When this last-Book was set out, the weather was very seasonable. And it is not the custom of the Church, nor fit in it self to pray for seasonable weather when we have it, but when we want it. When the former Book was set out, the weather was extreme ill, and the Harvest in Danger; Now the Harvest was in, and the weather good.

Thirdly, [...] most inconsequent to say, that the leaving that Prayer out of the Book of Devotions, caused the Shipwrecks and the Tempests which followed. And as bold they are with God Almighty, in saying it was the cause: For sure I am, God never told them that was the cause. And if God never revealed it, they cannot come to know it; yet had the Bishops been Prophets, and foreseen these Accidents, they would certainly have prayed against them.

Fourthly, Had any Minister found it necessary to use this Prayer at any one time during the Fast, he might with ease and without Danger, have supplied that want, by using that Prayer to the same purpose, which is in the Ordinary Liturgy.

Fifthly, I humbly desire your Lordships to weigh well the Consequence of this great and dangerous Innovation. The Prayer for fair wea­ther was left out of the Book for the Fast; Therefore the Prelates intend to bring in Popery. An excellent Consequence, were there any shew of Reason in it.

4 The Fourth Innovation Page. 3. is, That there is one very useful Collect left out, and a Clause omitted in another.

To this I answer First, As before; It was lawful for us to alter what we thought fit.

And Secondly, Since that Collect made mention of Preaching, and the Act of State forbad Sermons on the Fast-days in infected Places, we thought it fit, in pursuance of that Order, to leave out that Collect.

[Page 73] And Thirdly, For the branch in the other, which is the first Collect, though God did deliver our [...] out of Romish Superstition, yet ( God be blessed for it) we were never in. And therefore that clause being [...] expressed, we thought fit to pass it over.

5. The Fifth Innovation Page. 3. is, That in the sixth Order for the Fast, there is a passage left out concerning the abuse of Fasting in relation to Merit.

To this I answer. That he to whom the ordering of that Book to the Press was committed, did therefore leave it out; because in this Age and Kingdom there is little Opinion of Meriting by Fasting.

Nay, on the contray, the Contempt and Scorn of all Fasting (save what humorous Men call for of themselves) is so rank, that it would grieve any Christian Man to see the necessary Orders of the Church concerning Fasting, both in Lent and at other set times, so vilified as they are.

6. The Sixth Innovation Page. 3. is, That the Lady Elizabeth and her Prin­cely Children are dashed (that's their phrase) out of the new Collect, whereas they were in [...] Collect of the former Book.

For this First, The Author of the News knows full well that they are left out of the Collect in the latter Editions of the Com­mon Prayer-Book, as well as in the Book for the Fast. And this was done according to the Course of the Church, which ordinarily names none in the Prayer but the Right Line descending. Yet this was not done till the King himself commanded it; as I have to shew under his Majesty's Hand.

Secondly, I beseech your Lordships to consider, what must be the Consequence here: The Queen of Bohemia and her Children are left out of the Collect, therefore the Prelates intend to bring in Popery; For that (you know) they say, is the end of all these Innovations. Now if this be the end and the Consequence, truly the Libellers have done very dutifully to the King, to poyson his People with this con­ceit; that the Lady Elizabeth and her Children would keep Popery out of this Kingdom, but the King and his Children will not. And many as good Offices as these have they done the King quite thorow these Libels, and quite thorow his Kingdoms. For My part, I honour the Queen of Bohemia, and her Line, as much as any Man whatsoever, and shall be as ready to serve them, but I know not how to depart from my Allegiance, as I doubt these Men have done.

7. The Seventh Innovation Page. 3. is, That these words (who art the Father of thine Elect and of their Seed) are changed in the Preface of that Collect, which is for the Prince and the King's Children. And with a most spiteful inference, that this was done by the Prelates to ex­clude the King's Children out of the number of God's Elect. And they call it an intolerable Impiety and horrid Treason.

To this I answer, First, That this Alteration was made in my Predecessor's time, before I had any Authority to meddle with these things farther than I was called upon by him

[Page 74] Secondly, This is not therefore to lay any [...] upon my Predeces­sor; for he did in that but his Duty: For his Majesty acknowledges it was done by his special Direction, as having then no Children to pray for.

And Thirdly, This Collect could not be very old, for it had no being in the Common Prayer Book all Queen Elizabeth's time, she ha­ving no Issue.

The Truth is, it was made at the coming in of King James; and must of necessity be changed over and over again pro ratione Tem­porum, as Times and Persons vary. And this is the Intolerable Impie­ty, and horrid Treason they charge upon Vs.

In this Method the Innovations are set down in the News from Ipswich. But then in Mr. Burion's News from Friday-street (called his Apology) they are in another Order, and more are added. There­fore with your Lordship's leave I will not repeal any of these, but go on to the rest, which Mr. Burton adds.

8. The eighth Innovation Burton's Apo­logy, pag. 2. is, That in the Epistle the Sunday before Ea­ster, we have put out In, and made it At the Name of Jesus every knee shall bow; which Alteration, he saith, is directly against the Act of Parliament.

Here give me leave to tell you, 'tis At the Name of Jesus, in the late Learned Translation made in King James his time. About which many Learned Men of best note in the Kingdom were imployed, be­sides some Prelates.

But to this I Answer: First, 'Tis true, the Common Prayer Book was confirmed by Act of Parliament, and so all things contained in it, at the passing of that Act. But I hope if any thing were false Printed then, the Parliament did not intend to pass those slips for current.

Secondly, I am not of Opinion, that if one word be put in for another, so they bear both the same Sense, that there is any great matter done against the Act of Parliament.

Thirdly, This can make no Innovation. For In the Name, and At the Name of Jesus, can make no Essential Difference here. And Mr. Pryn (whose Darling business it hath long been to cry down the Honour due to the Son of God, at the mentioning of his saving Name Jesus) knows the Grammar Rule well, In a Place or at a Place, &c.

Fourthly, If there were any Errour in the change of In into At; I do here solemnly protest to you, I know not how it came: For authority from the Prelates, the Printers had none; and such a word is easily changed in such a negligent Press as we have in England. Or if any al­tered it purposely, for ought I know, they did it to gratifie the Preciser sort. For therein they followed the Geneva Translation, and Printed at Geneva, 1557 In Octavo.. where the words are, At the Name of Jesus. And that is 94 years ago; and therefore no Innovation made by us.

Fifthly, This I find in the Queen's Injunctions Injunction 52., without either word In or At. Whensoever the Name of Jesus shall be in any Lesson, Sermon, or otherwise pronounced in the Church ('tis injoyned) that due Reve­rence be made of all Persons, Young and Old, with lowliness of Coursy and uncovering of the Heads of the Men-kind, as thereunto doth neces­sarily belong, and heretofore hath been accustomed. So here's necessity laid upon it, and custom for it, and both expressed by Authority in the very beginning of the Reformation; and is therefore no Innovation now.

[Page 75]

9. The Ninth Innovation Page. 3. is, That two places are changed in the Prayers set forth for the Fifth of November: And ordered to be read (they say) by Act of Parliament. The first place is ohanged thus, from Root out that Babylomish and Antichristian Sect, which say of [...], &c. Into this form of Words; Root out that Babylonish and Antichristian Sect (of them) which say, &c. The second place went thus in the old: Cut off these Workers of Iniquity, whose Religion is Rebellion. But in the Book Printed 1635, 'tis thus altered; Cut [...] those Workers of Iniquity, who turn Religion into Rebellion, &c.

To this I say, First, 'Tis a notorious Vntruth, that this Book was ordered to be Read by Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament indeed is Printed before it; and therein is a Command for Prayers and Thanks­givings every Fifth of November; but not one Word or Syllable for the Form of Prayer: That's left to the Church; therefore here's no Innovation against that Act of Parliament.

Secondly, The Alteration first mentioned, that is, That Sect, or That Sect of [...]; if of so small Consequence, as 'tis not worth the speak­ing of: Besides, if there be any thing of moment in it, 'tis answer­ed in the next.

Thirdly, Both for that and the second place, which seems of more moment; and so for the rest not only in that Book, but that other also for His Majesty's Coronation; His Majesty expresly commanded Me to make the Alterations, and see them Printed. And here are both the Books with His Majesty's Warrant to each of them. So that herein I conceive I did not offend, unless it were that I gave not these Men no­tice of it, or asked them leave to obey the King.

Against this there can be but two Objections, should Malice it self go to work. The one is, That I moved His Majesty to command the Change. And the other, That now, when I saw my self challeng'd for it, I procured His Majesty's Hand for my security.

To these I Answer clearly, First, That I did not move the King, directly or indirectly, to make this Change.

And Secondly, That I had His Majesty's Hand to the Book, not now, but then, and before ever I caused them to be Printed; as now they are. And that both these are true, I here again freely offer my self to my Oath.

And yet Fourthly, That you may see His Gracious Majesty used not his Power only in commanding this Change; but his Wisdom also; I shall adventure to give you my Reasons, such as they are, why this Alte­ration was most fit, if not necessary.

My first Reason is, In the Litany in Henry VIII. his time It was put into the Litany of Hen. VIII.'s time, as appears in his Primer, with his Injunction before it.: and also under Edward VI. And 'tis in both the Service Books of Edw. VI. both that which was Printed 1549, and in that which was after, Anno 1552. there was this Clause: From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable Enormities, from all false Do­ctrine, &c. Good Lord deliver us. But in the Litany in Queen Elizabeth's time this Clause about the Pope was left out, and it seems of purpose, for avoiding of Scandal: And yet the Prelates for that not accounted Innovators, or Introducers of Popery. Now 'tis a far greater Scandal to call their Religion Rebellion, than 'tis to call thir chief Bishop Tyrant.

[Page 76] And this Reason is drawn from Scandal, which must ever be avoid­ed as much as it may.

My second Reason is, That the Learned make but Three Religions to have been of old in the World, Paganisns, Judaism, and Christia­nity. And now they have added a Fourth, which is Turcism, and is an absurd mixture of the other Three. Now if this ground of theirs be true (as 'tis generally received) perhaps it will be of dangerous Consequence sadly to avow, that the [...] Religion is [...]. That some Opinions of theirs teach Rebellion, that's apparently true, the other would be thought on, to say no more. And this Reason well weighed, is taken from the very Foundations of Religion it self.

My third Reason is, Because if you make their Religion to be Re­bellion, then you make their Religion and Rebellion to be all one. And that is against the ground both of State and the Law. For when di­vers Romish Priests and Jesaits have deservedly suffered Death for Treason, is it not the constant and just Profession of the State, that they never put any Man to Death for Religion, but for Rebellion and Treason only? Doth not the State truly affirm, That there was never any Law made against the Life of a Papist, quatenus a Papist only? And is not all this stark false, if their very Religion be Rebellion? For if their Religion be Rebellion, it is not only false, but impossible, that the same Man in the same Act should suffer for his Rebellion, and not for his Religion.

And this King James of ever blessed Memory understood passing well, when (in his Premonition to all Christian Monarchs Pag. 336.) he saith, I do constantly [...] that no Papist either in my time, or in the time of the late [...], ever died for his Conscience. Therefore he did not think their very Religion was Rebellion: Though this Clause passed through Inadvertency in his time. And this Reason is grounded both upon the Practice and the Justice of the Law.

Which of these Reasons, or whether any other better, were in His Majesty's Thoughts, when he commanded the Alteration of this Clause, I know not. But I took it my Duty to lay it before you, that the King had not only Power, but Reason to command it.

10. The Tenth Innovation Pag. 3. is, That the Prayer for the Navy is [...] out of the late Book for the Fast.

To this I say, There is great Reason it should. For the King had no declared Enemy then, nor ( God be thanked) hath he now. [...] had he then any Navy at Sea. For almost all the Ships were come in before the Fast-Book was set out.

But howsoever, an excellent Consequence it is, if you mark it; The Prayer for the Navy was left out of the Book for the Fast, therefore by that, and such like Innovations, the Prelates intend to bring in Popery. Indeed, if that were a piece of the Prelates Plots to bring in Popery from beyond Sea, then they were mightily overseen that they left out the Prayer for the Navy. But else what Reason or Con­sequence is in it, I know not, unless perhaps Mr. Burton intended to befriend Dr. Bastwick, and in the Navy bring hither the Whore of Babylon to be ready for his Christening, as he most prophanely Scoffs.

[Page 77] Well: I pray GOD the time come not upon this Kingdom, in which it will be found, that no one thing hath advanced or ushered in Popery so fast, as the gross Absurdities even in the Worship of God, which these Men, and their like, maintain, both in Opinion and Practice.

11. The Eleventh Innovation Page 105. is, The Reading of the Second Service at the Communion-Table, or the Altar.

To this, First, I can truly say, That since my own Memory, this was in use in very many Places, as being most proper (for those Prayers are then read which both precede and follow the Communi­on,) and by little and little this antient Custom was altered, and in those Places first, where the Emissaries of this Faction came to Preach. And now if any in Authority offer to reduce it, this antient Course of the Church is by and by called an Innovation.

Secondly, With this the Rubricks of the Common-Prayer Book agree: For the first Rubrick after the Communion tells us, that upon Holy-Days, though there be no Communion, yet all else that's appointed at the Communion shall be read. Shall be read? That's true, but where? Why, the last [...] before the Communion tells us, That the Priest, standing at the North-side of the Holy Table, shall say the Lord's Prayer, with that which follows. So that not only the Communion, but the Prayers which accompany the Communion (which are commonly called the Second Service) are to be read at the Communion Table. Therefore if this be an Innovation, 'tis made by the Rubrick, not by the Prelates; And Mr. Burton's Scoff, that this Second Service must be served in for Dainties Page 105. [Then the Se­cond Service, as Dainties, must be said there.], savours too much of Belly and Prophanation.

12. One think sticks much in their Stomachs, and they call it an Innovation Page 105. too. And that is Bowing, or doing Reverence at our first coming into the Church, or at our nearer Approaches to the Holy Table, or the Altar, (call it whether you will) in which they will needs have it, That we Worship the Holy Table, or God knows what.

To this I Answer: First, That God forbid we should Worship any thing but GOD Himself.

Secondly, That if to Worship GOD when we enter into his House, or approach his Altar, be an Innovation, 'tis a very old one.

For Moses did Reverence at the very Door of the Tabernacle, Numb. 20. 6. Hezekiah, and all that were present with him, when they had made an end of offering, bowed and worshipped, (2 Chron. 29. 29.) Da­vid calls the People to it with a Venite, O come let us Worship, and fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker, (Psal. 95. 6.) And in all these Places (I pray mark it) 'tis bodily Worship.

Nor can they say, That this was Judaical Worship, and now not to be [...]. For long before Judaism began, Bethel, the House of GOD, was a place of Reverence, ( Gen. 28. 17, &c.) Therefore [...], Of, and To GOD.

And after Judaical Worship ended, Venite, Adoremus, as far up wards as there is any track of a Liturgy, was the Introitus of the Priest, all the Latine Church over.

[Page 78] And in the daily Prayers of the Church of England, this was retain'd at the Reformation; and that Psalm, in which is Venite, Adoremus, is commanded to begin the Morning Service every Day. And for ought I know, the Priest may as well leave out the Venite, as the Adoremus; the calling the People to their Duty, as the Duty it self, when they are come.

Therefore even according to the Service-Book of the Church of Eng­land, the Priest and the People both are call'd upon, for external and bodily Reverence and Worship of GOD in his Church. Therefore they which do it, do not Innovate. And yet the Government is so mode­rate, ( God grant it be not too loose therewhile) that no Man is con­strained, no Man questioned, only religiously called upon, Venite, Ado­remus, Come, let us Worship.

For my own part, I take my self bound to Worship with Body as well as in Soul, when ever I come where God is Worshipped. And were this Kingdom such as would allow no Holy Table standing in its proper place, (and such places some there are) yet I would Worship God when I came into His House. And were the times such, as should beat down Chur­ches, and all the curious carved Work thereof, with Axes and Hammers, as in Psal. 74. 6. (and such Times have been) yet would I Worship in what place soever I came to Pray, tho there were not so much as a Stone laid for Bethel. But this is the misery, 'tis Superstition now adays for any Man to come with more Reverence into a Church, than a Tinker and his Bitch come into an Ale-house; the Comparison is too homely, but my just Indignation at the Prophaneness of the Times, makes me speak it.

And you my Honourable Lords of the Garter, in your great Solem­nities, you do your Reverence, and to Almighty God, I doubt not, but yet it is versus Altare, towards his Altar, as the greatest place of God's Residence upon Earth. (I say the greatest, yea greater than the Pulpit. For there 'tis Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my Body: But in the Pulpit 'tis at most but Hoc est Verbum meum, This is my Word. And a greater Reverence (no doubt) is due to the Body, than to the Word of our Lord. And so, in Relation, answerably to the Throne where his Body is usually present, than to the Seat whence his Word useth to be proclainted. And God hold it there, at His Word; for, as too ma­ny Men use the matter, 'tis Hoc est Verbum Diaboli, This is the Word of the Devil, in too many places. Witness Sedition, and the like to it.) And this Reverence ye do when ye enter the Chapel, and when you approach nearer to Offer. And this is no Innovation, for you are bound to it by your Order, and that's not New.

And Idolatry it is not, to Worship God towards His Holy Table; For if it had been Idolatry, I presume, Queen Elizabeth and King James would not have practised it, no not in those Solemnities. And being not Idolatry, but true Divine Worship, You will, I hope, give a poor Priest leave to Worship God, as Your selves do: For if it be God's Wor­ship, I ought to do it as well as You: And if it be Idolatry, You ought not to do it more than I.

I say again, I hope a poor Priest may Worship God with as lowly Reverence as you do, since you are bound by your Order, and by your Oath, according to a Constitution of Henry the Fifth, (as appears In Libro Nigro Windesoriensi, p. [...].) to give due Honour and Reverence, Domino Deo, & Altari ejus, in mo­dum [Page 79] Virorum Ecclesiasticorum; That is, to the Lord your God, and to his Altar (for there is a Reverence due to that too, though such as comes far short of Divine Worship) and this in the manner as Ecclesi­astical Persons both Worship and do Reverence.

The Story which led in this Decree is this: King Henry the Fifth, that Noble and Victorious Prince, returning gloriously out of France, sat at this Solemnity; and finding the Knights of the Order scarce bow to God, or but slightly, and then bow towards Him and His Seat, startled at it (being a Prince then grown as Religious, as he was before Victo­rious) and after asking the Reason; for till then the Knights of the Order never bowed toward the King or his Seat; the Duke of Bedford answer'd, it was setled by a Chapter Act three Years before. Hereupon that Great King replied. No, I'll none of this, till you the Knights do it satis bene, well enough, and with due performance to Almighty GOD. And hereupon the forenamed Act proceeded, that they should do this Duty to Almighty GOD, not slightly, but ad modum Virorum Ecclesiasti­corum, as low, as well, as decently, as Clergy-Men use to do it.

Now if you will turn this off, and say, it was the Superstition of that Age so to do; Bishop Jewell will come in to help me there. For where Harding names divers Ceremonies, and particularly howing themselves, and adoring at the Sacrament, I say, adoring At the Sacrament, not ado­ring the Sacrament; there Bishop Jewell (that Learned, Painful and Reverend Prelate) approves all, both the Kneeling and the Bowing, and the Standing up at the Gospel (which as antient as it is in the Church, and a common Custom, is yet fondly made another of their In­novations:) And farther, the Bishop adds, B. Jewell's Reply to Hard­ing's Answer, Art. 3. Div. 29. That they are all commen­dable Gestures, and tokens of Devotion, so long as the People understand what they mean, and apply them unto GOD. Now with us the People did ever understand them fully, and apply them to GOD, and to none but GOD, till these Factious Spirits, and their like, to the great dis­service of GOD and His Church, went about to persuade them that they are Superstitious, if not Idolatrous Gestures: As they make every thing else to be, where GOD is not served slovenly.

13. The Thirteenth Innovation Page. 4, 5; 105. is, The placing of the Holy Table Altar­wise, at the upper end of the Chancel, that is, the setting of it North and South, and placing a Rail before it, to keep it from Prophanation, which Mr. Burton says, is done to advance and usher in Popery.

To this I Answer, That 'tis no Popery to set a Rail to keep Prophana­tion from that Holy Table; nor is it any Innovation to place it at the upper end of the Chancel as the Altar stood. And this appears both by the Practice, and by the Command and Canon of the Church of England.

First, By the Practice of the Church of England. For in the King's Royal Chapels, and divers Cathedrals, the Holy Table hath ever since the Reformation stood at the upper end of the Quire, with the large or full side towards the People.

And though it stood in most Parish Churches the other way, yet whe­ther there be not more reason, the Parish Churches should be made con­formable to the Cathedral and Mother Churches, than the Cathedrals to them, [...] leave to any reasonable Man to judge.

And yet here is nothing done, either by violence or command, to take [Page 80] off the Indifferency of the standing of the Holy Table either way, but only by laying it fairly before Men, how fit it is there should be Order and Vniformity; I say still reserving the Indifferency of the standing.

But howsoever I would fain know, how any discreet moderate Man dares say, that the placing of the Holy Table Altar-wise (since they will [...] call it so) is done either to advance to usher in Popery? For did Queen Elizabeth banish Popery, and yet did she all along her Reign from first to last leave the Communion Table so standing in her own Chapel Royal, in St. Paul's and Westmidster, and other places; and all this of [...] to [...] on usher in that Popery which she had driven out?

[...] since her Death have two Gracious Kings kept out Popery all their [...], and yet [...] the Holy Table standing, as it did in the Queen's time, and all of purpose to advance or usher in Popery which they kept out?

[...] what's the matter? May the Holy Table stand this way in the [...] Chapel, or Cathedrals, or Bishops Chapels, and not elsewhere? [...], if it be decent and fit for God's Service, it may stand so (if [...] please) in any Church. But if it advance or usher in any [...] and Popery, it ought to stand so in none.

Not hath any King's Chapel any Prerogative (if that may be call'd one!) above any ordinary Church to dis-serve God in, by any Superstitious [...] Where, give me leave to tell you, that the King and his [...] [...] most [...], and with Scorn abused, in the last Leaf of Mr. [...] Appeal, for such it is.

[...], This appears by the Canon or Rule of the Church of [...] too, for 'tis plain in the last Injunction of the Queen, That the Holy Table ought to stand at the upper end of the Quire, North and South, or Altar-wise. For the words of the Queen's Injunctions are these.

The Holy Table in every Church (mark it I pray, not in the Royal [...] or Cathedrals only, but in every Church) shall be decently made, and set in the place where the Altar stood. Now the Altar stood at the upper end of the Quire, North and South, as appears before by the [...] of the Church. And there to set it otherwise, is to set it cross the place, not In the place where the Altar stood: and so, Stulti dum vit ant vitia — weak Men, as these Libellers are, run into one Superstition while they would avoid another; For they run upon the Superstition of the Cross. while they seek to avoid the Superstition of the Altar. So you see here's neither Popery nor Innovation in all the Practice of Queen Elizabeth, or since.

These words of the Injunction are so plain, as that they can admit of no shift.

And give me leave to tell you, That a very learned Prelate of this Church, and one whom I think these Men will not accuse, as a Man like to advance or usher in Popery, is of the same Opinion: 'Tis my Lord the Bishop of Salisbury.

Some difference was lately rising about placing the Communion-Table in a Parish Church of his Diocese. The Bishop, careful to prevent all Disorder, sends his Injunction under his Hand and Seal to the Curate May 17. 1637. and Church-Wardens, to settle that business: In which he hath these two Passages remarkable. I have seen and read the Order.

The first Passage is this; By the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth (saith he) and by Can. 82. under King James, the Communion Tables should ordinarily be set and stand with the side to the East Wall of the Chancel. [Page 81] Therefore this is [...], since there is Injunction and Canon for it.

The other [...] this, 'Tis Ignorance (saith that learned Bishop) to think that the [...] of the Holy Table there, relishes of Popery. Therefore, if it do not to much as relish of Popery, it can neither ad­vance it, nor usher it in. [...] therefore this is a most odious Slander and Scandal cast upon [...]

So here's enough [...] for [...] [...] and Rule of the Church of Eng­land since the [...]. [...] [...] that time, both in this and other Churches of [...], in the [...] and West ordinarily, the Holy Table or Altar stood so: [...] this Mr. Burton says little.

But the Lincolnshire Minister comes in to play the Puritan for that. Concerning which Book ( [...] in my way) and the Nameless Author of it, I shall only [...] these two things.

The one is, that the [...] from the first word to the [...] in the Book; for he [...] on him both for the Name and for the placing of the Holy Table, and the like, to prove, that Generally and Vniversally, and Ordinarily in the whole Catholick Church, both East and West, the Holy Table did not stand at the upper end of the Quire or Chancel. And this he must prove, or he doth nothing.

Now when he comes to make his Proofs, they are almost all of them particular, few or none general and concludent; for he neither brings Testimonies out of the General and received Rituals of the Ea­steru and Western Churches, nor of Fathers and Histories of the Church, which speak in General terms of all, but where they speak of particu­lar Churches only.

So that suppose the most that can be, that is, suppose his Quotations be all truly alledged, and true too in the sense that the Minister takes them, (though in very truth, the [...], most of them, are neither truly al­ledged, nor sensed) yet they [...] but exceptions of, and exemptions from the general Practice. And you know both in Law and Reason, Ex­ceptio firmat Regulam in non [...]. So that upon the sudden I am not able to resolve, whether this Minister hath done more wrong to himself or his Readers, for he hath abused both.

The other is, that in the Judgment of very many learned Men, which have perused this Book, the Author is clearly conceived to want a great deal of that learning, to which he pretends; or [...] to have written this Book wholly and resolvedly against both his Science and his Conscience.

And for my own part, I am [...] of Opinion, this Book was thrust now to the Press, both to [...] these Libellers, and, as much as in him lay, to fire both Church and State.

And tho I wonder not at the [...], yet I should wonder at the Bishop of the Diocese (a Man of Learning and Experience) that he should give Testimony to such a Business, and in such Times as these.

And once more, before I leave the [...] Table, Name and Thing, give me leave to put you in mind, that there is no danger at all in the Altar, Name or Thing. For at the [...] [...] the Reformation, tho' there were a Law for the taking down [...] Altars, and setting up of Holy Tables in the room of [...]; yet [...] places the Altars were not suddenly removed. [...] Queen in her Injunction to this? Why she says, That there [...] of great moment in this, sa­ving Injunct. ultim. for Vniformity, and the [...] of the Law in that behalf. Therefore for any danger or [...] was in the Altars, Name or [Page 82] Thing, they might even then have been left standing, but for Vnifor­mity, and the Imitation of the Law.

But howsoever, it follows in the same Injunction, That when the Al­tar is taken down, the Holy Table shall be set In ( not cross) the place where the Altar stood: which (as is aforesaid) must needs be Altar-wise.

14. The Fourteenth and the last Innovation comes with a mighty Charge, and 'tis taken out of an Epistle to the Temporal Lords of His Majesty's Privy Council. Of which Epistle we got one Sheet, and so (for ought I yet know) that Impression staid: In that Sheet is this Charge; the words are.

The Prelates, to justifie their Proceedings, have forged a new Article of Re­ligion, brought from Rome ( which gives them full power to alter the Do­ctrine and Discipline of our Church at a Blow (as they interpret it) and have foisted it (such is their Language) into the beginning of the 20th Article of our Church. And this is in the last Edition of the Articles, Anno 1628. in affront of His Majesty's Declaration before them, &c.

The Clause (which they they say is forged by us) is this, The Church (that is, the Bishops, as they expound it) hath Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Authority in matter of Faith. (The word is Con­troversies of Faith, by their leave.) This Clause (say they) is a For­gery fit to be Examined, and deeply Censured in the Star-Chamber. For 'tis not to be found in the Latin or English Articles of Edward VI. or Queen Elizabeth, ratified by Parliament.

And then in the Margent thus, If to Forge a Will or Writing be cen­surable in the Star-Chamber, which is but a wrong to a private Man; how much more the Forgery of an Article of Religion, to wrong the whole Church, and overturn Religion, which concerns all our Souls?

This is a heavy Charge, my Lords; but I thank God the Answer's easie.

And truly I grant, that to Forge an Article of Religion in whole or in part, and then to thrust it upon the Church, is a most hainous Crime, far worse than the Forging of a Deed. And is certainly very deeply Censurable in this Court. And I would have humbly besought you, that a deep Censure might have been laid upon it, but that this Sheet was found after, and so is not annext to the Information, nor in Judgment at this present before you.

But then, my Lords, I must tell you, I hope to make it as clear as the Day, that this Forgery was not, that this Clause mentioned was added by the Prelates to the Article, to gain Power to the Church, and so to serve our turns. But that that Clause in the beginning of the Article was by these Men, or at least by some of their Faction, rased out, and this to weaken the just Power of the Church to serve their turns.

They say (to justifie their Charge) that this Clause is not to be found in the Articles, English or Latin, of either Edw. VI. or Q. Elizabeth.

I answer: The Articles of Edw. VI. and those made under Q. Eliza­beth differ very much. And those of Edw. VI. are not now binding. So whether the Clause be In or Out of them, 'tis not much material.

But for the Articles of the Church of England, made in the Queen's time, and now in force, that this Clause for the Power of the Church to De­cree Ceremonies, and to have Authority in Controversies of Faith, should not be found in English or Latin Copies till the Year 1628. that it was set forth with the King's Declaration before it, is to me a Miracle; but your Lordships shall see the Falshood and Boldness of these Men.

[Page 83] What? Is this Affirmative Clause in no Copy, English or Latin till the Year 1628? Strange: Why, my Lords, I have a Copy of the Articles in English of the Year 1612, and of the Year 1605, and of the Year 1593, and in Latin of the Year 1563, which was one of the first Printed Copies, if not the first of all. For the Articles were agreed on but the Nine and twentieth day of January [...] 1563.

And in all these, this Affirmative Clause for the Churches Power is in. And is not this strange boldness then to abuse the World, and falsely to say 'tis in no Copy when I my self, out of my own store am able to shew it into so many, and so antiently.

But My Lord's, I shall make it plainer yet: For 'tis not fit concern­ing an Article of Religion, and an Article of such Consequence for the Order, Truth, and Peace of this Church, you should rely upon my Copys, be they never so many or never so ancient.

Therefore I sent to the Publick Records in my Office, and here under my Officers Hand, who is a Publick Notary, is returned me the Twen­tieth Article with this Affirmative Clause in it. And there is also the whole Body of the Articles to be seen.

By this your Lordships see how free the Prelates are from Forging this part of the Article. Now let these Men quit themselves and their Faction, as they can, for their Index Expurgatorins and their foul Ra­sure in leaving out this part of the Article. For to leave out of an Article is as great a Crime as to put in; And a Main Rasure is as Cen­surable in this Court as a Forgery.

Why, But then my Lords; what is this Mystery of Iniquity?

Truly, I cannot certainly tell, but as far as I can I'll tell you.

The Articles you see were fully, and fairly agreed to and subscribed in the Year 1563. But after this, in the Year 1571, there were some that refused to subscribe, but why they did so, is not recorded. Whe­ther it were about this Article or any other I know not. But in Fact this is Manifest, that in that Year 1571, the Articles were Printed both in Latin and English, and this Clause for the Church left out of both. And certainly, this could not be done, but by the malicious cunning of that Opposite Faction. And though I shall spare dead Men's Names where I have not certainty; Yet if you be pleased to look back and consider who they were that Governed businesses in 1571, and rid the Church almost at their pleasure; And how potent the Ancestors, these Libellers began then to grow, you will think it no hard matter to have the Articles Printed, and this Clause left out.

And yet 'tis plain, That, after the stir about Subscription in the Year 1571, the Articles were setled and subscribed unto at last, as in the Year 1562, with this Clause in them for the Church: For looking far­ther into the Records which are in mine own Hands, I have found the Book of 1563 subscribed by all the Lower House of Convocation, in this very Year of Contradiction, 1571, Dr. John Elmar (who was after Lord Bishop of London) being there Prolocutor: Alexander Nowel Dean of St. Paul's, having been Prolocutor in 1563, and yet living and present and subscribing in 1571. Therefore, I do here openly in the Star-Chamber charge upon that pure Sect this foul Corruption of falsifying the Articles of the Church of England; let them take it off as they can.

I have now done, and 'tis time I should, with the Innovations charg­ed upon the Prelates, and fit to be answered here.

[Page 84] Some few more there are, but they belong to matter of Doctrine, which shall presently be answered, Justo Volumine, at large, to satis­fie all Well-Minded People. But when Mr. Burton's Book which is the Main one, is answered (I mean his Book no this Railing) neither Prynn, nor Bastwick; nor any Attendants upon Rabshakeh, shall by me or my care be answered. If this Court find not a way to stop these Libellers Mouths and Pens, for me they shall rail on till they be weary.

Yet one thing more, I beseech you, give me leave to add. 'Tis Mr. Burton's Charge Page 175. upon the Prelates. That the Censures formerly laid upon Malefactors, are now put upon God's Ministers for their Vertue and Piety.

A heavy charge this too. But if he or any Man else can shew that any Man hath been punished in the High Commission, or elsewhere, by the Prelates, for Vertue and Piety, there is all the Reason in the World we should be severely punished our selves. But the Truth is, the Vertue and Piety for which these Ministers are punished, is for Preaching Schism and Sedition, many of their Sermons being as bad as their Libels, As Burton's Libell was one of his Sermons first. But whether this stuff have any Affinity with Vertue and Piety, I submit to any Christian Reader.

And yet Mr. Burton is so confident of his Innocency, even in this Cause wherein he hath so fouly carryed himself, that he breaks forth into these words, Page 7. I never so much as once dreamed, that Impiety and Impudency it self, in such a Christian State as this is, and under such a graci­ous Prince, durst ever thus publickly have called me in Question, and that upon the open Stage, &c.

You see the boldness of the Man, and in as bad a Cause, as (I think) in this kind ever any Man had.

I shall end all with a passage out of S. Cyprian, Lib. 1. Ep. 3. when he, then Bishop of Carthage, was bitterly railed upon by a pack of Schismaticks, his answer was, and 'tis now mine; They have railed both bitterly and falsly upon me, and yet non oportet me paria cum illis facere, it becomes not me to answer them with the like either Levities or Revilings, but to speak and write that only which becomes Sacerdotem Dei, a Priest of God.

Neither shall I in this give way (though I have been extremely vili­fied) to either Grief or Passion to speak, remembring that of the Psal­mist, Psal. 37. 8. Fret not thy self, else shalt thou be moved to do Evil.

Neither yet, by God's Grace, shall the Reproaches of such Men as these make me faint or start aside, either from the Right-way in matter of practice (they are S. Cyprian's words again Ib. p. 10.) or, a certa Regula, from the certain Rule of Faith.

And since in former times, some spared not to call the Master of the House, Beelzebub, how much more will they be bold with them of his Houshould, as it is in St. Matthew 10. 25. And so bold have these Men been; but the next words of our Saviour are, Fear them not.

I humbly crave Pardon of your Lordships for this my necessary length, and give you all hearty thanks for your Noble Patience, and your Just and Honowable Censure upon these Men, and your unani­mous dislike of them, and defence of the Church.

But because the business hath some Reflexion upon my self, I shall forbear to censure them, and leave them to God's Mercy and the King's Justice.

FINIS.

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