in 25. Edward 3. for Bishops intermedling in Civill Affaires because it is there said That the holy Church of England was founded in the estate of Prelacy within the Realme of England by the Kings Ancestors and other of the Nobility to inform them and the People of the Law of God and to make hospitalities almes and other works of Charity in the places where the Churches were founded c. and for this end their Lands revenues c. were assigned by the said founders to the Prelates c. And the said Kings in times past were wont to have the greatest part of their Councel for the safeguard of the Realme when they had need of such Prelates and Clerks so advanced c. This last Clause doth only prove de facto that so it was used but doth not legitimate the use all stories of those times being full of complaints against the mischiefes which arose out of it And that very Statute declares the prime end of advancing the Clergy into an Hierarchy was to counsell the Kings and others in the Law of God not in Civill and Martiall matters And so far is such intermedling in Secularibus from being countenanced by the Lawes of this Kingdome that by the common Law which is the most fundamentall Law of the Realme all in holy Orders are so carefully exempted from such incumbrances that if any Clergy man happen to be put into a temporall Office he must upon the pleading of his Orders have a Writ awarded him out of the Chauncery to discharge him Regist 187.6 Therefore it was farre from the intention of the first Founders of our Hierarchie to imploy them in Civilibus but only to make use of their counsell in Spirituals There is yet one thing more much insisted upon by some of the Prelates to prove the lawfulnesse of their intermedling in Secular Matters And it is a passage of Saint Augustine De opere Monachor Cap. 29. where hee saith It were farre more profitable for him to spend his time in reading and praying Quà m tumultuosissimas perplexitates causarum alienarum pati de negotiis secularibus vel judicando dirimendis vel interveniendo praecidendis 1 Cor. 6. quibus nos molestiis idem afflixit Apostolus non utique suo sed ejus qui in eo loquebatur arbitrio Ergo say some Bishops they have warrant so to doe yea a command from the Apostle and from the Spirit of God himselfe To this it may be answered 1. That in that very place St. Austin doth bemoane this as being Ecclesiarum quibus servit consuetudo the custome of those Churches and the practice began after Constantine made a law to warrant it for S Aust there saith that Paul never submitted to it nay rather he gave order to make them Iudges that were meanest and had least to doe And albeit St. Austin there addes that this toyle he undertooke non sine consolatione Domini in spe vitae aeternae ut fructum feramus cum tolerantia Yet this was not spoken as rejoycing in the imployment but as bearing it with more cheerefulnesse in hope of eternall life after it 2. As for the imployment it selfe he complaines violenter irruptum est non permitter ad quod volo vacare ante meridiem post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneor Epist 110. Possidon in vit Augustini ca. 19. and Possidonius that lived with him many yeares beares him witnes that hanc suam a melioribus rebus occupationem tanquā angariam deputabat Therefore it was that in Ep. 110. he desired the people that they would suffer him to put over all those businesses to Eradius whom he had chosen to be his successor in his Bishoprick which when the people had granted the good old Father presently unburdened himselfe Ergo fratres quicquid est quod ad me perferebatur ad illum perferatur ubi necessarium habuerit consilium meum non negabo auxilium 3. If this be not enough let me answer Bishops Treat Of Christian Subjection and Antichristian Rebellion par 3. by a Bishop viz by Bishop Bilson who being pressed with that place of Saint Austin de opere Mon by the Popish crue under the name of Philander a Iesuite returnes this answer under the veile of Theophilus an Orthodoxe Divine a Truth it is the Bishops of the Primitive Church were greatly troubled with those matters * And I have shewed before upon what occasion Prefat in Dial. not as ordinary Iudges of these causes but as Arbiters elected by consent of both parties And I could requite you with Gregories own words of the same matter in the same place quod certum est nos non debere which it is certaine we ought not to doe But yet I thinke so long as it did not hinder their Vocation and Function though it were troublesome unto them they might neither in charity nor in duty refuse it because it tended to the preserving of peace and love amongst men And the Apostle had licensed all men to choose whom they would for their Iudges no doubt meaning that they which were chosen should take the paines to heare the cause and make an end of the strife But it is one thing to make peace betweene brethren as they did by hearing their griefes with consent of both sides and another to claime a judiciall interest in those causes in spite of mens hearts Thus he and how home this comes to our Bishops that will needs still contest and strugle to retaine their Votes in Parliament in all civill causes whatsoever undervaluing all the Reasons of the House of Commons and contrary to the just desires of the whole body of the Kingdome I need not use more words to declare To finish this point All that hath beene said against the Clergies intermedling with Civill and Temporall affaires other than for necessary and comfortable provisions for Lively hood drives to this Conclusion that if it be so great an hinderance to the exercise of the Ministerial Function to be imployed in temporall matters which are but ordinarie it must needs be a farre greater hinderance to that holy calling for Bishops to Vote in Parliament because they cannot doe it as it ought to bee done without so much skill and dexterity in secular affaires of all sorts that possibly can come within the debate and resolution of a Parliament as must needs take up the greatest part if not the whole of a mans time study strength and abilities bee they never so great and many to fit him for that great service altogether beside I might adde inconsistent with his Calling of the Ministery 2. ANSWER to the first REASON It is propter majus bonum Ecclesiae EXAMEN Cujus contrarium c. What good they have done in Parliament for the Church unlesse to uphold the Synagogue of Rome let all Histories speake that have taken any notice of the acting and carriage of matters of Religion debated and Voted in
for their owne lives and surely I beleeve it will be very hard for the Answerer to give so much as any one instance of an Almesman that hath beene allowed to Vote in Parliament Not that my purpose is hereby to disparage any of that Order in reference to their function or present honours but only to speake of them as the Law it selfe doth meerely and only for bolting out of the strength of this branch of the Answer to the Reasons of the House of Commons against the continuance of the Bishops place and Votes as Peeres in Parliament 3. ANSVVER to the fifth REASON The Knights Citizens and Burgesses are chosen for one Parliament only and yet use their Legislative power Nor will their being elected difference their Cause for the Lords use that power in a greater eminence who are not elected EXAMEN The Knights Citizens and Burgesses sit not there as single men but as the representative body of all the Commons of England each of them give their Votes with reference to all those from whom they are sent Besides they are by the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome to be there qua tales however the Election of the particular persons bee arbitrary and contingent And although those very persons may never perhaps serve again yet the right and inheritance of the Commons of England whence every member of that House deriveth never dyes so long as the Kingdome lives Therefore who ever for the time hath the honour to bee a Member of that society Voteth in right of the Kingdome not of a particular man As for the LORDS although they neither bee elected nor doe Vote for any but for themselves and their owne posterity yet they have this priviledge from an higher Originall than the Bishops can prove themselves to be descended from namely as wee said before not precario from Grace and favour but from the fundamentall Lawes and Constitutions of the Kingdome Besides their bloud breeding interest in the publike and care for their posteritie borne to so high places must needs assure us more of their wise carefull and zealous managing of their Votes in Parliament than can by any prudentiall or morall grounds be hoped from the Prelates 4. ANSWER to the fifth REASON A Burgesse that hath a Freehold but for terme of life only may Vote and assent to a Law in Parliament EXAMEN Cokus in Littâ— Instit Sect. 133. The Free hold of a Burgesse is not by the tenure of Frank almoigne of which the present debate is for no Lay-man can hold any Land in that tenure Hee is therefore in that regard somewhat more capable But however this may bee yet that which was but a little before said to the next precedent Answer will serve here also A Burgesse doth not Vote in the House of Commons as a Free-Holder although haply none but Free-Holders or Free-men be eligible but as a person chosen by and for a Burrough which hath right to send Burgesses to Parliament and being there he Votes by the fundamentall Laws of the Realme Therefore it is not materiall whether his Free-hold bee for life or for longer time When Bishops shew the like warrant and Commission or the like fundamentall constitutions of the Kingdome for their Voting in Parliament then this Answer may be welcome to the House of Commons 5. ANS to the fifth REASON No such exception was ever heard of in the Diets of Germany the Corteses of Spaine or the three Estates of France where the Prelates Vote in all these points with the Nobility and the Commons EXAMEN What exception hath beene taken to Bishops in other Kingdomes is unknowne to me and perhaps to the Answerer also Unlesse he have seene all the Records and Journals of all those Kingdomes Nor doe I believe that the House of Commons had any Reference to other Nations nor doe intend to bee presidented by them As if because Bishops have this priviledge elsewhere therefore this must bee a Reason sufficient for the continuing their possession of it here Nay every Nation hath its proper Lawes and Customes and though it be no shame to borrow any thing that is better than our owne for the publike Weale yet it is no Answer to a Reason drawne from experienced inconveniency at home to say that this Reason was never heard of in forraigne States But yet I thinke if the matter were throughly examined it will appeare that in those Kingdomes Bishops have a kind of Soveraignty over their severall Territories and are Temporall Governours as well as spirituall Pastors And by the fundamentall Constitutions of those several Empires or Kingdomes those Bishops doe make one of the Estates of the Kingdome without which a Law cannot passe Sure I am it is so in Germany and I beleeve so or the rest although with some difference for they may make a third Estate and yet not bee secular or soveraigne Governors over their severall Ditions Now all know that it is farre otherwise with the Bishops of England and therefore this plea will not be of any force to breake the strength of this Reason of the House of Commons till the Prelates can translate our Lawes and Government into that of those Kingdomes from whence these presidents are impertinently borrowed 6. REASON of the House of Commons BEcause of Bishops dependency and expectancy of Translations to places of greater profit I. ANSVVER This Argument supposeth all Kings and all Bishops to be very faulty if they take the tune of their Votes in Parliament from these dependencies and expectances EXAMEN This Argument taxeth not Kings but medles only with Bishops It is true Kings bring them in and can be wise enough to serve themselves if they meet with men that will put themselves to sale for preferment And to speake plainely the receding from the ancient way of Electing Bishops by the Church is no small occasion and meanes to byas them and to engage them still to goe that way which they perceive him that hath the power of electing and of advancing them higher to bee inclined so that if a King should desire to draw them into a wrong course they scarce know how to deny him nor would many of them sticke much at it for they being men and sometimes none of the best are not onely subject to like temptations and failings that others be but more ready and officious to serve turnes than many times Princes do require And although the House of Commons doe not alwayes take the tune of Bishops Votes in every Parliament from these dependances and expectances yet when they see how much Bishops that have but meane Bishopricks doe continually labour to obtaine greater and to get up higher and then compare these ambitious practices with the tunes of their Votes in most things which concern the more perfect Reformation of Religion and the Clergy and the promoting of the power of Godlinesse c. they cannot but find to their griefe that Bishops Votes in Parliament
Parliament since the first entrance upon a Reformation in this Kingdome It is true that in the Reigne of King Henry the eight one Cranmer was active in the cause of God against those sixe bloudy Articles which cost so many their lives But of all the Hierarchie not one was found to joyne with him but all opposed and he alone for three dayes together was faine to stand to it and at length by the malice practice and potency of the Prelates hee was overcome and the cause carryed against him Acts and Monuments par 2. page 1037. edit 1610. This was in the yeare 1540. When about foure or five yeares after Cranmer in two severall Parliaments used his best endeavours to get that bloudy Law repealed and had before hand as he thought drawne over to his side the Bishops of Worcester Chichester and Rochester who promised to assist the cause in Parliament yet when it came to the tryall all the Bishops forsooke him and the cause againe In so much as the King himselfe and the Nobility stood to him so farre as to give way to a moderating of the former Law when the Bishops would not abate the least part of the rigour thereof Antiq. Britanni in Cranmero In King Edward the sixth his Reigne it is true a blessed Reformation was happily begun but by whom By the Bishops No verily Cranmer only excepted For he and the Protector were the men that advised the King and went through with the worke As for the great Bishops Gardiner of Winchester and Tonstall of Duresme Bonner and others they served to fill prisons and diverse ran away And in all Letters of the Lords for more particular Reformation it was onely Canterburie and the Nobilitie that did promote the businesse See Acts and Monuments in King Edward the sixth But in Queene Maries dayes who but Bishops for the Masse and all the grosse body of Popery both in Convocation and Parliament Cranmer and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops were soone persecuted and at length committed to the fire while the Popish Prelates being restored to their places spared no diligence to promote Popish Idolatry throughout the Kingdome and that by their Votes in Parliament whereby they might more plentifully shed bloud by a Law When GOD delivered this Kingdome from those Marian flames and set up blessed Queene Elizabeth it cannot be denyed but that in the Bill for restoring all ancient Jurisdictions to the Crown and for reestablishment of Religion and ejection of Popery the Lords Spirituall are named in the Act because the bill being carryed by the greater number of Votes the dissenting party which was the lesse are included in the rest and it becomes the Act of all in common repute and esteeme of Law But little thankes to the Bishops for any of that Reformation which was then restored We finde the Bishops of Winchester Litchfeild Chester Carlile and Lincolne appearing in open defence of Popery while that Parliament was sitting Act and Monuments par 2. page 1619. edit 1610. But these were not all that stood for that cause Witnesse the deprivation of Heath Arch-Bishop of Yorke Tunstall Bishop of Durham White of Winchester Thyrlby of Ely Watson of Lincolne Baines of Coventry and Litchfeild Bourne of Bath and Wells Christopherson of Chichester Oglethorp of Carlile Scot of Chester Morgan of Saint Davids beside Bonner imprisoned Pates of Worcester Goldwel of Saint Asaph in exile for the same Pseudo-Catholike cause None of all which can with any probability of reason bee imagined to have Voted for the restoring of the Truth they being by vertue of that Statute deprived for opposing the Truth And albeit I know nothing but by heare-say of the generall carriage of Bishops in Parliaments sithence and so doe not charge them yet how often they have with-stood bills against Non-residency * In 31. Elizabeth a Bill against Non-residents passed the House of Commons being in the other House greatly approved of much spoken for by many of the Temporall LORDS yet through the earnest labouring of the Bishops it could have 10 passage there Another Bill for reforming Ecclesiasticall Courts in King James his time passed till it fell among the Bishops and there was stayed Pluralities and other evils and defects in the Reformation of Religion and of their Courts the world hath beene sufficiently informed insomuch as the House of Commons hath already declared and resolved at a Generall Committee of the whole House Iune eleventh 1641. That the Bishops have beene found by long experience to bee great hinderances of a perfect Reformation and of the growth of Religion En majus bonum Ecclesiae produced by the Vote of Bishops in Parliaments And as their voting in Parliament in matters of Religion is ad detrimentum potius quam ad utilitatem Ecclesiae so it cannot bee imagined how their Votes there in Civilibus should conduce more ad majus bonum Ecclesiae Except the wilfull and incorrigible continuing in a course forraine and contrary to their proper Calling and such as being duely performed is a very great hinderance to the exercise of their Ministeriall Function as hath beene before declared can redound to the greater good of the Church which they seldome looke after unlesse to receive the profits of it and to plague those who are profitable in it that themselves may more splendidly and securely in Parliament and every where else Lord it over the whole heritage of God 3. ANSVVER to the first REASON The Apostles unnecessarily put themselves to more hinderances to worke for their livelihood Acts 20.24 1 Thessalo 2.9 2 Thess 3.8 EXAMEN Vnnecessarily Boldly spoken and were I sure that one of my fellowes or equalls had written it I should without breach of good manners pronounce it saucinesse little short of blasphemie Was it not necessary that the Apostles should have a livelihood And was the procuring of it by labouring with their hands although I know none but one after CHRISTS Ascension that was put unto it to avoyd the oppression of poore converts or to prevent scandall among either poore or rich converted or unconverted an unnecessary thing This may bee a straine of Policie passable enough among Spirituall Lords of Parliament but was never knowne to bee good Divinity among such as desire to approve themselves unto GOD. I have bin taught that Necessarium is put sometimes pro utili pro congruo convenienti as well as pro naturali seu debito or pro violento sua coacto And I have learned among the Schoole-men that there is a necessitie not only absolutè simplicite sic dicta but also ex suppositione conditione when a thing not simply necessary in it selfe becomes such in regard either of end meanes circumstances or otherwise When Saint Iohn 1 Epist 2.27 tells the Christians yee need not that any man teach you was his writing to them to instruct them further unnecessary When Saint Pauls abiding in the flesh was more needfull
and to see more of this may consult Lancelott Perusin Institut Iur. Can. Lib. 1. Tit. 5. De Episcopis summo Pontif. Cap. Ad hos in the addition of Io. Bapt. where it is said in multiplicibus casibus Archiepiscopus in subditos Episcopos ordinariam habet jurisdictionem ut in C. pastoralis de offi ordin Sylvest ponit duodecim And if these be not enow hee may also see Hostiensis sum li. 1. de offic ordin where there be more cases even eighteene in number expressed in certaine verses which are there likewise interpreted by the same Author of those summes Henricus de Segusio Officium varium forus appellatio crimen Peccans non parens res consultatio deses Praesul Canonici tumidi sententia nequam Visitat indulget Custos quia Papa dat usus Permutat socijs suspectum cumque remittit Casibus his Primas * Subjectos forsan subjectio Prasules arcet I forbeare to mention our owne Lindwood and many moe These may suffice to shew in how many things Bishops have dependance upon and may be obnoxious to their Metropolitan and how many wayes the Arch-Bishop can meet with them if they go not his way in all things that he is set upon And were it true that there is no dependency upon nor obedience due to the Arch-bishop but in Appeales and Visitations as it is a truth that these have in themselves no reference to Votes in Parliament yet who knowes not what influence an active and pragmaticall Arch-bishop hath into the Votes of all his Suffragans whom hee can pleasure or displease as he listeth as they Vote with him or dissent from him after intimation or insinuation of his mind in private to them Indeed if we could imagine Bishops and Arch-Bishops to be so complete in sincerity and sanctitie as their high Calling bespeakes them there were little strength in this Reason of the House of Commons But as the Prelates bee men and not free from that which is humane so the House of Commons conceived it not undecent or uncharitable to insinuate something more than is plainely expressed to such an Honourable and Intelligent Assembly of Lords which reason as it is hath force enough in it to weigh with rationall men however for the reverence they bare to the Ministeriall function the House held it fitter to leave somewhat to be tacitely understood than to speake all out that is couched under it 2. ANSWER to the fourth REASON This Argument reacheth not the two Arch-Bishops discharged in the Rubricke from this Oath and therefore is no reason for the passing of this Bill EXAMEN No Reason I am sure it reacheth twentie foure Bishops home enough although two Arch-Bishops should slip Collar which one of them cannot and I thinke the other shall not And the Answerer may bee pleased to remember that the House of Commons brought up Reasons Why Bishops ought not to Vote in Parliament It cannot be denyed but that in the maine body of their Reasons they included Arch-Bishops too And it is true this argument reacheth not to them What then did the House undertake to strike home even unto Arch-bishops in every one of their Reasons Where doth that appeare It is enough that they have sufficiently done it in all the rest foregoing If the Answerer thinke otherwise hee shall be sure to meet with more Arguments against them in the Reasons following Here indeed he hath sufficiently confuted this fourth Reason as to Arch-bishops but it was not their good happe to get ought by the bargaine because the House of Commons thought not fit to include them within the compasse of the Argument which is bent directly against Bishops onely and it is the unhappinesse of the Answerer to goe without his Trophee even where he made himselfe sure of the Victory for he hath fought with a shadow 5. REASON of the House of Commons BEcause they are but for their lives and therefore are not fit to have Legislative power over the honours inheritances persons and liberties of others I. ANSVVER Bishops are not for their lives onely To this Reason a 5. fold Answer is shaped but for their successors also in the Land and Honour that pertaine to their places as the Earles and Barons also are for their successors in their owne Lands and honours And holding their Lands in fee simple may with as good Reason Vote in the Honours inheritance persons and liberties of others as others may and doe in theirs EXAMEN When the House of Commons saith that Bishops are but for their lives I conceive the House to meane that Bishops have no right to place in Parliament but what dies with them as to their heires without hope that their sonnes shall after succeed them in that dignity by vertue of their birth-right or of the fathers sitting in Parliament before them And that therefore In the fourth of his Reigne Case of Tenures 35. a. Bishops being at first but casually mounted to that height and extent of power by William the Conqueror the more to endeere and oblige them upon all occasions to serve him and his successors in Parliament they cannot rationally and according to the principles of Policy and State be hoped to be so carefull and resolute in disposing of their Votes and in maintaining the priviledge and honour of Parliaments as Temporall Lords may well be presumed and expected to bee For these being by birth-right and the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome Lords of Parliament and one of the Estates of the Kingdome without whom a Law regularly cannot palse they will bee more active and zealous for the good of their posterity that are sure to succeed them in the same place and Honour and to share in the benefit of the prudent and faithfull dispose of their present suffrage But now the Answerer denying the Bishops to bee for their lives only and affirming them to be for their successors also c. waives the sense and intention of the House of Commons and diverts his Reader from the strength of their Argument For hee tells us that Bishops are for their successors as a kinde of Corporation in Law It is true that a Bishop is a Corporation to some uses but that he is so in respect of his place and Vote in Parliament the Answerer hath yet neither made nor offered any proofe at all The Bishop is called thither by Writ to counsell the King upon presumption of his personall sufficiency and fidelity but ubi gentium doth it appeare that by vertue of the fundamentall lawes of the Kingdome the Bishops must needs sit there as a Corporation without which the Lords House cannot be full Is it not only from Grace that Bishops were first allowed place there And if so they are not immoveable out of their places and therefore they do not necessarily take up those places for their successors But suppose they sit there for their successors yet will it bee very hard to
suppose the next thing too that Bishops are in the same manner there for their successors in the Land and Honour that pertaine to their places as the Earles and Barons are for their successors in their owne Lands and Honours For is there no difference betweene Successors that usually have no naturall legitimate relation to the present Bishops in any degree of consanguinity or affinity and those of Earles and Barons which are their proper heires at Law and may claime and must enjoy the same Honour which their Ancestors have held before them if not tainted in bloud No difference betweene those that can no more bee denyed place in Parliament without confusion of all than the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and the government thereof can be turned up by the Roots and those who first crept in by favour to serve a Conquerors turne by taking off their dependance upon the Pope and fastening it upon himselfe and can derive no higher for sitting as now they doe in the House of Peeres than an Act of Parliament if so high and therefore by another Act of Parliament may be discharged Now where the difference of the Title is so great between a Bishop and an Earle or Temporall Baron both to their Lands and Honours and Votes in Parliament I much feare that the Nobility and Temporall Lords will hardly in their House allow this doctrine which yet is fitter for them to consider of than for me to confute and therefore I leave it only with this that if the Lords shall find cause to reject this position as heterodox and deny the Bishops to be in Parliament for their successors in Lands and Honours in the same manner or upon as good and immoveable title as the Nobility be for theirs then the Reason of the House of Commons doth stand yet good as to Earles and Barons and it is no way fit that Bishops should have the same Legislative power over the Honours inheritances persons and liberties of Earles and Barons as these have or ought to have over those of Bishops As for Bishops holding their Lands in Fee simple I can say little to it because my skill is very simple in Tenures Only I have beene told that Fee-simple Littletons Instit l. 1. c. 1. 5. 1. Cokus in Little ibid. Sect. 5. is called in Latine foedum simplex idem est quod haereditas legitima vel hareditas pura So that to speak properly Every man that hath a lawfull estate in Fee-simple hath it either by descent or purchase neither of which wayes for ought I know can the Bishop derive his Title But perhaps in some sense wherewith I am not acquainted the Bishops may bee said to hold in Fee-simple as the word may be taken in a larger and lesse proper acception Viz. Because he holdeth Lands in fee in right of his Church but this is not properly Fee-simple because he holds them not in his owne right and the right he hath in them dyes with him as to his heires But I have heard that ordinarily he that is seized of any Lands in Fee in right of his Church his tenure is either that which the Lawyers call Tenure per divine service when the Lands are given upon condition that the Donee performe some divine Service certaine expressed in the Gift or the Lands to revert or else it is * Littl. Institut li. 2. cap. 6. en Frank annoigne when Lands are freely given without any divine service certaine to be performed for them And further albeit the Bishops are usually said to hold of the King per Baroniam yet this haply may be meant rather of the Honour affixed to their place which works it up to a Dignitie than of the Lands pertaining to them which they also hold in Frank almoigne as well as the inferiour Clergy Sir Henry Spel. Not. in Concil v rolam sub Ossa Hereupon it is that in our Municipall Lawes our Bishops for that they enjoy their meanes and maintenance by the bounty and Almes of Kings are called Barones Regis Eleemosynarij The Kings Lords Almesmen or Barons of the Kings Almoignry as the Almesmen at WINDSOR are called The Kings poore Knights and the Reason is rendred out of Ranulphus de Glanvill that famous Iudge in Henry the second his time quia eorum Baroniae sunt de Eleemosyna Domini Regis Antecessorum ejus De Legib. Angl. l. 7. ca. 1. in Calic Because their BARONIES are of the Almes of the KING and his Ancestors Which being so my conceit is that what Reason so ever they have on their side yet at this time especially this free and high language that they holding their Lands in Fee-simple may with as good Reason Vote in the Honours inheritance persons and liberties of others as others may and doe in theirs might have well beene forborne without prejudice to their Cause For if Almesmen bee admitted to Vote in Parliament it will bee their wisedome I take it not to bee so much elated as to enter into termes of comparison with the highest not excepting their Benefactors or Founders themselves even in one of the highest points of honour and power 2. ANSWER to the fifth REASON Many Peeres have beene created for their lives only and the Earle of Surrey for the life of his Father who yet voted in this House EXAMEN But have any except Bishops beene created Peeres for life or otherwise that were not men of great estates and inheritance or at least of extraordinary birth and sufficiency Of such eminency were the Earles of Surrey But when you mention an Earle of Surrey whom do you meane Is it intended of the Noble Family of the Howards descended from the Mowbrayes If of these you will hardly finde any such that being an honour not so frequently communicated in former times Indeed I I find it mentioned that Iohn Lord Mowbray Sonne of Iohn Grand-child to Thomas Duke of Norfolke was by King Henry the sixth in the life time of his Father created Earle of Surrey and was after his Fathers death Duke of Norfolke but that he was a Peere of Parliament for or in the life of his Father I finde not And I have beene told by a Noble branch of that Renowned stemme and now a Peere that there was no Earle of Surrey made a Lord of Parliament upon such termes But whether so or so it matters not much this being but one single instance And how ever you may perhaps instance when you please in others not so highly descended who have had the honour to Vote as Peeres in Parliament yet they were such whose interests in the publike and share in posterity must needs weigh downe any of those that the House of Commons desire to have removed out of the Lords House For however diverse of them bee well lined with wealth yet the House of Commons are in Parliament to looke upon them as the Lawes doe to wit as upon Almesmen that are but
at his Ordination the Minister formally covenanteth and voweth by Gods grace to performe Which being so there can no scruple remaine in any impartiall man but that the second Reason of the House of Commons is true solid and concluding against the Bishops Votes in Parliament quod erat demonstrandum 2. ANS to the second REASON The Bishop hopes they will give themselves wholely to that and not to any other Trade or Vocation EXAMEN And hope so hee cannot if Bishops may still vote in Parliament Because they cannot doe that with profit or safety to the Common wealth without giving their mindes not to some one other single trade or vocation only but to every trade and course of life so farre as to make them complete Satesmen as hath beene shewed before For what Trade or Vocation is there to be found which sometime or other makes not businesse for the Parliament And how shall hee give a Vote in it with judgement that hath not a good insight into all the Mysteries of it If it should as possibly it may bee objected that by this strict rule many of the Nobility should bee excluded I answere that if they bee not throughly qualified and furnished for that worke the more the pity because the more the Common wealth suffers by their insufficiency Howbeit the ingenuousnesse of their nature and education will make them lesse forward in speaking and more diligent in hearing their ancients and men of more gravitie and experience Nor is it fit that for such insufficiencies they should be turned out but rather remaine there as in a Schoole as wee see some of the sonnes of the Noblemen doe to traine them up to doe service there to the King and Kingdome it being an honour to which they were borne whereas Bishops sit there but Precario and are out of their Callings all the while But is that all that the Bishop hopes namely that the persons to bee ordained will not take another Trade or Vocation upon them Then belike if a Minister doe not professe the Trade of a Taylor hee may yet spend part of his time in Tayloring Hee may sometimes give himself to Brewing so he set not up a Brewhouse c. But surely our Law is so strict in such cases that it forbids Ministers to have so much as a Brew-house or Tan-house although managed by others further than for the necessaries of house keeping nor otherwise to take to Farme or Lease any Lands or Tenements albeit the same bee occupied by some other persons if it bee to the Ministers use 21. Hen. 8 13. And why so Is it because the Lawes doe envie the wealth of Spirituall persons That were an uncharitable surmise The end was that Ministers might have no occasions of a vocation from their Studies and Ministeriall Function but have more opportunity to bestow themselves wholely thereupon according to what they promised and undertooke at their Ordination for the more quiet and vertuous increase and maintenance of Divine Service and preaching and teaching of the Word of God c. as the entrance into that Statute doth expresse it So then if we consider Bishops according to what the Common wealth expecteth from them in her Lawes as well as what the Church bindeth them unto in their Ordination as Ministers of the Church of England they may not regularly give themselves not onely wholly to any Trade but not at all to any imployment but the Ministery and to that which is necessarily required to fit them for it and support them in it 3. ANS to the second REASON Wholely in a Morall and not in a Mathematicall sense that will admit no Latitude els there might the same exception bee taken against their just care of provision for their houshold affaires EXAMEN If they by their Ordination bee bounded Morally the House of Commons will never I presume trouble themselves about the Mathematicality of the Vow Nor will I be so bold to say of this distinction of the words of the Exhortation in question as the Author of the Holy Table Name and Thing doth of a like subtile interpretation of a Rubrick newly minted by his Antagonist praying him to remember Page 54. that the Rubrick was written for the use of the English not of the Gypsies or Egyptians Yet this I suppose I may freely and truly say that neither Learned and Pious Martin Bucer nor the plaine meaning Church of England which borrowed that Exhortation from Bucer ever so much as dreamt of the Mathematickes or of that distinction here given in those words of the Exhortation but meant honestly and plainly to let all Ministers know that without distinctions or tricks they are to bind themselves wholly and absolutely Mathematically aswell as Morally to that Vocation of the Ministery further than the necessity of livelyhood enforceth them to spend some time to supply the wants and necessary occasions of them and theirs And to this I may I hope without offence make bold to adde because I have learnt it from the same Author of the Holy Table c. page 52. as hee out of Aristotle Anal. Post Lib. 1. Cap. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You must not dispute in termes of Geometry with those that verse not in Geometry otherwise you will shew your selfe but a foule and sophisticall disputant as that Author hath it But let the distinction bee as it will thus much is clearely gotten by it that the Answerer hereby yeeldeth that Morally Bishops cannot vote in Parliament without crossing the expectation of and condition propounded by the Church in admitting them to Holy Orders and that they vote there and imploy themselves in secular affaires Mathematically only Surely if their voting there for that wee know is the thing to bee asserted by him in his Answers because that is it which is opposed in the Reasons of the House of Commons consist not with the Rules of Morality it is no great credit for them to retaine that honour nor will it at length bring in much comfort to them when they must yeeld up their accounts to God that they were never forbidden it according to the strict Lawes of the Mathematickes although indeed Morally they were bound from it And what must they needs bee debarred from the just care of provision of their houshold affaires if denyed votes in Parliament and liberty unto secular imployments to enable them so to vote Nay God himselfe not only allowes but imposeth upon all men a care of their family-businesse and government Prov. 27.23 and he that is negligent herein is pronounced worse than an Infidell 1 Tim. 5.8 God hath not divided this from any Calling in ordinary course And what hee hath joyned no man may separate Therefore both the Church in her Ordination as appeared by the larger expression thereof before out of Bucer and the Kingdome in her Lawes as is also manifest in the Statute before alledged excepteth this care of provision for their housholds when
yet both Church and Kingdome binde them to give themselves in all other particulars wholly to the Calling study and exercise of the Ministery which they have received in the Lord Collos 4 17 that they may fulfill it III. REAS. of the House of Commons BEcause Councels and Canons in severall ages do forbid them to meddle with Secular Affaires I. ANSVVER To this 3. Reason a five fold Answere is directed Councels and Canons against Bishops Votes in Parliament were never in use in this Kingdome and therefore they are abolished by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. II. ANSVVER So are they by the same Statute because the Lords have declared that the Bishops vote hereby the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm and all Canons that crosse with those are there abolished III. ANSVVER So are they by the same Statute as thwarting the Kings Prerogative to call Bishops by summons to vote in Parliament IV. ANSVVER So are they by the Vote of the House of Commons 21. Maii 1641. because they are not confirmed by the Act of Parliament EXAMEN I put all these Answers together because they will not need distinct Examinations they being much what coincident at least in the maine scope which is to keepe this third Reason out of the Court as being no sufficient evidence in Law to eject the Defendants out of their holds in Parliament against some of their desires It is acknowledged that no Councels or Canons not confirmed by Parliament have here in England any power to bind the subjects either of the Clergie or of the Laitie as hath been clearly Resolved upon the Question this Parliament in both houses But whether the House of Commons referre to any Canons so confirmed I may not take upon mee to affirme or deny because they have beene pleased to forbeare to cite those to which they doe referre Nor can it bee I thinke denyed that any Canons were in use within forty yeares before the Statute of 25. Hen. 8.19 to which I conceive the Answerer hath relation against Bishops votes in Parliament and so Bishops bee shot free from such Canons if urged against them in that capacity as binding Lawes But what neede the Answerer to have taken all this paines of multiplying of Answeres to shew that no Councels or Canons not ratified by Parliaments bee binding to Bishops in this or any case whatsoever For where hath the House of Commons so urged them Surely not here They have not vouched them as Lawes to thrust the Bishops out of the House of Peeres as sitting there against the Lawes already in being but as rationall Arguments and prudentiall Grounds to induce the Parliament to use their Legislative power to abrogate the Lawes if any be for their sitting there seeing that many godly Bishops in former Ages have made divers religious and wholesome Constitutions and Provisions against such exorbitant usurpations of the Clergie For however those Canons bee not formally obligatory here yet are they really worthy the Consideration of those who have a power to reduce Bishops by a binding Law to that which heretofore so many learned and pious men of their owne Coat and Calling have pronounced and decreed to be just and necessarie Further than this the House of Commons bee not engaged And who knows not that the Bishops and their Officers have and still doe urge divers Canons of forraigne Councels and domestique too that never were confirmed by Parliament upon both Clergie and Laitie when such Canons make for the Bishops or their Officers And these must take effect like the Laws of the Medes and Persians And yet now when they see such Canons turned upon themselves although not as Lawes but as rationall arguments only how witty they be in putting off all by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. which makes nothing at all against the House of Commons or this Reason produced by them And what offence or incongruity was it in the House of Commons to urge Canons and Councels against the Bishops in this particular when no Divine that ever complained of such usurpations of the Clergie hath held it incongruous to presse the very same against them I will not trouble my selfe or others with many instances that alone shall suffice which hath beene before * Exam. of the first Answe to the first Reason alledged out of Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterburie That Prelate taxing the excessive exorbitances and scandalous courses of the Clergie in the reigne of Richard 1. was not affraid to give this as the chiefe if not the only reason of all that prodigious breaking out Quod contra Orthodoxorum Patrum decreta c. that contrary to the decrees of the Orthodoxe Fathers the Clergie did too much intermeddle in worldly businesses If then so great a Prelate did well in laying this home to the charge of the Clergie that their not regarding the Decrees and Canons of former Councels was the maine cause of all the evills committed by them it cannot unbecome the House of Commons assembled in Parliament and passing a Bill against Bishops Votes in Parliament to produce and use the Canons and Councels of Bishops themselves against such courses held on and maintained by our Bishops against the judgement and solemne determinations of their owne Predecessors in the Prelacy in all the Churches of Christ As for the Declaration of the Lords that the Bishops Vote in Parliament by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme I meddle not with it because as I am ignorant of the Lawes and Statutes by which they vote so am I not acquainted with what the Lords have declared thereupon Only I have heard that divers Abbots voted as anciently in Parliament as Bishops yet are taken away Yea this Answerer hath informed mee Answer to Reason 7. that anciently the Bishops were assisted in Parliament with a double number of Mitred Abbots and Priors But Sir Edward Cooke could find no more in the Parliament Rolles but twenty seven Abbots and two Priors Commentary on Littleton Institutes Sec. 138. Nor doe I know the difference of the Tenures of the one or of the other or why in regard of originall right Bishops should rather vote in Parliament than Abbots and Priors so long as those Orders continued in being That great Master of Law before named tels us that both Abbots and Bishops were called to Parliament by the Kings Writ else they came not there Ibid. although they held of the King Per Baroniam Witnesse the Abbot of the Monasterie of Feversham founded by King Stephen who albeit hee held by Barony yet for that hee was not called by Writ hee never sate in Parliament And perhaps it is not simply a Barony that gives all the Bishops a right to fit there for I have read somewhere that all the Bishops of King Henry 8. his foundation have not Baronies annexed to them Yet they are called by Writ and vote as Peeres in Parliament But bee their right what it will I