U0KAKY 51. MAKT b LULLttt
AP U D B AYS WAT E R
o
o
LITURGY, EPISCOPACY,
CHURCH RITUAL : x
THREE SPEECHES
7,93.
I 13
w
ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, AND MARTYR.
94
OXFORD,
JOHN HUNUV PARKER.
MDCCCXL.
BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.
IT has been thought worth while to
republish these Three Speeches from
Wharton's collection, not so much for
the main argument of them, as because
they contain many opinions on religious
and other matters, dropped, as it were,
by the way. The headings of the pages
will therefore more frequently indicate
some such opinion, than follow the course
of the main discussion.
Oxford,
May 12, 1840.
o o
THE
ANSWER
OF THE
MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD
WILLIAM
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,
TO THE
SPEECH
OF THE
LORD SAY AND SEAL,
TOUCHING
-o
ft)e Utturgp.
LAUD
ON
THE LITURGY.
THE Speech begins thus :
" My Lords, I have waited to find you
" free from greater businesses ; that I
" might crave leave to speak of some-
" thing that concerns myself. And
" this I have the more desired, since
" my Lord of Canterbury's last
" Speech; who expressing his trou-
" bles, and bewailing the misery of
" his condition, and of the condition
" of the Church of England, (for he
C-
o
9 .
4 Men's causeless jealousy
" would needs join them together,
" which I think he may, as the cause
" and the effect, for the miseries of
" the Church have certainly risen
" from him,) he insisted much upon
" this : That these troubles had be-
" fallen him through the malice of
" two parties, the Papists and the
" Sectaries, and by those, he said, the
" Church was greatly afflicted."
My Lords, and all Christian readers, those
great businesses which my Lord speaks of are
now ended; and I hope as you are free from
business, so you will be free from prejudice,
while I also crave leave to speak something
concerning myself. And this I also have the
more desired, since I saw this honourable Lord
had put his Speech in print, which I find as
much, if not more, against me, than for nimself.
This Speech was not put in print, till near six
I months after it was spoken ; and I conceive was
i printed then to renew the business, and to whet
the malice of those Sectaries against me. It is
o
c o
of Laud's religion. 5
true, that after I was impeached by the House
of Commons for High Treason, there came no
Articles against me, in full ten weeks after;
then they came up in generals only; and I
was called to the House to hear them, on
Friday, February the 26th, 164f. Now by
these Articles I found, that there was great, but
(I humbly praise God for it) causeless, jealousy
of me in point of religion. This made me
labour more to clear myself from that, than
from any thing else objected against me, as
ever hating to seem other in religion than what
I truly and really am. For of all simulations
or dissimulations, that is the basest, when a
man, for poor temporary fading ends, shall shift
his religion or his judgment concerning it, with
the time, if not with the tide : as if at all times
he had somewhat to seek before he would ex-
press : whereas it is most true, which St. Hilary
speaks in matter of religion, Non opus est in-
tervallo aliquo inter cor et os* ; There is no
need of a distance between the heart and the
mouth; as if a man were to bethink himself of
3 St. Hilary, 1. x. de Trin. p. 165.
o o
o o
6 Separatists cause of present distractions ;
some faithless ambiguity, before he would speak
that which belonged to the profession of his
faith.
Now, if seeing myself under so great a
pressure, and the Church of England so hard
laid at, as then it was, I did bewail the con-
dition of both, I think I did what became me.
And I hope I offended no man in joining our
conditions together. And whereas this honour-
able Lord thinks, that I might well join them,
as the cause and the effect: I think so too
myself, but in another sense.
For his Lordship says too peremptorily, that
the miseries of the Church have certainly risen
from me. No certainly : the miseries of this
Church have proceeded from the Separatists,
and from such as for private at least, if not for
worse ends, have countenanced them and their
strange proceedings against the Government
and Governors of the Church. And this so
long, till they brought the Church's condition
(which nourished before) to be the cause of my
condition, such as it now is. And I fell into
this condition, by labouring by all good means
o o
o : o
specially Papists and Sectaries. 7
to uphold the Church of England from that
misery, into which I fear it is now falling.
And I doubt not, but God will open the eyes
of all good men, to see clearly in time, that this
was the cause which laid both me and this
Church so low ; and not any actions, much less
practices, of mine. This being so, if I insisted
much upon this, that these troubles have befallen
me through the malice of two parties, the
Papists and the Sectaries, (as this honourable
Lord says I did,) I had great reason so to do.
For certainly, the Church of England is greatly
afflicted by them; and I pray God, in the end
it be not torn in pieces between them. That
which I then said in my sudden speech to the
Lords to this particular, was as follows :
" I am very unfortunate in this business, be-
tween the malignity of two parties against me,
the Papist and the Separatist. And shall I
suffer on both sides at once ? Shall I be
accounted a deadly enemy to the Papist, as I
am reputed by them both at home and abroad ;
and in the mean time, accused for no less than
Treason, for favouring and complying with
O
o : 1
8 The Via Media.
them ? Well : if I do suffer, it is but because
truth usually lies between two sides, and is
beaten on both sides, (as the poor Church of
England is at this day by these factions:) but
in this and all things else, and in despite of
malice, truth shall either be my protection from
suffering, or my comfort while I suffer ; and by
God's gracious assistance, I shall never depart
from it, but continue at the Apostle's ward ;
Nihil possum contra veritatem b : I can do
nothing against the truth; and for it, I hope
God will enable me patiently to suffer any
thing."
This, or to this effect, I then spake, and I
hope, without any offence ; sure I am, without
reflecting upon any particular person. Yet my
Lord seems to think otherwise : for he says,
" How far this man will extend this word
" Sectary, and whom he will compre-
" hend under it, I know not ; but I
" have some cause to fear, that I may
" lie under some misapprehension in
b 2 Cor. xiii. 8.
o o
) O
What a Sectary is. 9
" respect of matters of this nature ;
" which how far it concerns him, your
" Lordships will perceive by what I
" shall say."
My Lord, it seems, knows not how far I will
extend the word Sectaiy : truly, no farther than
the Church of Christ extended it, ever since
sects and schisms broke in upon it, to help
despoil it of peace and unity. And a Sectary
is he c
The next thing which my Lord knows not,
is, whom I will comprehend under that name ;
and that his Lordship may easily know. For I
comprehend none under it, but such as divide
from the Church, and either make or follow a
breach, where no just cause is given by the
Church; or where though cause were given,
ways of division are preferred before ways of
peace. But that which troubles my Lord about
these things, which he professes he knows not,
is, that he hath some cause to fear (for so he
c The definition and description of a Sectary is want-
ing in the original.
o o
o o
10 Disuse of the Liturgy is schism.
confesses) that he may lie under some misap-
prehensions in respect of matters of this nature.
And this I think may trouble him indeed : for
there is cause enough, why he should fear, that
he may lie under, not misapprehensions, but
very just apprehensions, in respect of matters of
this nature ; since it is manifest, that he sepa-
rates himself, as Sectaries use to do, from the
Common Prayers of the Church : and those
such, as were composed by such Bishops and
other Divines, as suffered, some of them to
Martyrdom, for the truth of Christ : and those
such also, as were a second time, under the
prosperous reign of Queen Elizabeth, con-
firmed by Act of Parliament. So that his
Lordship separating himself from those prayers,
which were made by the one, and confirmed by
the other, must needs be apprehended as a
Sectary; whether you look upon Church or
State. But my Lord tells you, that you will
perceive by that which he shall say, how far
this concerns me. And therefore I pray you
observe it diligently ; for I cannot yet conceive
how any thing else that belongs to a Sectary,
O O
o o
Dishonourable language of Lord Say. 1 1
can concern me ; or any thing else, much, which
his Lordship can say against me.
" My Lord of Canterbury ! A man of
" mean birth, bred up in a College,
" (and that too frequently falls out to
" be in a faction,) whose narrow com-
" prehension extended itself no farther,
" than to carry on a side in a College,
" or canvass for a Proctor's place in
" the University."
This concerns me indeed, and very nearly;
for I see his Lordship resolves to rake me up
from my very birth; a way unusual for men
well-bred, and little beseeming a person of
honour ; especially thus to insult upon a fallen
fortune. But yet it concerns me not in any
relation to a Sectary, unless his Lordship would
possess the world that I was bred in faction,
and so like enough to prove one. But how my
Lord is mistaken in this, will plainly appear.
First then, it is true, I am a man of ordinary,
but very honest, birth ; and the memory of my
o o
o o
12 Laud's birth no meaner than Abbot's.
parents savours very well to this day, in the
town of Reading, where I was born. Nor was
I so meanly born, as perhaps my Lord would
insinuate ; for my father had borne all offices in
the town, save the Mayoralty. And my im-
mediate predecessor (whom I am sure my
Lord himself accounted very worthy of his
place) was as meanly born as myself, his father
being of the same trade in Guilford, that mine
was of in Reading. But all this of my birth
might well have been spared; for my Lord
knows well enough ,
Miserum est aliorum incumbere famse ;
Ne collapsa ruant subductis tecta columnis.
And that which follows in the Satirist. And
had my birth been meaner than it was, that
would not have impaired me among men of
understanding. And howsoever, this advantage
I have ; I have done honour to my birth ;
which every man hath not done, that hath had
an honourable descent. To my birth his Lord-
ship adds, that I was bred up in a College.
d Juven. Satire 8.
o <
o
His mind such as God made it. 13
That is true. But it is as true, that his Lord-
ship was bred up in a College also, and of the
same University. And, therefore, so far he
speaks as much against himself, as me. But I
hope, he intends not to charge being bred in a
College as a fault upon either of us. And
though it too frequently falls out, that Colleges
be in a faction, (for that also is too truly
observed by his Lordship,) yet that is no fault
in any man, who neither causes nor nourishes
the faction. But that which his Lordship
charges next upon me, is both a weakness, and
a fault, if true. Weakness, that my compre-
hensions are narrow. And a fault, because they
extended no farther than to carry on a side
in the College, or a canvass for a Proctor's place
in the University.
For the weakness first : my comprehensions,
as narrow as they are, are yet as large as God
hath been pleased to make them, and as large
as my hard study, accompanied with his grace,
hath been able to stretch them. And so large I
am sure they are, as that I have ever looked
carefully upon the whole Catholic Church of
-o
o o
14 His watch over the Church Catholic.
Christ, spread upon the face of the whole
earth.
And, therefore, certainly my comprehensions
are not so narrow as theirs, whose largest can-
not, or will not, look upon one entire national
Church ; nay, a parochial is too big for them,
and a conventicle big enough. Nor did my
narrow comprehensions ever reject that great
body, the Catholic Church, out of the Creed,
as some of late have done, whose comprehen-
sions are not, for all that, censured by his
Lordship for their narrowness.
Next for the fault: that is two-fold. First,
My comprehensions went no farther (says my
Lord) than to carry on a side in a College.
Here my Lord is either utterly mistaken, or,
which is worse, in a wilful error. For while I
was Fellow of St. John Baptist's College, where
I was bred, it is well known I never made nor
held up any side. Indeed, when I was chosen
President of that College, there was a bitter
faction both raised and countenanced against
me, (I will forbear to relate how and by whom;)
but this is certain, I made no party then : for
) O
o o
The Headship of St. John's. 15
four being in nomination for that Headship, I
lay then so sick at London, that I was neither
able to go down, nor so much as write to my
friends about it. Yet after much tumble, a
major part of the votes made choice of me.
Thus I was chosen President, May 10, 1611.
After this, my election was quarrelled at, and
great means made against me ; insomuch that
the most gracious King, King James, sat to
hear the cause himself, for the space of full
three hours, August 28, at Tichburn in Hamp-
shire, as he returned out of the western
progress. Upon this hearing, his Majesty
approved my election, and commanded my
settlement; which was done accordingly at
Michaelmas following. But the faction in the
College finding such props above, as they had,
continued very eager and bitter against me.
The audit of the College for the year's ac-
counts, and choice of new officers, followed in
November: there so God blessed me with
patience and moderation in the choice of all
offices, that I made all quiet in the College.
And for all the narrowness of my comprehen-
o o
o o
16 The Proctorship.
sions, I governed that College in peace, without
so much as the shew of a faction, all my time,
which was near upon eleven years. And the
truth of all this is notoriously known, and many
yet living of great worth in the Church, ahle
and ready to avow it. And this, I hope, was
not to lead on a side.
Secondly, My Lord charges my narrow com-
prehensions, as reaching no farther than a
canvass for a Proctor's place. I was (with
thanks to their love that thought me worthy)
chose Proctor of the University, so soon as by
Statute I was capable of it. But I never
meddled in the managing of the canvass for it for
myself: nor afterwards for any other, while I
continued Fellow of the College. When I was
chosen President, I continued so for two years,
and meddled not in that business. And this I
did, because in some things I did utterly dislike
that canvass, and the carriage of it. At last
some of the Senior Fellows came to me, and
told me, that the College had been many years
without the credit of a Proctor; and, that the
Fellows began to take it ill at my hands, that I
c o
O Q
Oxford Proctors. 1 7
would not shew myself, and try my credit and
my friends in that business. Upon this, rather
than I would lose the love of my companions, I
did settle myself in an honest and fair way, to
right the College as much as I could. And by
God's blessing, it succeeded beyond expectation.
But when we were at the strongest, I made this
fair offer more than once and again, That if the
greater Colleges would submit to take their
turns in order, and not seek to cany all from
the lesser, we would agree to any indifferent
course in Convocation, and allow the greater
Colleges their full proportion according to their
number. This would not be hearkened unto ;
whereupon things continued some years.
After this, by his Majesty's grace and
favour, I was made Bishop of St. David's;
and after that, of Bath and Wells. When I
was thus gone out of the University, the Election
of the Proctors grew more and more tuinuliu-
ous, till at the last the peace of the University
was like to be utterly broken ; and the divided
parties brought up a complaint to the Council
Table. The Lords were much troubled at it*
c 1
o c
18 Oxford Proctors.
especially the Right Honourable William Earl
of Pembroke, Lord Steward, and their honour-
able Chancellor. I had by that time, and by
the great grace of his now Majesty, the honour
to be a Councillor, and was present. There I
acquainted the Lords, what offers I had made
during my time in the University, which I did
conceive would settle all differences, and make
peace for ever. The Lords approved the way;
and after the Council was risen, my very ho-
nourable Lord the Earl of Pembroke desired me
to put the whole business in writing, that he
might see and consider of it. I did so : his
Lordship approved of it, and sent it to the
University, with all freedom to accept or refuse,
as they saw cause. The University approved
all, only desired the addition of a year or two
more to the circle ; which would add a turn or
two more, to content some of the greater
Colleges. This that honourable Lord yielded
unto ; and that form of election of their Proc-
tors was, by unanimous consent, made a Statute
in Convocation, and hath continued the Uni-
versity in peace ever since. And this is all the
o o
Charge of narrow-mindedness. 19
carrying on of a canvass for a Proctor's place,
which any truth can challenge me withal.
And it may be, my Lord is pleased to impute
narrow comprehensions to me, because my
advice inclosed the choice of the Proctors within
a circle. I am heartily sorry I should trouble
the reader with these passages concerning my-
self; but my Lord forces me to it, by imputing
so much unworthiness to me. But my Lord
leaves not here, but goes on, and says worse of
me:
" Being suddenly advanced to highest
" places of government in Church and
" State, had not his heart enlarged by
" the enlargement of his fortune ; but
" still the maintaining of his party
" was that which filled all his thoughts ;
" which he prosecuted with so much
" violence and inconsiderateness, that
" he had not an eye to see the conse-
" quences thereof to the Church and
" State, until he had brought both
" into those distractions, danger, and
o o
C 3
20 Laud's gradual rise.
" dishonour, which we now find our-
" selves encompassed withal.
The next thing which my Lord charges me
with is, that I was suddenly advanced to highest
places of Government in Church and State.
This is like the rest. And I dare say, when
my Lord shall better consider of it, he will
neither re-affirm nor avouch such an untruth.
Suddenly advanced ! What does my Lord call
suddenly ? I was eleven years his Majesty's
Chaplain in Ordinary, before I was made a
Bishop. I was a Bishop twelve years before I
was preferred to be Archbishop of Canterbury,
that highest place my Lord mentions. When
I was made Archbishop, I was full threescore
years of age, within less than one month.
Whereas my immediate predecessor was not anv
one month in his Majesty's ordinary service
as Chaplain, but far from that honourable
indeed, but yet painful and chargeable service,
and was made Bishop of Lichfield, of London,
and of Canterbury, within the compass of two
years, he being at the time of his translation to
c o
Gratitude to God for it. 21
Canterbury but forty-nine years of age; and
yet never charged as a man suddenly advanced.
But my advancement, which it seems pleased
not my Lord so well as his did, was very
sudden; which I leave to the impartial reader
to judge.
Next being advanced to this high place, as
my Lord calls it, (but now made low enough
by his Lordship, and other of the same feather,)
he says, I had not my heart enlarged with the
enlargement of my fortune. Sure my Lord is
mistaken again. For my heart (I humbly
thank God for it) was enlarged every way as
much as my fortune, and in some things
perhaps more. But it may be my Lord meant,
that my heart was not sufficiently enlarged,
because I could not receive those Separatists
into it (farther than to pray for them), which
would not suffer the open bosom of the Church
of England to receive them; but neglecting
their father's commandment, forsook also their
mother's instruction*.
Nor did I maintain any party; but any
Prov. i. 8. and vi. 20.
o o
o o
22 Charge of party severity false.
Churchman, or any man else that loved order
and peace in the Church, was very welcome to
me. And I leave the world to judge, by what
they now see, whether I or this Lord have
practised or studied most the maintenance and
advancement of a party. And as I did not
maintain a party, so much less did it fill all
my thoughts, (as narrow as my Lord thinks
them.) Nor did I prosecute these or any other
my thoughts, either with violence, or incon-
siderateness. Not with violence; for I can
name many, of whose preferment, under God
and the King, I was cause, who yet went not
with them, which my Lord will needs miscall
my party. Nor did I punish either more, or
more severely, any that were brought before
me in the Commission, than were punished for
the like offences in any the same number of
years in my late predecessor's time : as will
manifestly appear by the acts ot the Court.
Nor with inconsiderateness. For I have many
witnesses that mine eye was open, and did
plainly see, and as freely tell, (where I then
hoped there might have been remedy,) what
O
c . o
The nation dishonoured ly the Scots. 23
was coming both upon Church and State,
though not as consequences upon my proceed-
ings ; and I wish with all my heart, they were
no more consequences upon my Lord's pro-
ceedings, than they have been upon mine.
And my Lord is extremely mistaken, to say
that I brought both into those distractions,
danger, and dishonour, with which they are
now encompassed. For it is not I that have
troubled this Israel of God. For God is my
witness, I laboured nothing but the settlement
of the decent external worship of God among
us, which whatever some other men think, I
know was sunk very low ; and if in labouring
this, I did err in any circumstance, (for in
matter of substance I am sure I did not,) that
may be forgiven me for humanity sake, which
cannot free itself from error. But that which
brought all these distractions both upon Church
and State, was the bringing in of the Scots, and
the keeping of them here at a vast charge, only
to serve turns, and those veiy base ones : and to
the debasing and dishonour of this whole nation,
as well as the King. And how far this Lord
o- 6
o
24 Lord Says marked absence
had his hand or his head in this treacherous
business, he best knows. Sure I am, his Lord-
ship is thought one of the chief moulders of
this leaven of the Pharisees. But my Lord
thinks himself safe enough; so he can cry me
up among the rabble, to be the author of all.
And not content with this, he insults farther
upon me, as follows :
" Yet to magnify his moderation, presently
" after the breaking of the last Parlia-
" ment,,he told a Lord, who sits now
" in my sight, that if he had been a
" violent man, he wanted no occasion
" to shew it. For he observed, that
" the Lord Say never came to prayers ;
" and added, that I was in his know-
" ledge as great a Separatist as any
" was in England."
Whatever it was I said, was not to magnify
my moderation. Nor do I remember, that
ever I spake these words. Yet first, if any
Lord will say, upon his honour, that I did say
O
o o
from the prayers of the Church. 25
these very words; I will bear him and the
Peerage of the Realm that honour, as that I
will submit and believe his testimony, against
my own old now and weak memory. Next,
upon enquiry made by some friends of mine, I
find that the words I should speak are said to
be these, that if I listed to take any advantage
against this honourable Lord, I had as much
exception to him, as to any Separatist in
England. These words are neither so bold,
nor so uncivil, as those in the charge ; and
perhaps I might speak these, though I remem-
ber it not. For during the last Parliament, not
so few as ten or a dozen several Lords came to
me of themselves, as I sat there, and complained
grievously of this Lord's absenting himself from
the prayers of the Church ; and some of them
wondered he was not questioned for the scandal
he gave by it. And if any of them would be
so mean, as to urge me to speak by speaking
broad themselves, and then carry the tale to
this noble Lord ; he did that, whoever he were,
which I hope was not the noblest of his actions ;
and if I did say these latter words of this great
O O
Q O
26 Laud too gentle with him.
Lord, I must and do say them again; and I
heartily beseech God that this sin be not laid to
my charge, that I questioned him not, when
the times were calmer : for had I done that, I
had done my duty ; and if I had not cured him,
perhaps I might have prevented so much com-
mon danger to this Church, as his Lordship
hath procured since that time, both by his
example, his counsel, and his countenance.
And for the words, I doubt not, but he himself
will be found to have made them good, before I
have done examining this speech of his Lord-
ship. In the mean time my Lord proceeds ;
" My Lords, how far he hath spit this
" venom of his against me, I am not
" certain ; but I may well fear, where
" it might do me greatest prejudice.
" I shall therefore intreat your Lord-
" ships' favour and patience, that I
" may give you in these things, which
" so nearly concern me, a true account
" of myself; which I shall do with
" ingenuity and clearness, and so, as
o o
_ O
Bore him no malice. 27
" that if I satisfy not all men, yet I
" hope I shall make it appear, I am
" not such a one, as this waspish man
" was willing to make the world be-
" lieve."
I have spit no venom against his Lordship,
much less have I spit any thing far. For this
report, which is here called venom, is common
through the kingdom. And I have already told
you, what divers Lords said to me during the
last Parliament. And that is no more, than
hath been avowed unto me by very many others,
and some of very good quality; so the spreading
was to me, not from me. But yet, my Lord
fears, I spread it where it might do him greatest
prejudice. I know not what my Lord means
by this, unless it be that I should spread it to
his Majesty. And if that be his meaning, I
will tell his Lordship truth, what I know there-
in. I was present, when I heard some Lords,
more than once, tell the King, that the Lord
Say was a Separatist from the Church of England,
and would not come at her Common- Prayers.
6 o
o o
28 Did not do him ill services
And one of these Lords afterwards told me, he
did conceive it was a great danger to this king-
dom, when Noblemen should begin to separate
in religion; and that his Majesty had need look
to it. To this last, which was spoken to me in
private, (but I will depose the truth of it,) I
could not but assent. And to the former I then
said, I had heard as much as was then told his
Majesty; but I was not certain of it. And I
doubt not, but these Lords sit in his Lordship's
sight, as well as that Lord who told him the
other of me : and not in his sight only, but in
his affections also, as things go now. But how-
ever they cany it with him now, this they said
of him then. Nor will I here pick a thanks, to
tell this Lord what service I did him to his
Majesty, when he was thought to be in danger
enough ; though I was chidden by a great one,
that stood by, for my labour. I shall there-
fore intreat the Christian reader's favour and
patience, that having hitherto given him a most
true aud clear account of that which my Lord
charges me with, and doth nearly concern me ;
so I may proceed to the rest, which I do with
o o
O
at Court or elsewhere. 29
all ingenuity and truth. And so, as that if I
satisfy not all men ; yet I hope I shall make it
appear, that I am not a waspish man, as my
Lord would fain render me to the world. But
if I have heen a wasp in any Court, wherein I
have had the honour to sit; yet his Lordship
should not have called me so, considering what
a hornet all men say he is in the Court of Wards,
and in other places of business: where he
pinches so deep, that discreet men are in a
doubt, whether his aim be to sting the Wards, or
the Court itself, to death first. For no man can
believe, it is for the good of the King. And if
I fail in this endeavour of mine to clear myself;
I must desire the courteous reader to ascribe it,
not to my cause, which is very good against his
Lordship, but to the narrowness of my com-
prehensions, and my weakness compared with
his Lordship's great abilities. And now my
Lord charges as hard as he can. Thus ;
" For the first of these, which he charges
" upon me ; it may be, he was willing
" to have it thought, that I would not
o o
30 Lord Says words false.
" join in prayer with your Lordships,
" but refused such a communion;
" which is altogether false. For I
" should most willingly join in prayers
" with you. And farther, I will add,
" that I do not think, but some set
" Form of prayers, by some men in
" some cases, may be lawfully used.
For this first ; I was not willing to have any
thing thought of this Lord which is not true ;
and if it be altogether false, (as his Lordship
says it is,) that he will not join in prayers with
the rest of the Lords in Parliament, but refuses
such a communion ; I would fain know why
his Lordship doth not join in prayer with them.
For most undoubtedly he may if he will. And
since it is most true, that he hath not come to
prayers in the House with the rest of the Lords,
not so much as once, either in the last Parlia-
ment, or this; I think it may reasonably be
concluded without any falsehood, that his Lord-
ship will not join, no, not in such a communion
with them. Where it is to be observed, he
o
v^> V
His patronage of the Liturgy not needed. 31
says, he refuses not such a communion with
them. He refuses not; yet he will not join:
and he refuses not such a communion. A com-
munion I have cause to doubt he doth refuse ;
but not such a communion as goes no farther
than prayers; yet to these he comes not. At
the Sacrament, I believe he will be more scru-
pulous, of whom, or with whom, he receives
that.
Indeed, his Lordship adds, that he would most
willingly join in prayers with their Lordships.
And though this be most strange, that he should
never do that, which he would most willingly
do, an opportunity being offered him every day :
yet, my Lord is pleased to add farther, what his
judgment is of set Forms of prayer. And he
tells you, that he thinks some set forms, by
some men, in some occasions may be lawfully
used. Surely, the Church of England is much
beholding to this Lord ; veiy much, and the
State too. For the set Forms of Prayer which
she enjoins, were compiled by some of those
who suffered no less than Martyrdom, for the
Reformation of Religion : the same Form of
O Q
i
3*2 Nor creditable to himself.
Prayer was established by Act of Parliament ;
and yet, as if Church and State were all at
a loss, this noble Lord, who confesses some set
Forms lawful, condemns this Form, by his
actions at least, in continual and professed
abstaining from it. Some Forms, but not this ;
by some men, but not these ; in some cases,
but not in God's public service in the Church,
may be lawfully used. And yet for all these
petty somes of restraint, I know his Lordship's
parts so great, that I dare not say, (as he says
of me,) that his Lordship is of narrow compre-
hensions. But his Lordship will now tell us,
what that is, in which he is not satisfied.
" But this is that, which I am not satisfied
" in, that a certain number of men
" should usurp an authority unto
" themselves, to frame certain Prayers,
" and Forms of Divine Service ; and
" when that is done, under the name
" of the Church to enjoin them upon
" all persons, in all times, and upon
" all occasions, to be used, and no
cj-
O ;
Power of imposing Liturgies. 33
" other. And upon this ground, (which
" makes it the worse,) because these
" come from the public spirit of the
" Church, (when the Bishop or his
" Chaplain shall frame them,) and
" others proceed from the private
" spirit of this or that particular
" man."
Now, truly, since my Lord does not think
some set Forms of Prayer unlawful ; I am very
sorry his Lordship is not satisfied that a certain
number of men should frame these Forms of
Divine Service. For all Churchmen cannot
possibly meet about that, or any other Church
affair ; nor can any Synod or Assembly be
called, but there must be some certain number
of them. Nor do these men usurp any au-
thority to themselves herein': for in all ages of
the Church, from Christ downward, all set
Forms of Prayer, used in any Church, have
been either made by a certain number of men,
or approved by them, when some eminent ser-
vant of God hath composed them first, and then
o _
o c
34 Church-work to be left to Churchmen.
tendered them to the judgment of the Church.
And it is very necessary that it should be so.
Nor would the Church of old admit any prayers
in the public Service and worship of God ; but
such as were so made, and so approved; lest
through ignorance, or want of care and circum-
spection, something might slip in, that was
contrary to the faith f . But I fear here is
anguis in herbd. And that my Lord is not
satisfied, not so much because these set Forms
are made by a set number of men, as because
they are Churchmen, though he be shy 'to
express it. And if that be his meaning, he
must rest unsatisfied still. For Churchmen,
and none but Churchmen, must actually do
public Church-work, according to their calling,
and their warrant. And yet, I hope, Church-
men will never be so proud, but that if any lay
religious man, of larger comprehensions than
f Nee aliae preces omnino dicantur in Ecclesia, nisi
quse a prudentioribus traditse vel comprobatse in Synodo
fuerint; ne forte aliquid contra fidem, vel per ignoran-
tiam, vel per minus studium sit compositum. Concil.
Milevita. 2 Can. xii. 23.
-o
o
Approval of Synods and the Crown. 35
themselves, will offer in private any help to
them, they will lend an open ear to it, and after,
with a prudent consideration, do what is fit.
And as this Lord is not satisfied, that a cer-
tain number of men should make these set
Forms; so much less is he satisfied, that when
this is done, they should, under the name of the
Church, enjoin them upon all persons, in all
times, and upon all occasions, to be used, and
no other. No set Forms, that I know, are en-
joined under the name of the Church, but such
as the Church in Synod hath approved, or
tolerated till a Synod may be called. And when
any National Church in a kingdom that is
Christian, hath approved a set Fonn ; yet that
cannot be enjoined upon all persons, till the
sovereign power in that state hath weighed,
approved, and commanded it. But then,
though framed by a certain number of men,
that, and no other, lays hold on all persons, and
in all times, and upon all occasions, that are
public; if men will live in obedience to the
Church and State. I say public, leaving all
persons at all times, free to use any Form of
o o
o o
36 To compose and to impose^ different things:
Prayer agreeable to the foundations of Christian
religion, which shall best serve their several
private occasions.
And therefore, I conceive, my Lord is in a
great error in that which he adds next; namely,
that this ground makes it the worse, because
these set Forms are said to come from the public
spirit of the Church.
I cannot think so hardly of my Lord, as if
he could like a set Form of Prayer the worse,
because it comes from the public spirit of the
Church. And therefore I will take his words
in another sense, (though they be in my judg-
ment very obscurely set down,) and perhaps
that is his Lordship's meaning. That it makes
the matter the worse, because these Forms of
Prayer come as from the public spirit of the
Church, when it is but the Bishop or his Chap-
lain, or some private spirit, that frames them.
If this be my Lord's meaning ; far be it from
me, or any other to impose any Form of set
prayers upon the Church. But it is one thing
to impose, and quite another to compose, a set
Form of Prayer. Impose, none can but just
O O
o : o
in Synod as in Parliament. 37
authority. Compose, all together cannot; but
some one or more must be singled out to take
that pains. And all or most may approve, what
one or few have compiled. When it is so
approved, then it can no more be said to pro-
ceed from any private spirit of this or that man,
be it the Bishop or his Chaplain; but from the
spirit and power of the Church. My Lord
himself being a prudent man, hath had the
happiness to make motions in Parliament,
which have taken the House, been approved,
and orders drawn up upon them: when the
order is so agreed on, no man may say, it is an
order of my Lord's private spirit, but the order
of the House, and approved by the public spirit,
and imposed by the public authority, of the
State. And therefore to me it seems strange,
that my Lord, who understands these things so
well, should neither like of a set Form of
prayers, composed by private men, nor by a
certain number of men, and after publicly con-
firmed. Sure, this would make any man think
my Lord likes none, however he minces it.
But my Lord goes farther, and says,
= i
o o
38 Confusion from absence of Liturgies.
" This injunction is an usurpation of
" power over the Churches of Christ,
" and over the gifts and graces which
" Christ hath given unto men ; which
" the Apostles never exercised, nor
" would assume. And yet they
" might much better have done it.
" Arid the same reasons might have
" been alleged for it that are now.
" This turns such Forms, instead of
" being directions, into superstition."
It seems by this (for I am most willing to
take my Lord's meaning at the fairest) that my
Lord can digest some set Forms of Prayer ; but
he would have no injunction upon them. So
he that would use them might, and he that
would not might choose ; and this in short time
would bring mere confusion into the Church of
God, which I hope is not my Lord's intention
to do. Besides, my Lord cannot but know,
that this injunction for our set Form of Service
comes not from the Church's direction and
constitution, (though her wisdom and piety
O
o o
Kings enact what the Church directs. 39
framed it,) but from. the authority and power of
King and Parliament. So that all the argu-
ments which his Lordship brings here against
the Church, are equally, if not more, set against
the King and the Parliament. Well; why
then is not an injunction of a set Form of Prayers
fit ? Why, my Lord tells you : first, because it
is an usurpation of power over the Churches of
Christ. It is indeed an act of power, but no
usurpation. The Church directing and the
Sovereign enacting, ever had this power since
states became Christian. And should I have
called it an usurpation of power, his Lordship, I
fear, would have called it treason against the
King's Supremacy. But I doubt my Lord would
have the Churches free from regal power having
ought to do with them, durst he speak out.
Secondly, because it is an usurpation of
power over the gifts and graces which God hath
given unto men. Not so neither. For what-
soever gifts or graces God hath given unto
men, they may all have time, place, and
occasions enough, to use them to God's glory,
and the comfort of themselves and others ; and
o o
o o
40 Baseness of Puritan preaching.
yet in the public service of God, submit to that
set Form of God's worship, which is enjoined
for unity and decency in that external Service.
So this lays no restraint upon the gifts and
graces of pious and religious men : but it keeps
off bold, ignorant, and audacious men, from
foaming out their own shame, to the great
disorder and scandal of the Church of Christ.
As we may see at this day, now that injunction
begins to be but a little loosed, what froth and
base stuff' is preached to the consciences of men.
And yet these men, which preach thus scanda-
lously, talk of gifts and graces ; none more.
Thirdly, because the Apostles never exercised,
nor would assume, this power of enjoining a set
Form, and yet they might better have done it.
But how doth my Lord know, the Apostles
never exercised, nor would assume this power ?
Out of all doubt the Apostles did exercise and
assume many things, which are not come down
to our knowledge. And since the Apostles did
enjoin a form of doctrine to the Church of
Rome, and delivered it too *. And since St. Paul
8 Rom. vi. 17.
o o
Apostles left behind Church Forms. 41
enjoined the Church at Philippi, to walk by a
set rule, (for a rule it cannot be, unless it be
set,) that so they might learn to mind the same
things", and a form of Ordination by impo-
sition of hands 1 , for such persons as should
instruct the people in these things. And this
with a stiff injunction", and a form of whole-
some words': and since St. John the Baptist
taught his disciples to pray" 1 , and that it was
by some set form of prayer ; I have some
reason to think, first, because if they did pray
by the motion of the Spirit only, St. John
could not teach them that, but the Spirit only.
So either St. John taught them not at all to pray,
which I hope this Lord will not say against
a plain text ; or else he taught them some set
form, which was in his power and theirs to
teach and learn. Secondly, because Christ's
disciples seem to intimate so much. For they
desire Christ to teach them to pray, as St. John
taught his disciples". And Christ, instantly
granting their request, taught them a set Form
h Phil. iii. 16. * 1 Tim. v. 22. k Ver. 21.
1 2 Tim. i. 13. "> Luke xi. 1. n Ver. 2.
o o
42 Ours not like Apostolic times.
of Prayer : therefore it is more than probable,
that St. John taught his so too, though the
Form be not recorded in Scripture. Upon all
which laid together, it is probable enough (by
my Lord's leave) that the Apostles did exercise
some set Form, that at least which Christ
taught them ; and assumed power to enjoin it
upon their followers. But herein yet the
Apostles are somewhat beholding to this Lord,
that he re-allows, they might better have done
it, than any now-a-days. Well; I will not
dispute what they might better have done ; sure
I am, it may and ought to be done now.
Fourthly, because the same reasons might
then have been alleged for it, that are now.
The same might, but not all the same. In
particular, the Church was small then, and
might with ease be ordered, in comparison of
the great congregations that are now. But
especially the Apostles and Apostolical men
were then present, and could in another man-
ner, and with a greater power than men now-a-
days both judge and order the gifts and graces
of other men, to the avoiding of confusion
o o
c c
Liturgies most ancient of Church Forms. 43
in the Church, which God by his Apostles
would none of .
Besides, the Apostles, and some others in
those times, had the grace and the gift of
prayer, as well as other graces. And there
was then as peculiar a gift by inspiration to
pray, as to foretel things to come, or to do
miracles. As is evident in St. Chrysostom,
who says, that these men made use of this gift,
and prayed publicly in their assemblies 1 '. But
so soon as this gift with others ceased, there
was a set Form from the beginning. Neither
is it hard to prove, that some parts of our
Liturgy hath been as ancient as the Church
hath any records to shew; and some both
practised and prescribed by the Apostle St. Paul
for the substance of them. And the true reason
why we cannot shew the exact primitive Forms
then in use is, because they were continually
subject to alterations, both in times and places.
Now if this Lord can furnish us with such men,
as shall be enabled to pray by the immediate
1 Cor. xiv. 33.
P St. Chrysostom in Rom. viii. 26.
o o
O __
44 Heretical not to receive the IV Councils.
inspiration of God's Spirit, we will bind them
up to no Form : but until he can, I hope ' we
shall be so happy, as to retain the set prayers
of the Church.
Fifthly, because this (enjoining) turns such
Forms, instead of being directions, into super-
stition. This is so wild a conceit, that I won-
der how it fell into the thought of so wise a
man as my Lord is taken to be. For can a
command or an injunction alter the very
nature of a thing so far, as to turn that which is
a direction, into a superstition ? Then belike
it is superstition, for any Christian to obey the
decrees and injunctions, whether for belief or
practice, made by any the four first General
Councils. And my Lord knows well that it is
heretical, for any man to profess against any of
these Councils. And this not only by the
Church law, (which his Lordship so much
slights,) but by the laws of England. So by
this reason of my Lord's, it shall be heretical to
deny the Injunction, and superstition to obey
it*.
1 1 Eliz. c. 1.
The Apostolic Council. 45
If this will not serve ; my Lord may be
pleased to remember, that in the Council held
at Jerusalem by the Apostles themselves', they
gave a command, though no such command as
might trouble the believing Gentiles; and
therefore decreed, that they would lay no greater
burthen on them. No more grievous injunc-
tion, than that they abstain from things offered
unto idols, arid from blood, and from things
strangled, and from fornication*; where, first, it
is most evident, that the Apostles did assume
this power of enjoining, and exercise it too.
And I hope, my Lord, for very reverence to the
Scripture, (for as for the Church he valueth it
not,) will not say this wholesome direction to
avoid fornication, is made superstition by the
Apostle's injunction. If this doctrine may
hold, I doubt very few will be superstitious in
this point. And many men, that are very strict
and hate superstition perfectly, will rather not
abstain from fornication, than be superstitious
by abstaining. And no question can be made
by a reasonable man, but that the Church of
' Acts xv. 24, 29. s Ver. 28.
o . 6
o ' (
46 Set Forms do not thrust out gifts.
Christ had and hath still as much power to
enjoin a set Form of Prayers, as any of these
things. But my Lord hath more reasons than
these ; and truly they had need be better too.
But such as they are, they follow:
" This sets aside the gifts and graces
" which Christ hath given ; and
" thrusts out the exercise of them,
" to substitute in their places, and
" introduce a device of man."
Sixthly, then this injunction of a set Form is
unlawful, because it sets aside the gifts and
graces, &c. This is upon the matter all one
with my Lord's second reason; and there it is
answered. Yet truly I know no gifts or graces
set aside, much less thrust out, but such as are
neither gifts nor graces of Christ, but the bold
and impudent attempts of weavers, coblers,
and felt-makers, taking on them to preach with-
out knowledge, warrant, or calling. Much like
the gifts, which Alexander the coppersmith
had in St. Paul's time. And such gifts and
o (
c o
Soberness of the Common Prayer. 47
graces as these cannot be said to be thrust out.
But my Lord and his adherents thrust them
into the Church, to help cry down all truth and
order. Much less can they be said to be
thrust out to make room for a device of man,
meaning the set Form of Common Prayer.
Now surely, I think, and upon very good
grounds, that they which composed the Com-
mon Prayer Book, had as good gifts and graces
of Christ as these men have. And that the
conceived, and oftentimes senseless, prayers of
these men, are as much or more the device of
man, than the set Form of Common Prayer is.
Yea, but for all that, my Lord says,
" This injunction of such Forms upon all
" men, turns that which in the begin-
" ning necessity brought in, for the
" help of insufficiency, to be now the
" continuance and maintenance of
" insufficiency, and a bar to the ex-
" ercise of able and sufficient gifts
" and graces. As if because some
" men had need to make use of
o o
o o
48 Forms not used because of insufficiency.
" crutches, all men should be prohibited
" the use of their legs, and enjoined
" to take up such crutches, as have
" been prepared for those who had no
legs."
In the seventh and last place, my Lord is
pleased to tell us, this injunction of such Forms
upon all men, turns that, which in the begin-
ning necessity brought in for the help of in-
sufficiency, to the maintenance of it. My Lord
told us a little before, of a turning into super-
stition : now here is another turning into the
maintenance of insufficiency; two very bad
turnings, were either of them true : but, God be
thanked, neither is. In the mean time my
Lord confesses, that necessity brought in this
injunction of set Forms. And I believe, there
now is, and ever will be, to the end of the
world, as great a necessity to continue them.
But I cannot agree with my Lord in this, that
it was a necessity for the help of insufficiency
that brought them in. For when these were
first enjoined in the Church of Christ, men
o o
o o
Nor to maintain it. 49
were endued with as great gifts and graces, as
any now are ; and perhaps greater But ne-
cessity brought them in when Christianity
multiplied, to preserve unity and order, and
to avoid confusion, and sects and schisms
in the Church : and that all sorts of men
might be acquainted with that, which was
used in the public worship and service of
God.
Now that which follows is an unjust and foul
scandal upon the Church; namely, that this
Injunction is made the continuance and main-
tenance of insufficiency. For I believe few
Churches in many ages have had more suf-
ficient preachers than this of late hath had.
And therefore it is evident, this Injunction here
hath neither been the maintenance nor con-
tinuance of insufficiency. This ground failing,
my Lord's fine simile hath neither crutch nor
leg to stand on ; but it is as all such fine fetches
are, when they have no ground to rest on : nor
is any thing more poor in learning, than a fine,
handsome similitude, such as this, when it hath
no truth upon which to rest. For the best that !
__: o
o -
50 The Lord's Prayer.
can be said of it is, that it is a pretty fine
thing, if it were to the purpose.
But to come nearer to the business ; I would
have his Lordship remember, that Christ taught
his Apostles a set Form of prayer 1 . And I
believe they were so religiously dutiful, as that
they would not beg of Christ to teach them to
pray, and when he had taught them, then
neglect or not practise the very Form he
taught. If my Lord can think this of the
Apostles, he may; I cannot. Nor can I think,
that Christ taught them this Form, to be used
as crutches till their legs were grown stronger.
For our Saviour doth not say, till ye be
stronger, and have better gifts, pray as I teach
you; but simply and absolutely, When you
pray, say, Our Father, &c. that is, say these
very words, this very Form. And what ? will
my Lord say that Christ taught them this Form
to maintain them in insufficiency ? or did he
make crutches for their lameness ? or thereby
prohibit the use of their legs ? This speech
1 Luke xi. 2.
O O
: _;
The Apostles used Forms. 51
savours of more profaneness, than well become
such a professor.
His Lordship speaks better of them in
another place" . There he can say, there never
were, nor ever will be, men of so great abilities
and gifts as they were endued withal. And I
think he dares not say, I am sure, nor he, nor
any man living, can prove, that the Apostles,
when their gifts were at fullest, did neglect or
not use this Form of prayer which Christ taught
them. Therefore, either to use a set Form of
prayer is not to use crutches ; or if it be, it is
to use the same, or the like crutches, which
Christ made, and his Apostles used. And they
will better beseem any good Christians to use,
than his own legs, be they never so good. And
for the set prayers of the Church, this I think
I am sure of; that the men which are cried up
by my Lord to have such excellent gifts and
graces, are in as much need of these crutches as
other men. In the mean time, my Lord every
way shews his love to the set Liturgy of the
u In his Speech against the Bishops' votes in Parlia-
ment, p. 3.
:
c _
52 Lord Say's
Church, that makes nothing of it but crutches ;
which a man, if the bath cure him, would gladly
hang up, and leave behind him. I well hoped
to have found, that my Lord had entertained
more moderate thoughts of things appertaining
unto religion. But since he himself thus pro-
claims it otherwise ; let us see how he goes for-
ward without these crutches.
" This I confess I am not satisfied in;
" yet will farther say thus much.
" Here are with your Lordships some
" Bishops, men of great parts, able to
" offer up this worship unto God, in
" the use of those gifts which God
" hath endued them with. And cer-
" tainly they ought to serve Him with
" the best of their abilities which they
" have received. Let them make use
" of their own gifts ; nay, let them
" but profess, that they account not
" themselves bound to use Forms,
" nor 1 to this Form they use, more
" than any other ; but that it is free
-O
o o
absurd proposal. 5 3
" for them to conceive prayer, or to
" help themselves by the use of any
" other Form they please, as well as
" this prescribed. And let them
" practise the same indifferently, that
" so it may be manifest, the fault
" rests in the person, and not in the
" service : in the negligence of him
" that may offer better if he will, not
" in the injunction of that which is
" offered. Arid I will not refuse to
" come to prayers. For I take the
" sin then to be personal, and to
" reside in the person officiating only."
Now my Lord goes on farther, and tells us,
That there are with your Lordships some
Bishops; men of great parts, able to offer this
worship unto God, &c. Indeed my Lord goes
far here ; and I am glad to hear that any
Bishops can please him. Are Bishops, even as
such, members of Antichrist, (so I am sure my
Lord and his followers have accounted them,
and their libels print them for such eveiy day,)
) O
o o
54 The present Bishops may well use
and now can any offer this worship unto God,
which his Lordship would have ? Why then,
my Lord can be pleased, I see, that even in
this Church, God should be worshipped by the
members of Antichrist. Or if not, then in
this passage he grossly dissembles.
But what is this worship which his Lordship
would have ? Why, it is to pray in public,
and not by a set Form enjoined; but in the
use of those gifts which God hath endued them
with. And it is most undoubtedly true which
follows, that they ought to serve God with the
best of the abilities they have received. But it
is as true, that Bishops, and all Ministers else,
ought to serve God with the best abilities which
the Church of Christ can furnish them with.
And I presume, I shall not wrong any my
brethren, nor those of the greatest parts, if I
say, (as I must,) that those Bishops, and other
divines, which composed the set Form of our
Service, and enjoined it too, (as far as their
power reached,) were men of as great piety and
learning, and all other good parts, as any now
living. And it can be no disparagement ; much
o o
i O
the Form laid down. 55
less any fault or dulling of their own gifts, for
the best of Bishops to use the set Forms
ordered by them. And the phrase, which my
Lord uses, is somewhat unusual : To offer this
worship unto God. We are said indeed to offer
up our prayers unto God, and by so doing
to worship, honour, and serve him; and him
alone in that. But to offer worship to God,
I think is an improper phrase at least. And
the people are said to offer their free-will-
offerings with an holy worship, or in the
beauties of holiness". And though perhaps
his Lordship will not allow of this translation ;
yet so far he may, as to see the use of the
phrase?. And in the beauties of holiness
(which keeps close to the original) will please
him less : since a barn with them is as good as
a Church. And no Church holy with them ;
but that which is slovenly, even to nastiness.
But then, it is void of all superstition.
Next, my Lord proposes some conditions,
which being observed, his Lordship will not
refuse to come to Common Prayer.
x Ps. ex. 3. y In decoribus sanctitatis, Ar. Mant. ibid.
O O
56 Conditions on which Lord Say
I will examine these then. For I would
have all just demands of his granted, that he
may come.
The first is, Let these Bishops (and others I
suppose he means) make use of their own gifts.
Well ; let them on God's name, in that dutiful,
peaceable, and orderly way, make use of their
own gifts, not crossing what the Church justly
prescribes.
Secondly, Let them but profess, that they
account not themselves bound to use Forms.
This condition is somewhat hard. For if they
shall acknowledge they hold themselves bound
to no Forms, they must be bound to no Order :
and how Bishops will keep the Church in order,
if they will be bound to observe none them-
selves, I cannot tell. Besides, if they shall
profess this, they must profess against the
constant and continued practice of the whole
Church of Christ.
Thirdly, Let them profess they are not bound
to this Form they use more than any other, but
that it is free for them to conceive prayer, &c.
Harder and harder. For they stand bound not
O
o o
will come to Prayers. 57
only by Church-ordinance., but by Injunction,
and command of the State in Parliament,
strictly to observe this Form. And they are
therefore bound to this Form more than any
other. And therefore so long as this Act of
Parliament remains hi force, with what honour
or conscience can this Lord (who seems to
stand so much upon law) ask this at the
Bishops' hands, that they should profess that
they are not bound to any Forms ? Nor, to
this more than any other; when his Lordship
must needs know, they are bound to this, and
no other, and that by an Act of Parliament.
Besides, what a coil hath been kept by some of
this Lord's favourites, against innovations of
religion, as contrary to law ? No rails to fence
the holy table from profanation ? Though that
be no ceremony, nor forbidden by law. No
coming up to it, or the steps of the chancel, to
receive the Communion, though most decent,
and in ancient usage, and forbidden by no law
that I know ? No reverence to God Himself at
coming in or going out of his temple ; though
that of the Psalmist began the ancient Liturgies
o o
) _Q
58 Lauds Answer.
of the Church, and is continued in our O come,
let us worship and fall down, and kneel before
the Lord our Maker 1 , &c. The Communion
Table must not stand north and south; though
the Queen's Injunction commanded it to be set
just in that place, in which the Altar then
stood. So they innovate themselves ; and then
cry out of innovation. And if this Lord's doc-
trine be good; let us have no Injunction for
north and south, and all is well : but then we
must have no Injunction for east and west
neither. For if there be an Injunction, east
and west is superstition, as well as north and
south.
But then, if my Lord would have all free,
what would he have in this particular ? Why,
first, he would have it free for these men to
conceive prayer. Let them in due time and
place conceive prayer on God's name: but let
them not make public abortion in the Church.
It is an over-hasty mother, that brings forth so
soon as she has conceived : and yet, extemporary
men outrun these mothers; and conceive and
Ps. xcv. 6.
, (j
O
Our Form as good as others. 59
bring forth their unnatural monsters both at
once.
Next, he would have these men to help
themselves by the use of any other Forms they
please, as well as this which is prescribed. So
then belike, these great men of gifts in my
Lord's eye, are not so perfect in the spirit, but
that they may need helps. And if my Lord be
so indifferent, that these may help themselves
by the use of any other Forms, as well as this
which is prescribed; let him be as fair, at
least, to the Church that made him a Christian,
as to others ; and give men leave to help
themselves, by the use of this Form which
is prescribed, as well as any other. And if it
be the Injunction only that sticks in his
stomach, I am sorry he should shew himself
so guilty of the great sin of disobedience.
Fourthly, Let them practise the same in-
differently, that so it may be manifest the fault
rests in the person, and not in the service, &c.
This is his Lordship's last condition. And
either I am dulled with this business; or the
expression is somewhat obscure: but I will take
5 O
o , ,
60 The fault is in the officiator,
it as right as I can. It seems, my Lord would
not refuse coming to the prayers of the Church,
for the personal fault of him that officiates : and
that is well. It seems likewise, that to manifest
this, whether the sin lies in the person that
offers, or in the Service that is offered up, his
Lordship would have an indifferent practice of
that which is enjoined and other Forms. And
that is stark naught. For by this, we shall
have no certain Service of God for the people.
It shall differ, and, perhaps, more dangerously
than is fit ; not only in different parishes, but
in the same congregation, at different times.
And were not this so, yet I cannot assent to my
Lord in this, that these men he means, can so
easily offer better if they will ; and that when
they do not, it is their negligence that is the
only cause. And besides, it is useless : for it is
known already to sober minds, that the fault
(when any arises in that work) is neither in the
Service, which is very good ; nor in the Injunc-
tion, which is very lawful ; but in the person
which officiates, if he do not his duty : and so
there is no need of a confused practising of
x-^x
.0 O
yet that no warrant for schism. 61
I
divers Forms indifferently, to manifest that,
which is known already. And if my Lord
brings no worse sins about him, when he comes
to church, than he will find faults in the
Liturgy; he may safely come to church, and
be a happy man in so doing. And I might
well doubt of my Lord's meaning herein; for
himself is jealous of his auditors. Therefore he
adds;
" I know not, whether I express myself
" clearly, to be understood in this or
" not; and it may seem to be a nice
" scrupulosity: give me leave there -
" fore to endeavour to clear it by an
" instance or two."
Truly my Lord takes himself right. For
neither hath he expressed himself very clearly ;
nor is the matter so material in itself, but that
it may be, as it seems, a very nice scrupulosity,
and altogether unable to warrant his Lordship's
separation from the prayers of the Church.
Yet since my Lord desires to clear it by an
D O
o c
62 Lord Say's instances.
instance or two, I shall be well content to hear
and consider of them. His first instance is,
" In the time of the Law, when God ap-
" pointed Himself to be worshipped by
" offerings and sacrifices ; the shadows
" and types of those truths which
" were to come : if a poor man, which
" had not ability to bring a bullock,
" or a ram, or a lamb, had brought a
" pair of turtle doves, or two young
" pigeons ; it would have been in him
" an acceptable service. But if a
" man of ability, who had herds and
" flocks, should, out of negligence or
" covetousness, have spared the cost
" of a bullock or ram, and brought
" young pigeons ; his. service would
" have been rejected, and himself
" punished. How much more would
" the service have been abomination,
" if men should have taken authority
" to have enjoined all, to bring no
" other but turtles, or young pigeons ;
o (
: o
Lord Say's instances. 63
" because some were not able to do
" more ? In one kind there might be
" a tolerable and laHfiul [use] of that,
"which otherways used (especially
" if generally enjoined) would have
" been most unlawful. God will be
" worshipped with the fat, and best of
" the inwards ; the best of men's gifts
" and abilities, which he that worships,
" or officiates in worshipping, is to do
" at his own peril. Arid if it be left
" free unto him, the worship may be
" lawful to him, that joineth with him
" therein, in itself, though performed
" in a negligent, and so in a sinful,
" manner, by the minister. But if
" that manner be enjoined, the service
" itself is to be refused."
This is my Lord's first instance from the
services under the Law. And I must needs say,
he hath made it clear what he would have
But then, he must give me leave to say too
that this instance differs so mainly from the
O
o
64 Inaccurate quotation of the Law.
thing in question ; that it helps my Lord and
his cause in nothing. Perhaps it makes it
worse than it was.
The difference is : God in the Law did not
only prescribe all the sacrifices and offerings
which he would have, and for what: but also
when, and how he would have them. And the
poor man which had not ability to bring the
greater sacrifice, might, by the express letter of
the law, bring turtles or pigeons 3 . But if a rich
man had brought them, his service would have
been rejected, and himself punished. So says
my Lord : but the Law says not so. He that
brought it, should have borne his sin, and the
Priest could have made no atonement for him ;
which was punishment enough. But that he
should any other way be punished, I find not in
the text of the Law. And this Lord, which will
admit of nothing but text, should not presume
to add any thing to it, The Rabbins indeed b
reckon up six and thirty kinds of offenders,
which for their sins are threatened to be cut off
a Levit. v. 7. b Apud Ainsworth in Levit. xx. 3.
u - o
o ; o
Christian Forms left to the Church. 65
from their people ; and some are mentioned c .
But none of these mentioned in Leviticus, or
by the Rabbins, is the rich man's offering turtles
or pigeons, instead of a bullock or a ram.
Well, this was the strict prescription of sacri-
fices and offerings in the Law. But in the
Gospel, though Christ settled his doctrine and
Sacraments; yet when, and how, with other
ceremonial things, were left at large to the
ordering of the Apostles, and the -Church after
them ; always providing for decency and order.
And this liberty was left as much, if not more,
in preaching and public prayer, than in the
Sacraments. And therefore my Lord's instance
in this way, will not follow from the Law to the
Gospel.
To give instance in his own words. In the
Law ; The poor man which had nor bullock,
nor lamb, might by the express warrant of the
Law bring turtles or pigeons ; but they were to
be his own which he brought; and the Priest
was to make his atonement accordingly. But
in the Gospel men do not bring to the Priest
c Levit. vii. 25. and xvii. 4, 9, 10.
O 1
o i <
66 Jewish Rites no parallel.
or Minister their own doctrines, or their prayers ;
but he offers in public the Sermon to them, and
the prayers for them. So here the instance
comes not home neither,
As for my Lord's aggravation ; How much
more would the Service have been abomination,
if men should have taken authority to them-
selves, and have enjoined all to bring nothing
but turtles or pigeons ? Indeed it would have
been full of abomination; because in this in-
junction they would have gone quite contrary
to God's own command. And let my Lord
shew in the Gospel any precept, that commands
men to use extemporary or conceived prayers,
in the public service or worship of God; or
that forbids the use of a set Form of Prayer ;
and then I will grant the Church's injunction
of such Forms to be in the highest degree
unlawful. But these cannot be shewed.
Besides, there is a great deal of pride in this
instance. For my Lord all along the instance,
makes the set Forms of the Church, turtles and
pigeons, the poor man's sacrifice ; and the
conceived prayers of his party, to be the rich
o
o o
Pride of Sectaries. 67
and able men's sacrifice, the ram and the
bullock, (the calf I doubt it is.) So a very
little before, his Lordship tells us, of a negli-
gence in those his men of gifts, which might
offer better if they will. As if it were a most
easy thing for those men to offer up far better
prayers to God, than the set Liturgy of the
Church. Whereas my Lord must give me
leave to doubt that, even of the best of them.
And so again a little after, his Lordship tells us,
that God will be worshipped with the fat and
the best of the inwards, which he interprets with
the best of men's gifts and abilities ; and of this
there is no doubt. Nor doth the enjoining of a
set Form of public prayer hinder any man from
worshipping God with the best gifts and abilities
which he hath. And who should be served
with the best, if not He that gave them all ?
But here is the pride of the instance again :
their conceived, tedious, and ofttimes senseless
prayers, must be the fat and the inwards with
which God is pleased ; and the set Forms of
the Church lean carrion, and not fit for the
Altar. O, my Lord, that you would in time
o
o o
68 Do Injunctions make good Forms bad ?
lay your hand on your heart, and consider from
what and into what you are fallen !
My Lord concludes this instance with this,
that if it be left free to him that officiates, it is
his personal sin if he be negligent ; but it may
be lawful for another that joins with him in that
service : but if that manner be enjoined, the
service itself is to be refused. And after this
great pride in or of this opinion, my Lord ends
with a fallacy d . For the question is not,
whether a negligent set Form of prayer, or a
good Form of set prayer, negligently and with-
out devotion offered up to God, (as too often
they are, God help us,) be better than other
prayers, carefully composed and devoutly ut-
tered ? But simply, whether a good set Form
of prayer (such as the Liturgy of England is)
be made so evil, only by the enjoining of it, as
that therefore the service itself ought to be
refused ? Now this my Lord may say as boldly
d It is fallacia accidentis : for it is not in or of the
nature of prayer, that it should be in a negligent Form
set down, or negligently performed : but a mere acci-
dent, and a bad one.
O
o o
Lord Say's egregious pride. 69
as he will ; but neither he nor any man else
shall ever be able to prove it.
And in this very close, I cannot but observe,
that which in me or another man would have
been great pride : but what it is in this Lord,
let the reader judge. For he doth not conclude,
that this Form being enjoined, is the cause
why he refuses to come to our prayers. But
absolutely, as if all men were bound to do as he
doth. He says peremptorily, that in this case
of injunction of a set Form, the service itself
ought to be refused. So that by this doctrine,
he is a sinner that refuses not the prayers of the
Church of England. My Lord in the begin-
ning asked leave to speak a few words con-
cerning himself; but I believe these will be
found to concern somebody else. Well, it is
time to consider of my Lord's second instance ;
and so I will.
" Now in the time of the Gospel, God
" hath appointed the foolishness of
" preaching (for so the world ac-
" counts it) to be the means by which
o o
o o
70 Preaching a means,
" He will save those that believe. I
" conceive, where there are not gifts
" enabling men to preach, there might
" be a lawful and profitable use of
" reading of printed Sermons and
" Homilies; and in such cases they
" might very lawfully be heard. But
" if some men, upon pretence to pre-
" vent extravagant preaching, should
" take upon them to set forth a book
" of public common Sermons, fit for
" all times and occasions ; and should
" enjoin Ministers to conform to these,
" and use no other preaching at all,
" but the reading of those common
" Sermons or Homilies so devised
" for public worship ; this would make
" it utterly unlawful, and to be pro-
" fessed against, as that which were
" the bringing in of a human device
" and injunction in the place, and
" instead of, God's ordinance, to the
" exclusion thereof. As the Phari-
" sees, to establish traditions of their
o o
o o
not the means, of salvation. 71
" own, made void the commandments
" of God."
I hope my Lord will have no better success
with this instance under the Gospel, than he
had with that under the Law. And yet whatso-
ever is truth in his instance, I shall most
willingly grant. And therefore I do acknow-
ledge, that in the time of the Gospel, God
appointed the foolishness of preaching e to be a
means ; but not to be the means (if it be meant
the only means) by which He will save those
that believe. I likewise confess, that in the
world's account it is made the foolishness of
preaching. And I would to God some men,
much magnified in these times, did not give too
often very just cause to the world to account it,
not only the foolishness, but the madness, of
preaching ; such preaching as is far from being
a means of salvation. I conceive also, as well
as my Lord, that where there are no gifts
enabling men to preach, (as it falls out in too
many parishes in England, and the true cause
1 Cor. i. 21.
O O
o o
72 Present disorders of the Pulpit
is, the smallness of the living, unable to feed
and clothe men, and therefore cannot expect
men of parts,) there not only might be, but is, a
lawful and profitable use of reading of printed
Sermons and Homilies ; and that in such cases,
yes, and in other cases too, they may very
lawfully be heard. And I think farther, that if
some men, not upon their own private authority,
but lawfully meeting in the Synod or Convo-
cation, shall, not upon pretence, but truly to
prevent extravagant preaching, such as of late
hath been, and is too common in England,
should take upon them to set forth a book of
common Sennons, such as might be fit for all
times and all occasions, which is not impossible
to be done, and should enjoin Ministers to
conform to these, and use no other preaching at
all, but the reading of these common Sennons
or Homilies so devised for public worship ; I
must needs say, it were a cure not to be used
but in extremity, to bar all other preaching for
the abuse of some, be it never so gross. Yet if
the distempers of the pulpit should grow in
any national Church so high, so seditious, so
o o
c o
heretical and outrageous. 73
heretical and blasphemous, so schismatical and
outrageous, as many of them have been of late
in this distracted Church of ours ; I say, if
such a book of Sermons should be so set out,
by the Church's direction, and published by the
authority of King and Parliament, as the Book
of Common Prayer is : when the comparison is
made thus even, and my Lord's instance so
brought home f : I do then think, such a book,
not devised for public worship, but for public
instruction, (for Sermons are not properly the
worship of God, but are to teach us faith and
obedience, and how we are to pray and give
worship to Him,) might be used with great
profit; yea, and with far more than many
Sermons of the present time, which do in a
f In the Church of Africa, when the Arian heresy
began, the Church had suffered so much by the preach-
ing of Arius the Presbyter, that they made a law not
to suffer any Presbyter to preach at all, at least not in
the Mother Church, and in the Bishop's presence. As
may be seen in Socrates, 1. v. Hist. c. 22. And though
this may seem a hard cure, yet when the disease grew
masterful and epidemical, the Church did not refuse to
use it.
o -:
o o
74 Authorized Sermons a cure.
manner teach nothing but disobedience to
Princes and all authority, under a false pre-
tence of obedience to God.
And for the Injunction which sticks so much
with my Lord; certainly in cases of such
extremity, as is above mentioned, and when
nothing else will serve, I conceive it might well
and profitably be laid upon the Ministers ; and
yet that such an imposition would be far from
making it utterly unlawful, and to be professed
against, as that which were the bringing in of a
human device in the place, and instead of, God's
ordinance, to the exclusion thereof. For it is
probable, these Sermons my Lord speaks of
would be preached before they were printed.
And the end of their being preached, was to
publish Christ and his Gospel to the world.
And that also was or ought to be the end
of publishing the same Sermons in print, that
the benefit of them might reach the farther, and
be of longer continuance. So that upon the
matter, the printing of Sermons, is but a large
and more open preaching of them still. And
then if preaching be God's ordinance, printing
o c
o o
Pharisaism of the Puritans. 75
of Sermons is the publishing of God's ordinance.
And, therefore, if there were an injunction for a
book of Sermons, as is mentioned ; it were but
a more public and durable divulging of God's
ordinance ; and not the bringing in of a human
device instead of it, and to the exclusion
thereof.
As for that which follows, that this is like
the Pharisees, who, to establish traditions of
their own, made void the commandments of
God. This is but a simile, and is answered in
the former. And you see, that should any
necessity force the making of such an Injunc-
tion, (which God forbid,) it did help to publish
God's ordinance, and not make void his com-
mandments. Howsoever, my Lord may take
this along with him : that that party, which he
governs in this kingdom, are as well seen in
this art of the Pharisees, as any men in
Christendom ; and will, if they be let alone,
make void all the service of God, to bring
in their dreams, against all reason, religion, and
lawful authority. And this is most true, what-
ever they think of themselves. But my
o o
o
76 Custom is in favour
Lord desires farther consideration of his in-
stance.
" Let it be considered, what difference can
" be found between these, but only
" this. Use and custom hath inured
" us to that of prayer, not so in this
" of preaching ; and therefore the
" evil of it would easily appear unto
" us, if so enjoined."
It is fit my Lord should have his desire in
this ; that it be considered what difference can
be found between these : and out of all doubt
my Lord acknowledges, that some difference
there is. And were it this only, (as his Lord-
ship would have it,) That use and custom
hath inured us to that of prayer, and not so in
this of preaching ; that might be reason enough
to continue our public set Form of prayer.
For if the service have not fault in it, but that
it is enjoined : and if the enjoining of a good
service of God Almighty, in which Christian
people may consent, and unanimously and
o
> O
of public Liturgies; 77
uniformly worship Him, be no fault at all, as
most certain it is not ; it is neither wisdom nor
safety to cast off such a custom or usage, and
leave every Minister (arid perhaps other men
too) to make what prayers they please in the
congregation, which doubtless would be many
times such, as no good understanding Christian
could say Amen to.
Besides, with my Lord's leave, upon the
consideration which he desires me to take, I
think I have found other differences. For,
besides the use and custom which we are inured
to, I find, that to have some set Form of
Prayer, when the congregation meets, is little
less than Traditio Univer sails g , an Universal
g It is universal for time. For At is testified by
Dionysius the Areopagite, (if those works be his,) De
Ecclesia Hierar. p. 77. Edit. Gr. Lat. and he was one
of the contemporaries of the Apostles, that there were
then set Forms of Prayer, to which all the people said
Amen. And if Dionysius were not the author, yet the
work is exceeding ancient. And so some set Forms
continued, till after St. Augustine's time, as appears by
Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. p. 97. Edit. Gr. Lat. An.
Christi 150. by Tertull. Apologet. c. 39. An. Christi
o o
9 -
78 As well as Universal
Tradition of the whole Church. And that it
took beginning, while some of the Apostles were
200. by St. Cyprian, de Orat. Domin. by Origen, Horn.
5. in Num. An. Christ! 230. by the Council of
Laodicea, Can. 18. 19. An. Christi 316. by St. Basil,
Epist. ad Clericos Nseocaesariensis Ecclesise; by St.
Chrysostom both about the same year.
As also by St. Cyril of Jerusalem By
the third Council of Carthage, can. 23. An. Christi
397. by St. Aug. Ep. 59. and 156. et de Bono Perse-
verantise, c. 13. An. Christi 400. By the second Mele-
vitan Council, can. 12. And by Prosper Aquitan. L. q.
de Vocat. Gent. c. 4. since which time no question can
be made, but the public prayers were always in a
known and set Form.
And that it was universal for place, appears by the
concurrent testimonies of the Fathers before recited,
and the Councils and the practice both of the Asian,
African, and European Churches. As Justin Martyr,
Basil, and Chrysostom, for the Greek; and Tertullian,
Cyprian, St. Augustine, and Prosper, testify for the
West. Insomuch, that St. Basil says expressly in that
place, that for the order of singing the Psalms in their
public Service, it was agreeable to
all the Churches of God : which place is also cited by
Whitaker ad Ration. 6. Campiani. Acd divers parti-
culars in their set Form of Prayer remain to this day
in the Liturgy of the Church of England. As that
there should be recited a general Confession of the
o <
r-\ . ;
and Apostolical Tradition. 79
yet living, and hath continued from thence in
all ages and places of the Church to this day.
Faith. Dionysius Areopag. de Ecclesia Hierar. p. 88.
Edit. GT. Lat. That prayers were made for Emperors
and men in authority ; and for the peace and quiet of
the world : so Tertullian. That the Presbyter should
exhort them to lift up their hearts; and the people
answer, We lift them up unto the Lord : so St. Cyprian
and St. Augustine. The interrogations and answers in
Baptism : so Origen. That prayers should he made,
not only for the faithful, hut for infidels and enemies to
the Cross of Christ: so Prosper. And it is preserved
in our Collect for Good Friday. And the people's
praying with and answering the Pastor, saying, Lord,
have mercy upon us, with Christ, have mercy upon us,
was before St. Gregory's time, and continued down to
ours, yet with difference from the Mass-Book too. As
Dr. Rainolds proves, Conf. with Hart. c. D. Divi. 4.
p. 511.
But howsoever set Forms they were, and such as in
some particulars, fere omnis Ecclesia Dominica, almost
all the Church of Christ used. So St. Augustine. And
there is nntta pars mundi, scarce any part of the world,
in which there is not a concordant, an agreement in
these prayers : so Prosper. Which is impossible to be
but by a set Form. And so the Magdeburgians con-
clude upon due examination : Formulas denique preca-
tionum absque dubio habuerunt: out of all doubt the
ancients had set Forms of Prayer, Cent. 3. c. 6.
o
i C
80 Particular Ck s . not free from Catholic rules.
Now, though particular customs and traditions
vary and may be varied in several Churches;
yet I do not find there is such a power over
traditions that are general; but that next to
the Scripture itself, they are kept by all sober
Christians inviolable. And St. Augustine says
plainly* 1 , it is insolentissimce insanice, a trick
of most insolent madness, to dispute or doubt
of that, quod tola per orbem frequentat Ecclesia,
which the Church of Christ practises through-
out the whole world. And for my part I be-
lieve him ; and I would my Lord did so too,
and then I think he would not refuse the
Service for the Injunction, nor fall into any fit
of this insolent madness. As for preaching,
that was ever left free. And therefore the
Church did ever put a difference.
And I find upon this consideration another
difference yet, between prayer and preaching.
For preaching is a speech to man for his edifi-
cation, and instruction in faith and good life.
But prayer is a speech to God, to honour and
worship Him, in the acknowledgment of His
* Epist. 118. c. 5.
o c
o o
Prayers far above Sermons. 81
dominion over, and his bounty and goodness
towards, all creatures ; but mankind especially.
And therefore, though a man cannot take too
much pains in that which he is to speak from
God to man, lest he be proved a false relater :
yet of the two, there should be more care had,
what prayers he puts up for himself and the
whole congregation unto God; lest he be not
only a false worshipper, but also, lest he sud-
denly arid unadvisedly ask that, which may be
hurtful unto all. And, for ought he knows, God
may at that time be angry with us for our sins,
and may hear in his anger, and grant. And, I
believe, it will be found a greater and more
dangerous sin, for the Priest to make the people
ask at God's hands those things which they
ought not. Besides, the public prayers of the
Church do teach and inform the people, not
only how to pray, and so how to worship ; but
in many things also, what to believe, as well,
nay, oftentimes better, than many Sermons.
So that ill praying in public contains almost all
the mischiefs that ill preaching hath in it, over
and above all the ill that is proper to itself: and
O
o c
82 Preachers should be restrained.
so is the more dangerous sin. And therefore the
Church cannot be too careful for a set and
known Form for public prayer ; yea, and that
enjoined too, so it be well weighed beforehand;
though for preaching she leave a greater latitude.
So, upon consideration, I think there is more
difference between a set F.orm of prayer, and a
set Form of preaching, than that we are invited
to the one, and not to the other. Yet, when I
hear what extravagant, nay seditious, preaching
there is now-a-days, I am strongly tempted to
believe, that were the like injunction for preach-
ing, it were far better, than that such loose,
dangerous, and most unchristian preachings, as
are in many places, should continue. It seems,
my Lord hath now done with the first part of
the waspish-man's charge against him, (for so
he is pleased to call it.) And that is his Lord-
ship's account why he refuses to come to
Common-Prayer. And now he goes on to the
next.
" My Lords, let me presume upon your
" patience, so far farther, as to give
6 o
O (
Separation a theological scare-crow. 83
" me leave to speak to the other
" imputation laid upon me ; that I
" am a Separatist, and the greatest in
" England."
My Lords very honourably afforded his
Lordship patience to. speak to the other impu-
tation laid upon him; and so shall I very
freely. But how far, and in what language,
and upon what occasion, I imputed any thing to
his Lordship, I have ingenuously declared
already: and shall add no more, till my Lord
hath proceeded farther, and expressed what he
pleases ; as follows.
" And first I shall say of this word Sepa-
" ratist, as that learned man Mr.
" Hales of Eton saith in a little
" Manuscript of his, which I have
" seen : ' That where it may be rightly
" fixed, and deservedly charged, it is
" certainly a great offence. But in
" common use now among us, it is no
" other than a theological scare-crow;
o -
) _ O
84 Mr. Hales 1 s opinion
" wherewith the potent and prevalent
" party uses to fright and enforce
" those who are not of their opinions,
" to subscribe to their dictates, with-
" out daring to question them, or
" bring them to any rule of examina-
" tion, either of Scripture or reason.'
" And he observeth, that this was too
" usual even in ancient times, as well
" as now."
And first, my Lord begins with the word
Separatist: and he professes, he will say of
that, as learned Mr. Hales saith. And surely
the first part of Mr. Hales is very true; that
where this word, or the crime signified by it, is
rightly fixed, and deservedly charged, it is a
great offence. But that which follows, by my
Lord's good leave, and Mr. Hales's too, is
somewhat too hard a censure upon the times,
and the persons living in them. The truth is,
some men are too apt to accuse others of schism
and separation; but yet I do not think the
disease is so epidemical, as it is here expressed.
o o
o o
only partially true. 85
As, namely, that it is in common use amongst
us. Perhaps, nothing so common at this time
to call Separatist, as to be one. Or that it is a
theological scare-crow, by which the potent and
prevalent party uses to affright and enforce those
who are not of their opinions, to subscribe to
their dictates. Or sure, if there be such
practice, the fault is in the persons that use it.
But even that is no excuse at all, for schism or
separation; because some, in an inconsiderate
heat, charge that crime upon such as are not
guilty. For, perhaps my Lord may say as
much as this, of excommunication itself, that
some are struck with it, who deserve it not;
and yet, I hope, my Lord hath not proceeded
so far as to say, that excommunication is but a
theological scare-crow.
And I farther think, there are as few at this
day of them, whom my Lord calls the potent
and prevalent party, which refuse to be brought
to any rule of examination, either of Scripture
or reason; as have lived in this Church for
some hundreds of years past, how meanly
soever this Lord esteems them, and how
O O
o o
86 Schism most dangerous
narrow soever he thinks their comprehensions
are.
To conclude this passage ; my Lord tells us,
that Mr. Hales observes farther, that this was
too usual, even in ancient times, as well as now.
That some faults, and some degrees of this
fault, were in ancient times, as well as now,
may be true enough : and yet in those ancient
times, none thought schism or separation from
the Church, howsoever charged, to be but a
theological scare-crow. But caused it to be
examined to the bottom, as it is fit, nay, neces-
sary, that it should ; for else, the most danger-
ous separation that can be, may go away free
with this. That it is but a trick of the prevalent
party, to fright other men into their opinions,
by charging them with separation. Now the
most danger<Ms separation in a Church is,
where the Church itself hath little or no power
to punish Separatists. And where they of the
separation are, by the great misfortune of the
State, become the potent and prevalent party.
And whether this be not, or at least were not,
the condition of the State and Church of
o o
o o
in a Church too weak to punish. 87
England, when my Lord printed this speech of
his, I leave to the indifferent reader to judge.
My Lord hath printed no more than this;
and therefore I will take notice of no more.
But yet, I am told hy a very good hand, that
his Lordship, upon this quotation of Mr.
Hales's Manuscript, was pleased openly in that
honourable House of Parliament, where he
spake it, to lend Mr. Hales one wipe, and me
another. But since my Lord is pleased to pass
it over at the press, I shall do so too. Yet with
this, that if my Lord did give that gird, I will
make it plainly appear, whenever he shall
publish it, that there is no shew of truth in it.
But now that my Lord hath done with Mr.
Hales, he proceeds, and tells us his own judg-
ment.
V
" Secondly, I say that there is a two-fold
" separation ; one from the Universal
" or Catholic Church; which can no
" otherwise be made, but by denying
" the faith ; ( for faith and love are
" the requisites to that communion.)"
o o
o o
88 Denial of the Faith not the only
And I say so too, that there is a two-fold
separation ; and that one of them is from the
Universal or Catholic Church. But that this
separation can no otherwise be made, hut by
denying the faith, I doubt comes short of truth.
First, because there is a great difference be-
tween schism and apostacy. And every apostacy
is a separation ; but eveiy separation is not
apostacy. For a man is not an apostate pro-
perly, till he fall away, by denying the whole
faith. But a man may be in heresy, schism,
and separation, upon the denial of any one
Article of the Faith, received by the Catholic
Church. Secondly, because should a man agree
in all and every Article of the Faith with the
Catholic Church, yet he may maintain some
false opinion, and incongruous, both to the
verity and the practice of religion, and judg-
ment of the Universal Church : and be so in
love with these, as that for these opinions' sake,
he will separate from the whole body.
Therefore denial of the faith is not the only
cause of separation from the Catholic Church ;
since this separation can be otherways made.
(
separation from the Church Catholic. 89
And my Lord, within the space of three lines,
crosses himself. For fir t, he says, that this
separation can rio otherwise be made, but by
denying the faith. And in the very next
words he tells us, that faith and love are the
requisites to that communion. Two requisites
to that communion with the Universal Church ;
therefore two causes of separation from it.
Therefore, by my Lord's own confession, he
that is so out of charity with the Universal
Church, for some opinions or practices which
he dislikes, as that he will not communicate
with it, is in separation, though he do not deny
the faith.
" The other (my Lord tells us) is, a
" separation from this or that par-
" ticular Church or congregation.
" And that not in respect of differ-
" ence with them in matter of faith
" or love ; but in dislike only of such
" corruptions, in the external worship
" and Liturgies, as they do admit
" of, and would enjoin upon others."
> o
C _(
90 Separation from a
In this other particular separation, I shall
meddle with neither congregation nor conven-
ticle, meeting allowed or disallowed by Church
or State ; but that separation which is or is not
made, by my Lord and his followers, from the
National Church of England, as it stands
settled and established by law. Nor as her
Service may be mangled, or otherwise abused in
any particular parish or congregation whatso-
ever. And if this Lord dislike any the Service
as it is used in some one parish or other, and
yet will come to the Service as it is established
by law in other, either cathedral or parochial
churches, my Lord hath had great wrong to
be accounted a Separatist. By if my Lord
will not come to the prayers of the Church of
England by law established, let his pretence be
what it will, a Separatist he is.
But my Lord says, that this particular
separation is not in respect of difference with
them in matter of faith or love.
Where first you may observe on the bye, that,
in my Lord's judgment, public breach in
charity, as well as in faith, may be cause of this
o
O (
particular Church. 91
separation too, as well as of that from the
Universal or Catholic Church, before men-
tioned.
Next, that this particular separation, if it be
not in respect of difference in faith or love,
in what respect is it then ? Why, if we may
herein believe my Lord, it is only in dislike of
such corruptions in their external worship and
Liturgies, as they do admit of, and would
enjoin others. Well, first I will pray for my
Lord, that there be no difference in faith and
charity ; but I do very much doubt there is.
Next, either there are such corruptions in the
external worship and Liturgies, as his Lordship
hath just cause to dislike, or there are not. If
there be not, why doth he separate from them ?
If there be, or probably seem to be, why doth
he not complain to the King, and the Church ;
that these corruptions may be considered on,
and amended, if cause appear ?
And this he ought to do, before he separate.
For I hope Christianity is not yet come to
that pass, (though it draw on apace,) that a
powerful layman or two shall say there are
b 6
o o
92 Laymen not judges in the Church.
corruptions in the set service of God, and then
be judges of such corruptions themselves. Nor
doth the Church of England admit of cor-
ruptions in her Liturgy, or labour to enjoin
them upon others. Now my Lord tells us
farther. That
" This is a separation not from their
" persons, as they are Christians ;
" but from their corruptions in matter
" of worship, as they are therewith
" denied. And this separation, every
" man, that will keep himself pure
" from other men's sins, and not
" sin against his own conscience,
" must make."
This will not yet help my Lord : for say this
be not a separation from their persons, as they
are Christians ; which yet it too often proves to
be. And I believe, if this Lord would im-
partially examine himself, he would find to be
true in himself, and his comportment. But
that it is from their corruptions in matter of
)
o o
Not all evil a cause for Schism. 93
worship, as they are therewith defiled. First,
these corruptions are not proved; so it is
petitio principii, the begging of that to be
granted, which is the thing in question.
Secondly, if there be corruptions ; yet it is not
proved they are in the matter ; but of the two,
rather in the manner of worship. Thirdly,
were both these granted, yet it will remain a
question still ; whether these corruptions be
such, as that the worshippers are defiled there-
with ? And another question, whether so deeply
defiled, as that other good Christians shall be
defiled, by coming to Common-Prayer with
them ? For I am not yet persuaded, nor shall
be, till I be convinced, that every man that
will keep himself pure from other men's sins,
and not sin against his conscience, is bound to
make this separation. For I conceive, many
corruptions may be tolerated, nay, ought to be,
before a separation be made. And that a
private conscience is to be both informed, and
reformed, before it be attempted.
Nor can I think, that he which comes to the
public service of any Church that is not idol-
o o
o c
94 Idolatry is a cause.
atrous, or peccant in the fundamentals of Re-
ligion, doth partake with other men's sins, that
frequent the same Common-Prayer or Service
with him, or he with them.
And yet my Lord is so peremptory, as that
without any distinction or degrees of corruption,
he delivers it positively, with a great deal more
boldness than knowledge, That every man, that
will keep himself pure from other men's sins,
must make this separation. Every man, and
must make. And it is not to be conceived, but
that what every man must do, my Lord, who
seems to be so careful to keep himself pure
from other men's sins, hath done already.
That is, hath made this separation from the
Church. And my Lord, for ought I see, is
ready to confess as much. For he adds,
" And I will ingenuously confess, that
" there are many things, in many
" Churches or Congregations in
" England, practised, arid enjoined
" upon all to be practised and suf-
" fered ; which I cannot practise nor
6 ^
' '"N
~ O
Laud's easy treatment of Lord Say. 95
" admit of, except I should sin against
" the light of my conscience, until I
" may out of the word of God be
" convinced of the lawfulness of them;
" which hitherto I could never see
" sufficient ground for."
I told you my Lord was very near confessing
as much as I have said. For he says ingenu-
ously, there are many things in many churches
in England practised.
First, I told my Lord before, that this busi-
ness of separation was not to be judged by
what is practised in one or more parochial con-
gregations, but by what ought to be practised
in all the churches of England. And if my
Lord dislike any thing in one congregation, he
may go to another, (so he will endure the
whole Liturgy, as it is settled by law,) and no
man, if he will do this, ought to account him a
Separatist. And I find by my Lord's words,
that his exception is to many churches ; and I
would willingly hope (if his carriage would let
me) that he excepts not against all. Besides,
o <
96 Lord Say's evil will to the Church.
he tells us, that many things are so practised ;
but he is not pleased to tell us what they are.
And then it is not possible for me or any man
else, either to know whether his Lordship's ex-
ception be just against them, or to give him
satisfaction in them. And it is no great sign,
that my Lord bears any good mind to the
Church, that he is so ready to charge many
things against the Church, and to name none.
My Lord goes farther, and says plainly, that
these many things thus practised, or enjoined
also, and that upon all, to be practised or suf-
fered, which he cannot practise nor admit of,
except he should sin against the light of his
conscience. You have heard already, how
much my Lord is troubled with this enjoining,
and to that I refer you: in the mean time,
since I am the man so particularly shot at by
my Lord, I shall answer for myself according
to truth ; and with truth I can legally prove, if
need be, I have not commanded or enjoined
any one thing ceremonial or other, upon any
parochial congregation in England, much less
upon all, to be either practised or suffered, but
o c
Q (
and pretence to great light. 97
that which is directly commanded by law. And
if any inferior ordinary in the kingdom, or
any of my own officers, have given any such
command, it is either without my knowledge, or
against my direction. And it is well known, I
have sharply chid some for this very particular ;
and if my Lord would have acquainted me with
any such troubled thought of his, I would have
given him (so far as had been in my power)
either satisfaction or remedy, if any thing had
been against the light of his conscience.
Though in these things I must needs tell my
Lord, that there is now-a-days, in many men
which have shaken off all Church obedience,
great pretensions to light in their understandings
and consciences ; when to men which see in-
deed, it is little less than palpable darkness.
But how it is with my Lord and his conscience,
I will not take upon me to judge ; but leave
him to stand or fall to his own master '.
For it seems, my Lord stands not simply
upon the light of his conscience; but only until
he may be convinced out of the word of God,
' Bom. xiv. 4.
O (
o o
98 This light destructive
of the lawfulness of these things, which hitherto
he could never see sufficient ground for. And
this is the common plea, which all of them have
resort to, till they he convinced; which (as I
have had experience of many) they are resolved
not to be. And they will be convinced in every
particular, out of the word of God, to the very
taking up of a rush or straw, as their grave
master k taught them. As if God took care of
straws, or their taking of them up. As if every
particular thing of order or decency were ex-
pressly set down in the word of God. Surely,
if this were so, St. Paul should have had no-
thing to set in order when he came to Corinth '.
And if this be so, the Church hath no power
left in any thing, not so much as to command
a bell shall toll to call the people to public
prayers, because it is no where commanded in
the word of God. So that upon this ground,
if any man shall say, he hath light enough in
his conscience to see the unlawfulness of such
human devices, he may separate from the
k T. C. L. S. p. 59, 60. apud Hook. 1. n. s. 1. p. 34.
1 Cor. xi. 34.
6 6
o o
of all public worship. 99
Church, rather than sin against this light. So
there shall be no public service of God; but
some ignis fatuus or other, under the name of
light in the conscience, shall except against it,
and separate from it. Which is directly to set
up the light in each private spirit, against that
light which God hath placed in his Church,
shine it never so clearly. Yet his Lordship is
confident, and says,
" But, my Lords, this is so far from
" making me the greatest Separatist
" in England, that it cannot argue
" me to be any at all. For my Lords
" the Bishops do know, that those
" whom they usually apply this term
" unto are the Brownists, (as they call
"them by another name,} and they
" know their tenets. The truth is,
" they differ with us in no funda-
" mental point of doctrine, or saving
" truth, I know,"
Here then my Lord is pleased to say, that all
o o
100 Lord Say a Separatist,
that he hath hitherto said, is so far from making
him the greatest Separatist in England, that it
cannot argue him to be any at all. For my part,
I would to God it were so : but let us examine,
whether it be so or not. First then, this I
humbly conceive is certain ; that he, whoever he
be, that will not communicate in public prayers
with a National Church, which serves God
as she ought, is a Separatist. But the Church
of England, as it stands established by law,
serves God as she ought : therefore my Lord,
by his general absenting himself from her com-
munion in prayers, is a Separatist. And this is
by his own confession : for he says, a little
before, and that expressly, that this is a sepa-
ration, which every man must make, that will
keep himself pure from other men's sins. And
I cannot doubt, but his Lordship hath made
that, which he says he must make.
All that can be said for my Lord herein is
this; first, that my Lord charges the Church
of England with corruptions in the worship of
God; and such corruptions, as he must separate
from her. But is it sufficient for a separation
o o
o o
and causelessly ; 101
for a particular man, barely to say there are
such corruptions in the Liturgy, when he doth
neither prove them to he such, nor so much as
name them what they are ? Surely no. And I
think these gnats (which his Lordship strains
at) may he swallowed, without any offence to
God or man. So far are they from being a
just cause of separation : therefore, for all this,
my Lord is a Separatist.
Yea, but my Lord charges upon the Church
of England, that she enjoins her Liturgy upon
all men, by a certain number of men usurping
authority to themselves, and imposing this
Injunction, under the name of the Church. I
have made answer already to this power of the
Church to compose a set Form for public
service ; and I hope made it manifest, that this
authority is not usurped. And then that can
be no just cause of a separation. Nay, I must
doubt, whether, if such authority were usurped
by some Churchmen in any National Church,
the enjoining of the Service after it is made,
supposing always that it contain no idolatry, or
fundamental error, be for the Injunction alone a
c o
O
102 Nay, the greatest in England,
sufficient warrant to my Lord, or any other, to
separate ? Therefore, my Lord's forsaking the
public service of the Church, upon no better
grounds than these, makes him a Separatist by
his own confession, without any man calling
him so.
As for his Lordship's being the greatest
Separatist in England : I have at the beginning
of this tract clearly related, to the uttermost of
my memory, what and upon what occasion I
spake of his Lordship in this kind. But whether
I said it or not, my Lord, for ought I see, will
hardly escape being so. For he is the greatest
Separatist from the Church, that absents him-
self with most will and least cause : and this, if
I mistake not, is my Lord's case; for he
separates with most will, that says men must
and ought to separate : and upon least cause,
because as yet he hath named none at all; but
corruptions in general ; which any man may
say; and the injunction of a set Form, which is
no cause. Therefore (for ought I yet see) it
may truly be said of his Lordship, that he
is the greatest Separatist in England.
o c
o o
and a busy promoter of it. 103
Especially if you add to this, how busy and
active his Lordship is, and for many years hath
been, to promote this cause of separation. And
I have some very good grounds to think, that
his Lordship hath been and is the great cause,
and enlarger of all the separation that now is in
Church affairs. And of all the disobedience
thereby bred or cherished against Sovereign
power.
Next, my Lord appeals to my Lords the
Bishops; and tells them, that they know that
they whom they usually apply this name
(Separatist) unto, are the Brownists, as they
call them by another name. I know not all
things, which the rest of my learned brethren
the Bishops know. Yet, I think, both they
and I know this, that the name Separatist is a
common name to all heretics or schismatics,
that separate for their opinions' sakes, either
from the Catholic, or from any particular
Orthodox Church. And if my Lord himself,
(who it seems is well acquainted with them,) or
any of my Lords the Bishops do know, that
this name is usually applied to the Brownists ;
O -<
Q O
104 Opinions of the Brownists
be it so. That I am sure is not material,
unless it be for that which my Lord closes this
passage withal.
Namely, that my Lords the Bishops know
the tenets of the Brownists ; and that the
truth is, they differ from us in no fundamental
point of doctrine or saving truth that his
Lordship knows. I doubt not but my Lords
the Bishops know the tenets of the Brownists,
so far forth at least as they be tenets, and not
varied from; and so for as they are their
general tenets, to which all or most of them
agree. And so far as they are plain and
univocal tenets, arid not such as shall equi-
vocate with the very faith itself. But such
tenets of the Brownists as these are, it may
be, all my Lords the Bishops know not.
Now if the truth be, as my Lord says it is,
for ought he knows, that the Brownists differ
from us in no fundamental point of doctrine, or
saving truth: then out of all doubt majus
peccatum habent, \heir sin (and my Lord's too)
is the greater, that they will so uncharitably,
and with so great heat and settled violence, and
o o
o o
false, scandalous, and unchristian. 105
to the great scandal of religion, first separate
themselves from, and now labour utterly to
overthrow, that Church, which (by my Lord's
own confession here) differs not from them in
any fundamental point of doctrine or saving
truth. For sure, if they differ not from us, we
differ not from them. But this is only argu-
mentum ad hominem, and is sufficient to con-
vince this Lord, I think, in his own way.
But I doubt the truth is quite another thing;
namely, that the Church of England is very
orthodox, and that the Brownists or Separatists,
call them as you will, do separate upon false
and unchristian opinions. And that besides
matters of opinion and breach of charity, they
do differ from us in some fundamental points of
doctrine and saving truth.
My Lord a little before tells us of corruptions
in the Liturgy of the Church ; but names none.
And should I charge the Brownists with differ-
ence from the Church in fundamental points of
doctrine, and yet name none, I should run into
the same fault for which I there taxed my
Lord: I shall therefore give some instances of
o o
O (
106 Brownist Creed.
some of their opinions, and then leave the
indifferent reader to judge, whether they do not
differ from us in some fundamental points of
doctrine and saving truth. And then, conse-
quently, whether it be not an heretical as well
as a schismatical separation, which they make
from the Church of England.
1. And first, there was a Creed printed by
John Turner, in this present year, and the
Parliament sitting. This Turner is a notorious
Separatist, or Brownist if you will. In this
Creed of his, he leaves out the descent of
Christ into hell. This is an Article of the
Apostles' Creed. And it is an Article of the
Church of England. And so I presume a
fundamental point of doctrine. Yet herein,
this Brownist and his fellows differ from us.
And I have heard from some present, that at a
Committee of Lords, appointed for matters of
religion, a young Lord m should say openly and
boldly enough, that he did not believe the
descent of Christ into hell. And that my
m The Lord Brook.
o
) Q
The doctrine of the Church fundamental. 107
Lord, the author of this speech, should second
him.
2. In the same Creed, Turner professes, he
believes that Christ instituted by his Apostles
certain particular Churches here on earth, and
no other. So the Catholic Church, the mother
of all particular both men and Churches, and
out of which there can be no salvation in the
ordinary way, is quite thrust out of this
Brownist's Creed. And this I hope is another
fundamental point of doctrine and saving truth.
But in this I must do my Lord right, and not
charge him with this point. Because a little
before, his Lordship tells of a two-fold separa-
tion, one whereof he says is from the Universal
or Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church
is not yet thrust out of my Lord's Creed. But
then this appears, that the Separatists are not
yet agreed upon all the Articles of their Creed.
Nay, some of them call the Apostles' Creed a
patched forgery. And Barrow justifies it D .
3. Thirdly, they differ from us in charging
gross corruptions upon the Church of England.
n Barrow's Eeply to Gilford, p. 255.
o-
o ,
108 Brownist opinions.
And these are known to my Lord; for he
acknowledges them ; and so gross, that, should
they be true, the Church of England must be
faulty in fundamental and saving truth. As
shall farther appear in my answer to my Lord's
next passage . Therefore if their charge be
true, they must, by my Lord's own confession,
difler from us in fundamental and saving truth.
And if their charge be false, why do they
separate from us ? Besides, all Anabaptists
and Brownists agree in this, that the Church of
England is Antichristian. And if it be so, they
must either differ in fundamentals from the
Church of England : or be Antichristian them-
selves in joining with them : or grant, that
Christ and Antichrist have one and the same
foundation.
4. Fourthly, some of them yet living, though
they dare not speak it out in all companies, do
cunningly insinuate, That at death, soul and
body are extinct together ; but shall rise again
at the resurrection, first or last. And that
Christ shall come and live here upon the earth
p. 48.
O (
o
Brownist opinions. 109
again. That the Martyrs shall then rise and
live with Him a thousand years. And that
Christ once come upon the earth, shall not
(for any thing they can learn out of Scripture)
ever depart from the earth again.
5. Fifthly, one Brierly and his Independent
congregation are of this belief. p That the
child of God, in the power of grace, doth
perform every duty so well, that to ask pardon
for failing, either in matter or manner, is a sin.
That it is unlawful to pray for forgiveness of
sins, after their conversion. With divers others,
some as had, some worse, to the number of fifty.
6. Sixthly, one Spisberrie yet living, and of
that Independent fraternity, maintains, that God
works all things in us ; and that we are but
organs, instruments, aud mere empty trunks.
Which is to make God the aulhor of all the
sins which men commit : and therefore, q Brierly
says expressly, that if they do at any time fall,
they can by the power of grace carry their sin
to the Lord, and say, Here I had it, and here I
P The Fifty Propositions taken from his own mouth,
q Proposit. 19.
O (
o o
110 Brownist opinions.
leave it. Will not the devil one day stop the
inouth of this blasphemy ?
7. Seventhly, Mr. Prynne himself (who hath
been a great stickler in these troubles of the
Church) says expressly, Let any true saint of
God be taken away in the very act of any known
sin, before it is possible for him to repent; I
make no doubt or scruple of it, but he shall as
surely be saved as if he had lived to have
repented of it. And he instances in David, in
case he had been taken away, before he had
repented of his adultery and murder. So
according to this divinity, the true saints of
God may commit horrible and crying sins, die !
without repentance, and yet be sure of salva-
tion ; which teareth up the very foundations of
religion ; induceth all manner of profaneness
into the world ; and is expressly contrary to the
whole current of the Scripture *.
* Prynne in his Perpetuity, p. 432.
Ezek. xviii. 26. Prov. xxviii. 13. St. Luke xiii. 3.
xxi. 24. Acts iii. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 9. Gal. v. 10. and many
other places.
I !
o c
Brownist opinions. Ill
8. In the eighth place, almost all of them
say, that God from all eternity reprobates by
far the greater part of mankind to eternal fire,
without any eye at all to their sin. Which
opinion my very soul abominates. For it makes
God, the God of all mercies, to be the most
fierce arid unreasonable tyrant in the world.
For the question is not here, what God may do
by an absolute act of power, would He so use it
upon the creature which He made of nothing :
but what He hath done, and what stands with
His wisdom, justice, and goodness to do.
9. Ninthly, one Lionel Lockier, now or late
of Cranbrooke in Kent, among other his errors,
rails against teaching children the Lord's
Prayer, or other forms of Catechising. And if
they differ from the Church of England in the
whole Catechism, I think the Lord must work
a miracle, before he can make his speech good,
that they differ from us in no fundamental
point.
10. Lastly, to omit all those base opinions,
in which the Brownists agree with the Ana-
baptists ; this, in which they differ from them,
o o
__ ,
112 Church to blame for not punishing.
will be sufficient to prove, that they differ from
us in that which is fundamental ; unless ihey
will say, that to believe the Trinity is not
fundamental. For some of them, and by name
one Glover 1 , deny the Deity of the Holy Ghost.
Which stands condemned for a gross and
fundamental heresy in the second General
Council", held against Macedonius. And for
the Fainilists, (of which there is store this day
in England,) they deny the resurrection of the
flesh, turning it, as they do many other things,
into a mystery or allegory. Perhaps, more
particulars might be found, upon a narrow
search. But if there be no more, these are
enough to make it evident to the world, that
these Separatists differ from us in some funda-
mental points of doctrine, or saying truth. And
as these are in fault for their separation ; so I
doubt the Church is to blame, for not proceed-
ing against such of them as are altogether
incorrigible.
But whether my Lord thinks these to be
1 Rog. in Symb. Art. 7. Prop. 5.
Concil. Const. 1. Hooter's Pref. to Eccl. Pol -. 3.
O i
Wherein the Brownists fail. 113
fundamental points ; or whether he know, that
the Brownists do differ from us in them; I
shall not take on me to declare, till his Lord-
ship open himself farther. In the mean time,
his Lordship goes on to tell us, wherein these
Brownists fail, though they do not differ in
fundamental points to his knowledge..
" Their failing is in this. They hold that
" there is no true Church in Eng-
" land, no true Ministry, no true
" worship which depend the one upon
" the other; they say all is Anti-
" Christian. Here is their error; they
" distinguish not between the bene
" esse or purity of a true Church ;
" and the esse or true being of it,
" though with many defects and gross
" corruptions. But conclude,, because
" such things are wanting, which are
" indeed necessary to the well-being
" of a true Church, and to be
" desired ; therefore there is none at
" all in being."
O
o (
114 The Church of England
Here my Lord shews a great deal of sharp
and good apprehension. And distinguishes
very rightly between the entire being of a true
Church, which is her bene esse; and the true
being of a Church, which is her esse only. And
my Lord doth farther fairly acknowledge, that
this is the Brownists' error, To conclude no
Church in being, because it hath many defects
and gross conniptions in it to hinder its well-
being.
So then, my Lord here grants two things.
First, that to hold there is no true Church in
England, no true Ministry, no true worship,
(which depend one upon another,) but that all
is Antichristian, is an error.
And secondly, that it is the Brownists' error.
How, and how far these three, no tme Church,
no true Ministry, uo true worship, depend one
upon another, and in what cases it may in
some exigents be otherways, I will not now
dispute, nor divert from the main business.
1 . First then, if it be an error to say, there is
no true Church, no true Ministry', no true
worship in England; then, I hope, it will be
: Q
a true particular Church. 115
found truth to say, there is a true Church,
a true Ministry, and a true worship in England.
And he that shall avow the contrary, must
needs differ from the Church of England in
fundamentals. For these contradictions ; a true
Church, and no true Church ; a true Ministry,
and no true Ministry ; a true worship of God,
and no true worship ; cannot be built up but
upon different foundations. And as for that
which, my Lord affirms, is added by the
Brownists, that there are many defects and
gross corruptions in it ; so long as this is said,
and not proved ; it is enough, without farther
proof, to deny both the defects and corruptions,
both the many and the gross. As I doubt not
but the Church of England can make good
against both my Lord, and all the Brownists in
England.
2. Secondly, if to affirm this be the Brown-
ists' error ; then I would fain know of my Lord,
how he can say the Brownists do not differ
from or with us in any fundamental point of
doctrine or saving truth ? For if this be no
fundamental point, or no saving truth ; that we
o-
O (
116 The Brownists differ with us
be in and of a true Church; that this Church
hath a true Ministry, to be between God and
us, in all the duties of their function ; whether
upward to God in prayer and spiritual sacrifice,
or downward to us in the Word and Sacraments;
that in this Church, and by this Ministry,
there is a true worship, and that without gross
corruptions : what can be accounted, next the
Creed itself, fundamental or saving ? So that in
one line, my Lord is pleased to say, the
Brownists do not differ with us in any funda-
mental point of doctrine or saving truth ; and
in the very next line, his Lordship confesses,
they differ from us in these three things, which
if not several, yet altogetheiy as they depend
one upon another, are saving and fundamental.
Nor can this cautelous close help my Lord
one jot, that he adds; The Brownists do not
differ from us in any fundamental point of
doctrine or saving truth, as his Lordship knows.
For were his Lordship of a shallow or narrow
comprehension,, it were another matter : but
since he is so full of understanding in these
things, it is impossible but he must know these
;.
in fundamentals. 117
three together are fundamental ; and being so,
he must needs know also, that the Brownists
differ with us in fundamentals ; which is that
which he denied. If therefore my Lord will
say, he knows not this to be the Brownists'
eiTor, why doth he take upon him to say it is ?
If he will grant that he knows it, he must
needs know withal, (if he will not shut out the
light of his conscience, of which a little before
he is so tender,) that the Brownists, or Separat-
ists, call them what you will, differ from us in
some fundamental points of doctrine or saving
truth.
Thus far then my Lord relates the failing of
the Brownist. I hope he will be so careful as
not to fail with them himself. Yes sure ; for
he adds;
" I hold no such opinion ; but do believe
" to the contrary : that there are in
" England many true Churches, and
" a true Ministry which I do hear,
" and with which Churches I could
c o
) O
118 Lord Say's dishonest
" yokes of bondage, which are laid
" upon them, taken off, and those
" corruptions removed, which they do
" (contrary, as I think, to their duty)
" yield unto, and admit of: and this
" I am sure, no Separatist in Eng-
" land holds, that deserves that name.
" And therefore I hope your Lord-
" ships will in that respect let me
" stand right in your opinions."
Here my Lord tells us, he holds no such
opinion, hut does believe to the contrary. But
I doubt, he so believes to the contrary, as that
he is of the same opinion. For he believes,
that there are in England many true Churches,
and a true Ministry. And so do all the
Brownists : for no doubt but they believe, that
all their congregations or conventicles are true
Churches in England ; and that the Ministers
which they hear are true Ministers. And this
is plainly my Lord's belief. For he saith,
he believes there is a true Ministry in Eng-
land, which he doth hear. But what Ministers
c o
O (
and unmeaning evasions. 119
they are, which he doth hear, he does not
say.
Or if this he not my Lord's meaning; but
that there are some true Churches, and some
true Ministers in England, though ordained as
in England they are ; yet my Lord continues a
Separatist still. For his Lordship doth not
say, either that he doth, or that he will, or that
he can, join in communion with any of these
Churches, or this Ministry, which he says, are
true. But only that he could join with them,
if; if what ? why, if these yokes of bondage
were taken oif, which are laid upon them, and
those corruptions removed. By the yokes of
bondage, he means the injunction of a set Form
of prayers, which he hath so often mentioned in
this speech.
But what corruptions he means, I know not,
till his Lordship shall be pleased to tell us.
Only this I conceive I may add; that all
things are not corruptions in the Church, which
my Lord calls so. That if these corruptions be
fundamental, they may be such too, as may
keep these Churches which he speaks of from
O O
o
120 Obedience to Church authority
being true Churches, and the Ministry from
being a true Ministry. But if these corrup-
tions be of a very light allay, (as I verily
believe they are, if there be any,) then his
Lordship ought not to separate, but to join in
communion with them, for all these, either
yokes, or corruptions. The Apostle indeed
tells us of a Church without wrinkle". But
that is a triumphant Church in heaven ; not a
militant upon earth. And for the yokes, which
my Lord speaks of, they are not yokes of
bondage, as he pleases to call them ; but yokes
of obedience, which, whenever they shall be
broken, the wild asses of the wilderness y will
overrun all.
My Lord goes farther, and says ; that in
these true Churches, this true Ministry does
yield unto, and admit of, these yokes, and these
corruptions, contrary, as he thinks, to their
duty. But it seems, they think not so ; or
if they do think so, why do they not remon-
strate their grievance ? Sure, if their conscience
tell them they do against their duty, they ought
x Eph. v. 27. X Jer. ii. 24.
o o
O
even under corruptions. 1 2 1
to inform their conscience, or forbear the work.
To inform their conscience, I am sure is fit for
them, if they need it. Though it seems, my
Lord would rather have them forbear the duty,
the doing whereof he calls their yielding unto ;
and their admitting these things, which he calls
yokes and corruptions.
As for that which follows, and which my
Lord says he is sure of, that no Separatist in
England that deserves that name, holds that
which his Lordship says here he doth believe.
In that also, I conceive his Lordship is utterly
mistaken. For, I believe, there is no Separatist
in England, Brownist, or other deserving that
name; but he holds, and will say as much as
my Lord believes, namely, that there are in
England many true Churches, that is, assem-
blies, or congregations of their own brotherhood.
And a true Ministry : to wit, those which
themselves have made. Arid that they do hear
them; that is, such as these. Yea, and that
they could join in communion with some other
Churches, were those yokes of bondage, which
are laid upon them, taken off, and those corrup-
o o
O
1 22 Lord Say a schismatic,
tions removed. That is, upon the matter, if
they would become as themselves are, then they
would join with them. And this out of all
doubt they think they ought to do, and neither
yield unto such yokes, nor admit of such
corruptions. So that my Lord may see every
Separatist in England, even they, which most
deserve that name, hold that which his Lord-
ship believes. And therefore no question can
be made, but that my Lord deserves that name,
as much as any of them, even while he says, he
is sure no Separatist in England that deserves
that name holds as he doth.
But to come to the quick. The Brownists
and Separatists deal plainly with God and the
world, and say expressly, that the whole Church
of England, as it stands established by law, is
peccant, both in the Doctrine, Liturgy, and
Discipline of it ; and in such a degree, as that
they neither will, nor can join in communion
with it: and therefore separate from it, and
betake themselves to their own private opinions
and congregations. But my Lord he equivo-
cates both with God and man; and tells us,
o o
D O
and equivocator. 123
he believes there are true Churches in England,
and a true Ministry which he hears. And this
no Separatist that understands himself, but will
say as fast as he. But let his Lordship come
home to the business directly and plainly: let
him say, that the Church of England is a true
Church; that the Ministry of it is a true
Ministry; that the Doctrine, Liturgy, and
Discipline of it, as it stands established now by
law, are free from any such corruptions as give
just cause for a separation.
And when he hath said this, let him join in
communion with it as he ought to do ; and
then he shall wrong my Lord very deeply, that
says he is a Separatist.
But for all this which he hath yet said for
himself, it is manifest, that a Separatist he is.
And I doubt, hath hereby proved himself,
whether I will or no, the greatest Separatist in
England. And therefore he hath little cause to
hope (as he says he doth) that he shall stand
right in their Lordships' opinions, or any other
man's, that is not possessed with the same hu-
mour. Yet, my Lord hath two requests to make.
o o
c o
124 Lord Say's
" I will now end with two requests : the
" one, that your Lordships will please
" to pardon me, for troubling you
" with so long a discourse concerning
" myself. I have not used it hereto-
" fore; and I am not like to offend
" again in the same kind. It is hut
" once, and your Lordships will con-
" sider the occasion."
In this suit, were there need, I would join
with my Lord. For though I have a great deal
of hard measure put upon me in this speech ;
yet I have the more reason to be content with
it, because this whole discourse of my Lord's,
well weighed, is more against himself than me.
And such trouble of his Lordship's, I hope all
men well affected to the present Church of
England will easily pardon. And this I doubt
not, but their Lordships, and all men else, will
the rather do, when they consider the occasion.
Which certainly I gave not personally in the
House: but a guilty conscience (it seems) would
needs be meant.
o o
D C
two requests. 125
" The second (request) is to entreat of
" you, that where you know there is
" one and the same God worshipped,
" one and the same Faith embraced,
" one and the same Spirit working
" love, and causing an unblameable
" conversation, without any offence to
" the State, in your brethren, who in
" all these concur with you ; you will
" not suffer them (for ceremonies
" and things indifferent to you, but
" not to them but burthens, which
" without offence to the State, or
" prejudice to the Churches, you may
" take off if you will) to be thrust out
" of the land, and cut off from their
" native country. For if you thus
" shall wound the consciences of your
" brethren, you will certainly offend
" and sin against Christ."
In this second request, I can easily agree
with my Lord in some things ; but must differ
in other. And first, I agree with all my heart,
D-
o
o o
126 Separatists allowable
that I would have no pressure at all, much less
cutting off from their native country, put upon
them, who are known to worship the same God,
to embrace one and the same faith, and one
and the same Spirit working love. But in this
I must disagree, that the Separatists (for they
are the men of whom this Lord speaks thus,
and says they are your brethren, and concur
with you in all these) are not known to be such.
For though he be one and the same God whom
they worship, yet the worship is not one and
the same. For my Lord says plainly, that our
set Forms are superstition : and that he cannot
join in communion with us, till our yokes of
bondage, and our other gross corruptions, be
removed. And I must doubt they embrace not
the same faith, till they admit the whole Creed,
and will use the Lord's Prayer, which few of
them will. As for the Spirit that works by
love, I much fear He is a great stranger to many
of these men. For I have many ways found
their malice to be fierce, and yet endless. And
therefore I wonder my Lord should have the
boldness to tell my Lords in Parliament, that
O C
O
neither by Church or State. 127
they know all these things of these men, and that
they are their brethren, and concur with them
in all these forenamed things; whom in the
mean time, their Lordships do, and cannot but
know, different from them ; nay separating from
them, in the very worship of God.
Next I agree with my Lord again, that I
would have no pressure put upon those men, in
whom the spirit of love causes an unblameable
conversation, without any offence to the State.
But in this I must disagree, that the Separatists
from the Church of England are such manner
of men. For the private conversation of very
many of them (whom I could name, were it
fit) is far from being unblameable 8 .
And the public conversation of all, or most
of them, is full of offence to the State: unless
my Lord thinks the State is or ought to be of
their humour. For how can their conversation
be without great offence, veiy great, to this or
any State Christian ; who shall have and main-
z Here is a void space left, but never filled up.
o . o
o o
128 Not by the State ;
tain private conventicles and meetings, in a
different way of religion, from that which is
established by the State ? Nay, which shall
not only differ from, but openly and slanderously
oppose, that which is so established ? Besides,
no well-governed State will allow of private
meetings, especially under pretence of religion,
(which carry far,) without their privity and
allowance. For if this be permitted, there lies
a way open to all conspiracies against the State
whatsoever, and they shall all be satisfied under
the pretence of religion.
The third thing in which I agree with my
Lord is, that I would not, that for ceremonies
and things indifferent, these men should be
thrust out of the land, and cut off from their
native country. No, God forbid; if any thing
will reclaim them. But then I must disagree
with my Lord in this, that these men (whether
such as my Lord describes them or no) are
thrust out of the land, or cut off from their
native country, for ceremonies or things in-
different. For first, they are not all ceremonies,
for which they separate from the Church. For
o o
Q O
The self-exiled. 129
they pretend certain gross corruptions in the
very worship of God, (as my Lord a little before
delivers.) Secondly, be the cause what it will,
none of them have been banished, or thrust out
of the land, or cut from their native country,
(as is here spoken to move hatred against the
government.) But it is true, they have thrust
themselves out, and cut themselves off, and run
a madding to New England, scared away (as
they say) by certain gross corruptions, not to
be endured in this Church. Nor after they
have gone a madding enough, is their return
denied to any: and I know some that went out
like fools, and are come back so like that
you cannot know the one from the other.
In this passage it is said by my Lord, that
these ceremonies and things indifferent unto
you, (speaking to the Lords in Parliament,) are
not so to them, but burthens. In this passage
I can agree with my Lord in nothing. For
first, my Lord but a very little before, tells of
yokes of bondage and gross corruptions. And
are they so soon become but ceremonies and
things indifferent? If they be more than
o <
o o
130 Church authority counted a burden.
ceremonies and things indifferent, then my
Lord delivers not the whole truth. And if they
be but ceremonies and things indifferent, then
his Lordship and all other Separatists ought
rather to yield to the Church in such things,
than for such things to separate from it. And
certainly so they would, if the Spirit that
worketh by love, did work in them. Yea, but
my Lord says, they are such things, as though
they be indifferent to others, yet to them they
are not, but burthens. And it may.be, they
make them so ; for in their own nature they are
nothing less : and of great use they are to
preserve the substance and the body of religion.
But this I find ; let any thing in the world be
enjoined by the Church authority, and it is a
burthen presently. And so you see all along
this speech, how earnest my Lord is, in behalf
of himself and these Separatists, against all
injunctions of set Forms, and yokes of bondage.
This is an excellent way of religion, to settle
temporal obedience.
And I can as little agree with that which
follows. Namely, that the Lords may, without
o o
o o
Parliament no ecclesiastical functions. 131
any offence to the State, or prejudice to the
Churches, take away, if they will, these things
indifferent to them, but burthens to these
brethren. For first, suppose them to be but
ceremonies and things indifferent; yet can they
not be taken away without offence to the State,
or prejudice to the Churches; who, to please a
few unruly Separatists, must make an alteration
in that part of religion, which hath continued
with great happiness to this Church ever since
the Reformation. Secondly, I will not dispute
it here, what power a lay assembly (and such a
Parliament is) hath to determine matters of
religion, primely and originally by and of them-
selves, before the Church hath first agreed upon
them. Then indeed they may confirm or
refuse. And this course was held in the
Reformation. But originally to take this power
over religion into lay hands, is that which hath
not been thus assumed since Christ to these
unhappy days. And I pray God this chair of
religion do not prove cathedra pestilentice , as
the vulgar reads it*, to the infecting of this
Ps. i. 1.
o ^ o
o : o
132 In what sense the King has.
whole nation with schism and heresy, and in
the end bring all to confusion,
I meddle not here with the King's power.
For he may be present in Convocation when he
pleases, and take or leave any Canons, as he
pleases, which are for the peace and well-
ordering of the Church ; as well as in Parlia-
ment, take or leave any laws made ready for
him, for the good and quiet of his people.
But if it come to be matter of faith, though in
his absolute power he may do what he will, and
answer God for it after : yet he cannot commit
the ordering of that to any lay Assembly,
Parliament or other; for them to determine
that, which God hath intrusted into the hands
of his Priests. Though if he will do this,
the Clergy must do their duty, to inform
him, and help that dangerous error if they
can. But if they cannot, they must suffer
an unjust violence, how far soever it proceed ;
but they may not break the duty of their
allegiance.
It is true, Constantius the Emperor, a great
patron of the Arians, was by them interested in
o o
O = O
Arian illustration. 133
their cause, and meddled in decernendo*, in
determining, and that beforehand, what the
Prelates should do ; and sometimes in com-
manding the orthodox Prelates to communicate
with the Arians. This they refused to do, as
being against the Canons of the Council of
Nice.
And then his answer was ; b Yea, but that
which I will, shall go for Canon. But then we
must know withal, that c Athanasius reckoned
him for this as that Antichrist, which Daniel
prophesied of.
Hosius also d , the famous confessor of those
times, condemned in him that kind of meddling
a Athan. in Epist. ad Solit. Vitam agentes. Edit. Gr.
Lat. p. 862.
Epist. ad Solit. Vitam agentes.
e lis yui> ftxivruv KUTOV U-a^avra -rut
Ivrtfxo-Tfuv . KK} fpixot^rifA^vov TUV \KKK*iffitt,ff<rtx,euy xgffftuv , OUM
troi TOUT' tJvat TO S<a TOV AavinA. il^riftivov
l*p,*>fftas ; cap. 9. 27. Athanas. in Epist.
ad Solit. Vitam agentes. Edit. Gr. Lat. p. 862.
* In Epistola ad Constantium quse extat apud
Athan. Ibid. p. 829.
o o
O (
] 34 Also Valentinian the younger,
in and with religion. And so doth St. Hilary 6
of Poictiers. Valentinian also the younger took
upon him to judge of religion, at the like
persuasion of Auxentius the Arian ; but he like-
wise was sharply reproved for it by St. Ambrose f .
In like manner, Maximus the tyrant took upon
him to judge in matters of religion, as in the
case of Priscillian and his associates. But this
also was checked by St. Martin * Bishop of
Tours : where it is again to be observed, that
though these emperors were too busy in ven-
turing upon the determination of points of
faith ; yet no one of them went so far, as to
take power from the Synods, and give it to the
e St. Hilary cont. Constantium. Edit. Basil, p. 272.
et passim alibi.
f Quando audiisti clementissima imperator in causa
fidei laicos de Episcopo judicasse ? quis est qui abnuat
in caus& fidei, in causa inquam fidei, Episcopos solere
de imperatoribus Christianis, non imperatores de Epis-
copis judicare ? Pater tuus baptizatus in Christo,
inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse judicii, &c. St.
Amb. 1. v. Epist= 32.
g Novum et inauditum nefas esse dicens, ut causam
Ecclesise Judex Sseculi judicaret. Snip. Sever. 1. ii.
Hist. Sacrse.
O
o o
and Maximus. 135
Senate. And the orthodox and understanding
Emperors did neither the one nor the other.
For h Valentinian the elder left this great
Church- work to be done by Church-men. And
though the power to call Councils was in the
Emperor: and though the Emperors were some-
times personally present in the Councils, and
sometimes by their deputies, both to see order
kept, and to inform themselves ; yet the deci-
sive voices were in the Clergy only. And this
will plainly appear in the instructions given by
the Emperor Theodosius to Condidianus, whom
he sent to supply his place in the Council of
Ephesus; which were, Hhat he should not
meddle with matters of faith, if any came to be
debated. And gives this reason for it : because
h Pater tuus, Deo favente, vir maturioris aevi, dicebat,
non est meum judicare inter Episcopos. St. Amb. 1. v.
Epist. 32.
1 Ut cum qusestionibus et controversiis quse circa
fidei dogmata incidunt, nihil quicquam commune
habeat. Nefas est enim, qui Sanctissimorum Episco-
porum Catalogo ascriptus non est, ilium Ecclesiastic-is
negotiis et consultationibus sese immiscere. Bin. torn. i.
Cone. par. 2. p. 166. Ed. Colon.
o o
, O
136 The meaning of
it is unlawful for any but Bishops, to mingle
himself with them in those consultations. And
Basilius the Emperor, long after this, in the
eighth General Council held at Constantinople,
anno 870 k , affirms it of the Laity in general ;
'that it is no way lawful for them to meddle
with these things. But that it is proper for the
Patriarchs, Bishops, and Priests, which have
the office of government in the Church, to
enquire into these things. And more of this
argument might easily be added, were that
needful, or I among my books, and my thoughts
at liberty. And yet this crosses not the su-
premacy, which the King of England hath in
causes ecclesiastical ; as it is acknowledged,
both by the Church and Law. For that
reaches not to the giving of him power to
determine points of faith, either in Parliament
k 1. 869.
1 Quod nullo modo iis liceat de Ecclesiasticis causis
sermonem movere. Hoc enim quaerere et investigare,
Patriarcharum, Pontificum, et Sacerdotum est, qui re-
giminis officium sortiti sunt. Nos autem oportet cum
timore et fide sincera hos adire, &c. Bin. torn. iii.
Concil. par. 2. 682.
O
o o
the King's supremacy. 137
or out ; or to the acknowledgment of any such
power residing in him ; or to give him power to
make Liturgies, and public Forms of prayer ;
or to preach or administer Sacraments ; or to
do any thing which is merely spiritual. But in
all things which are of a mixed cognizance ;
such as are all those, which are properly called
ecclesiastical, and belong to the Bishops' ex-
ternal jurisdiction; the supremacy there, and
in all things of like nature, is the King's. And
if at any time the Emperor or his deputy sit
judge in a point of faith, it is not because he
hath any right to judge it, or that the Church
hath not right; but merely in case of con-
tumacy, where the heretic is wilful, and will
not submit to the Church's power.
And this the heretics sometimes did; and
then the Bishops were forced to appeal thither
also ; but not for any resolution in the point of
faith, but for aid and assistance to the just
power of the Church m .
I cannot but remember a very prudent speech
uttered in the beginning of the late preceding
m Hist. Trip. 1. v. 35. in the case of heretics.
-o
o c
138 Ancient ceremonies props of religion,
Parliament, and by that Lord who now made j
this. The occasion was. A Lord offered to
deliver a message from the King before he was
formally brought into the House, and his patent
shewed. This Lord, who thinks Church-cere-
monies may so easily be altered, stood up and
said, " He would not be against the delivery of
the message ; he knew not how urgent it might
be ; but desired withal, that it might be entered,
that this was yielded unto by special leave of
the House. For that (saith he) though this
be but a ceremony, yet the honour and safety
of the privileges of this great House is preserved
by nothing more, than by keeping the ancient
rights and ceremonies thereof entire." And this
I think was very wisely spoken, and with great
judgment. And could my Lord see this in the
Parliament, and can he not see it in the
Church ? Are ancient ceremonies, the chief
props of Parliamentary rights; and have they
no use in Religion, to keep up her dignity ; yea,
perhaps, and truth too ? The House of Parlia-
ment is, I confess, a great and honourable
House. But the whole Church of Christ is
O (
o c
Plea of conscience. 139
greater. And it will not well beseem a Parlia-
ment to maintain their own ceremonies, and to
kick down the ceremonies of the national
Church, which, under God, made all their
members Christians. Most sure I am, they
cannot do it, without offence both to State and
Church, and making both a scorn to neighbour-
ing nations.
Now in the close of all, my Lord tells his
fellow Peers, and all others in them, That if
they shall thus wound the consciences of their
brethren (the Separatists), they will certainly
offend and sin against Christ. Soft and fair.
But what shall these Lords do, if to humour
the consciences of those brethren, (some weak,
and many wilful, and the cunning misleading
the simple,) they shall disgrace and weaken,
and, perhaps, overthrow, the religion they pro-
fess ? Shall they not then both wound their
own consciences, and most certainly sin against
Christ ? Yes, out of all doubt, they shall do
both. Now, where it comes to the wounding
of consciences, no question can be made, but
that every man ought first to look to his own ;
6 <
o o
140 A mans duty to his own conscience.
to his brethren's after. A man must not do
that which shall justly wound his brother's
conscience, though he be his brother in a sepa-
ration, and stand never so much aloof from
him. But he must not wound his own, to
preserve his brother from a wound ; especially
such a one as happily may cure him, and by a
timely pinch make him sensible of the ill con-
dition in which he is.
As for these men, God of His mercy give
them that light of His truth, which they want ;
and forgive them the boasting of that light,
which they presume they have. And give them
true repentance, and in that sense, a wounded
conscience, for their breaking the peace of this
Church.
And forgive them all their sins, by which
they still go on with more and more violence to
distract this Church.
And God of His infinite goodness preserve
this Church at all times, and especially at this
time, while the waves of this sea of separation
rage so horribly. And as for this Lord, God
O
o
-O
Conclusion.
141
forgive him, and I do, and I hope this Church
will. Amen.
In Turri Land.
Dec. 3, 1641.
S. S. TRINITATI FIT LAUS ET GLORIA IN
STERNUM.
o-
-o
o-
o
o-
o
-0
ARCHBISHOP LAUD'S
ANSWER
TO
THE LORD SAY'S SPEECH
AGAINST
THE BISHOPS.
o o
o
LAUD
ON
EPISCOPACY.
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 poisoning, so
many at least, as it is said to have done; espe-
cially that Bishop who stands named in the
o-
) O
146 Laud's reasons for
margin, and against whom in particular the
speech was in part directed, should (as I con-
ceive) 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
errors of this speech may appear, and the
Bishops perhaps recover their ancients rights.
If not, (as I confess it is very hard in England,)
that yet the world may see how unjustly they
suffered, and with what misguided zeal this
Lord hath fallen upon the Church, as indeed
o o
o o
answering Lord Say. 147
he hath done in all kinds. And I pray God
something fall not therefore upon him and
his. The speech then begins thus :
" My Lords,
" I shall not need to begin as high as
" Adam in answer to what hath been
" drawn down from thence by a
" 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
Archbishop 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
* The Bishop of Lincoln.
o o
148 The first-born were Priests
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, it is
manifest, and received by all men, that the
Primogenitus b , the first-born, was Priest, and
the first-born in the prime and leading families,
were as the Chief Priests in their several genera-
tions : and it is 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
b Sacerdotium erat ante Legem, apud colentes
Deum, secundum humanam determinationem, qui hanc
dignitatem Primogenitis attribuebant. Tho. 1. 2. q. 103.
a 1 ad 3.
Ante tempus veteris Legis non eraut determinati
Ministri divini Cultus, sed dicitur, quod Primogeniti
erant Sacerdotes, qui duplicem portionem accipiebant.
Tho. 2. 2. q. 87. a 1. ad 3.
And it is irrefragably manifest by the Lord's com-
mands to Moses, that he should take the Levites instead
of the First-born. Numb. iii. 45. Why instead of the
First-born, if the First-born did not perform the public
service of the Lord before that time ?
o- o
in early times. 149
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 . And his Priesthood appears
in that he was the first Minister of the sacra-
ment of Circumcision* 1 ; 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 6 . And Melchise-
deck, who is expressly called the Priest of the
high God, was King of Salem also f : a King
and a Priest too, so both capable by one person.
And as he received tithes 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 g , and yet all the
e Heb. vii. 4. d Gen. xvii. 23. e Gen. xiv.
14, 16. f Gen. xiv. 18. Heb. vii. 1. Z Gen. viii. 20.
o o
O O
150 Priesthood under the Law
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 h .
Under the Law the case comes under fuller
and clearer proof. And in the first entrance,
Moses himself was Sacerdos Sacerdotum, the
man that consecrated Aaron 1 , and after reckoned
with Aaron among the Priests of God k , and yet
the whole princely jurisdiction resided in him
all his days. But God commanded him 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 him-
self was ordered 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 cogni-
zance, if any, Aaron was joined in commission
with Moses by God Himself, to number them
h Gen. vi. l Exod. xl. 13. Levit. viii. 1.
k Ps. xcix. 6.
,
o o
meddled in civil matters. 151
by their armies; and they did it m . 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 ; 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 . 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 interested 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 p . 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
m Numb. i. 3. 17. 44. Numb. ii. 1. 2.
Numb. x. 8. 9. 11. P Numb. xiv. 2. 5.
O- 6
Q
152 In Aaron's lifetime,
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 q , even before Joshua
himself: and that not only here during Moses's
life, but even after, at the actual division of
the land to every Tribe, though Joshua was then
the leader of the people 1 . In the great mur-
muring 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 satisfy 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*, and they performed it accordingly.
Thus far it went, and in all these great
particulars in Aaron's lifetime; as if God
would give a pattern in the first High Priest
<1 Numb, xxxii. 2. 28. and xxxiv. 17. r Josh.xix. 51.
s Numb. xx.
I
C (
o o
as well as afterwards. 153
under the Law, what his successors in some cases
might, and in some must, do in great and civil
affairs. And not so only, but to instruct the
successors of Moses also what value they should
put upon Aaron and his successors, if they will
follow the way which God Himself prescribed,
and which hath been taken up and followed in
all well-governed kingdoms, as well Christian
as Heathen, till this very time that this ignorant
boisterous faction hath laboured to bear sway,
as a learned countryman l 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 son
Eleazar succeeded in all those great civil em-
ployments, as well as in the Priesthood. For
when the people of Israel were come into the
plain of Moab near Jericho, and were ready to
1 u They would have Clergymen not admitted, or very
sparingly, to matters of State, contrary to the practice of
all well-governed commonwealths, and of our own till
these late years." Geo. Cranmer, Epist. to Mr. Hooker,
p. 13.
o o
o o
154 Eleazar.
enter into the land of promise, God Himself
joined Eleazar with Moses for the numbering
of all the people that were found fit for war,
which they were to expect at their entrance into
Canaan". 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 x , 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 successor in
the presence of the congregation y. And orders
farther that Joshua shall stand before Eleazar
the Priest, and that Eleazar shall ask counsel
for him after the judgment of Urim before the
Lord *. 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
u Numb. xxvi. 1. 3. x Numb, xxvii. 2.
y Josh. xvii. 4. z Numb, xxvii. 18. 19. 23.
o <
, o
Phineas. 155
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 3 , 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", and an express
law ordained, that if there be a matter too hard
for them in judgment, (I pray mark it, it is
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 , and he
that will not hearken unto the Priest and Judge
shall die d . Was the Priest here excluded from
a Numb. xxxi. 6. b Ver. 12.26. c Dent. xvii.
8, 9. a Ver. 12.
o o
! Q
156 This lasted for near
all temporal affairs ? Nay, was he excluded
from any, when his judgment was required
between blood and blood ? Nay, the Geneva
note adds here, " 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 Dr. Raynolds f 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 warS; arid
the whole Law, the judicial as well as the rest,
was delivered by Moses, after he had written it,
e Annot. in Deut. xvii. 9.
f Confer, with Hart, c. 6. Divis. 2. p. 203.
s Deut. xx. 2. 5.
o
}
Jive hundred years. 157
unto the Priests the sons of Levi, and unto all
the Elders of Israel h ; so was the Priest trusted
I with the custody and in the discussing of the
| Law, and (as is before 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'.
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 forty
years' 5 ; 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 Mac-
cabees, 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
h Deut. xxxi. 9. J Josh. xiv. 1. k 1 Sam.
iv. 18.
-o
o c
158 Even during the times
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 ; 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 observed 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 ; so
far was he from turning their votes out of the
house of that great consultation, that six thou-
sand of them were by the wisdom of that senate
made Officers and Judges throughout the
kingdom"; and this was done on both sides of
Jordan in all businesses of the Lord, and in the
service of the King . In the beginning of
1 1 Sam. xv. 27. 32. 35. 1 Chron. xxiii. 1. 2.
Yer. 4. 1 Chron. xxvi. 30. 32.
O
) O
of the Kings. 159
Solomon's reign, Abiathar the High Priest was
in all the great counsels of that state, but
falling into the treason of Adorn j ah, he was
deprived by Solomon, and Zadoc made High
Priest in his room p . 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. xvii. 8, 9.
and restored to them that power in judicature
which was by God's appointment settled in
them q . And that he had relation to that law is
manifest, because he pitches almost upon the
same words' 1 , as 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 1 , he was inward in his
counsels, and was ruled by him in his marriage ,
and he died with this testimony, that this young
P 1 Kings ii. 27. 35. q 2 Chron. xix. 8. r Ver. 10.
8 Conf. with Hart, c. 6. Divis. 2. p. 203. 2 Chron.
xxiii. 8. u 2 Chron. xxiv. 2.
d 6
-- c
160 Union of Aaron with Moses.
King did that which was right in the sight of
the Lord, all the days wherein Jehoiada in-
structed him*. But after his death, you may
read what befel Joash y . In all the conduct of
this people out of Egypt, in which many
temporal businesses did occur, Aaron was joined
with Moses in and through all. Thou leadest
thy people like sheep (saith the Prophet) by
or in the hand of Moses and Aaron 2 . The
Prophet David was a great shepherd himself,
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, it is 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
* 2 Kings xii. 1 2 Chron. xxiv. z Ps. Ixxvii.
o
o o
Temporal meddling of Priests. 161
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
Josephus" witnesses expressly, that two of them
were ever allotted to each magistracy. Jero-
boam's sin it was, and a great one, to make the
lowest of the people Priests 5 ; 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 tem-
poral affairs. And this, as this honourable per-
son cannot but know, so I presume he was
willing warily to avoid. For he tells you he
Oppidatim prsesint septem viri probate virtutis et
justitise cultores : singulis Magistratibus attribuantur
duo Ministri de Tribu Levitica. Joseph. 1. iv. Antiq.
c. 8.
b 1 Kings xii. 13.
O
) O
162 Jewish antiquity
shall not need to begin so high. Not need?
And why so ? Why, it is because (saith lie)
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 Englishman 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 c now passed there
be nothing enacted but that which concerns
Bishops, and such as are in Holy Orders here,
e Feb. 15, 164.
o o
>- o
applicable to the argument. 163
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 entangled with secular jurisdiction,' &c.
Ought not : therefore in their judgment it is
malum per se, a thing in itself unlawful for any
man in Holy Orders to meddle in, or help
manage, temporal affairs. For though their
words be, ought not to be entangled, (which as
that word entangled bears sense in English, and
stands for an absolute hindering 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 entangled with them or
not.
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
o o
O
164 Use and application
under the Gospel, that is not simply moral in
itself, as well as none to Prelates, and their
assisting in temporal affairs. Which opinion
how many things it will disjoint 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 prefigure 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 Chris-
tians. Though this bold proposition runs uni-
versally, 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 merely belonging to order and
o o
O Q
of the Old Scriptures. 165
government, as appears by the proofs before
made. And therefore the Jews may be prece-
dents 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. Ambrose 6 tells us ex-
pressly, that that which is mentioned by St. Paul
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 f , 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 Calvin* speaks it out expressly. 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
8 S. Ambrose in 1 Cor. xiv. 30. Traditio Synagogse
est quam nos vult sectari.
f 1 Chron. xxiii. 30.
s Calv. in Act. iii. 1.
o o
o o
166 St. Austin. St. Ambrose.
here the Jews' discipline gives an express rule
to us. And it is very learnedly and truly ob-
served by a late writer of ours h , 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. St.
Augustine 5 was of another mind through all his
books against Faustus the Manichee. And St.
Ambrose k most expressly, and very frequently,
recommended this, tanquam regulam, as a rule
to the people. And in this very case of Episco-
h Her. Thorndike, Epistle to the Reader before his
Tract of Religious Assemblies.
* S. Aug. contra Faustum.
k S.Aug. lib. vi. Confess, c. 4. Vetera Scripta Legis et
Prophetarum, tanquam regulam diligentissime commen-
davit Ambrosius in popularibus Sermonibus.
O
G O
St. Clement. St. Jerome. 167
pacy, Clemens Romanus 1 tells us, there is a kind
of parallel between Bishops, Presbyters, and
Deacons, in the one, and High Priests, Priests,
and Levites, in the other Church. And St.
Jerome" 1 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 it is time to proceed to other particulars.
In the case of tithes, 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 tithes
have been paid to the Ministers under the
Gospel, in all or most parts of Christendom,
1 Clem. Ep. ad Corinth, p. 52, 53.
m Quod Aaron et filii ejus, atque Levitse in Templo
fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, Presbyter! atque Diaconi
vendicant in Ecclesia. S. Hier. Ep. ad Evagr.
o o
168 The divine right
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 controversy
about tithes, yet this is certain, that the Minis-
ters 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 shalt 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".' And
yet how many of these oxen are poorly suited,
and in a manner muzzled, is evident enough.
n 1 Cor. ix. 9.
o c
> O
of tithes and Priests' maintenance. 169
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 it is 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 ,) 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 P, 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 ? OVTU xeti o JUvyos
2*ir|i, 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.
Ver. 14. P Ver. 13.
o o
o o
170 Tithes.
Just so. Why then, how did the Priests under
the Law live ? It is set down at large q ; and a
very full portion they had, so full as that they
might have no inheritance amongst their brethren,
the Lord's portion which was made theirs was so
great, yet cvrv, so the Lord ordained for the
Ministers of the Gospel. Press this a little
farther, and it will come to the quick. The
Priests and Levites under the Law, besides their
partaking with the Altar, had the tithes of all
duly paid them. Will not tvru reach to this
too ? If so, then it is clear in the text, that the
Lord Himself ordained payment of tithes to the
Ministers of the Gospel. For He ordained that
the Ministers of the Gospel should live of the
Gospel, cvtw, just as the Priests under the Law
did of the Altar. I will not be peremptory 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,
q Deut. xviii. 1. Numb. x. 9.
o o
o o
Moral duties. 171
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 no thing
of this bold assertion in other particulars beside
the case of tithing. For if neither the state of
man before the Law, nor the Law itself, 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 r .
But that going before can give no rule to these.
Now the Apostle tells us ', that ' those things
were our examples, and written for our admoni-
tion.' And he speaks of things before and
under the Law. And more generally 1 , ' What-
r Deut. xxvii. Levit. xviii. 1 Cor. x. 6, 11.
1 Rom. xv. 4.
o
o o
172 King 9 s power in the Churches.
soever 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".' But the rule drawn
down to particulars is from the commended
practice of the Kings of Judah 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
u Rom. xiii. 1.
) O
o o
Roundheads. 173
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 Assemblies executed, in such
things as they need the civil sword. And there-
fore he doth 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 fastened upon the brethren of the separa-
tion, and they are commonly called Roundheads,
from their fashion of cutting close and rounding
of their hair : a fashion used in Paganism x in
x It is evident the Grecians did wear Ion" 1 hair, and
therefore Homer calls them K.ct*ixoftouvrcts 'A^uitus,
Capite comatos Achivos, 1. 2. Iliad. And Eustathius,
commenting 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 1.
23. II. And at the funeral of Achilles, the Grecians
are said to shed warm tears, %iiovr <rt %aiTas and to
have cut their hair. Homer. 1. 24. Od.
That the Romans wore their hair long, is evident by
Varro, who saith that barbers were not known in Italy
\ /- >.
| , __ . . ^
o o
174 Rounding the head
the times of their mournings, and sad occur-
rences, as these seem to do, putting on in out-
before the year 454, post U. C. About that time Tici-
nius Menas brought them in. Varro, 1. 2. de Re Rust,
c. ult.
And that they did cut their hair at funerals, is plain
in Andreas Tiraquel. Romani in aliis Inctibus quam
funerum capillum TBarbamque pronattebant. Annot. in
Alex, ab Alex. 1. 3. c. 7. But then they cut them.
And when this rounding went close, indeed it came
somewhat near baldness ; which the Jews were likewise
forbidden to make upon themselves for the dead, Deut.
xiv. 1. and Jeremiah xvi. 8.
And as this rounding of the head was sometimes a
sign of superstitious sorrowing, so was it (with some
difference) used as an effeminate and luxurious fashion.
And therefore Ganimedes were said irt^i ^tlgta-fai, cir-
cumtmdere. Dio. Chrysost. Orat. 2. de Regno. And
harlots.
After which manner they say harlots were cut, /<
& ri^tr^ir^aXov. And that it was a kind of rounding the
head, Hesychius in Lexico, verbo trxa<piov. "Which kind
of rounding the hair Tertullian mentions, L. de Cultu
Foeminarium, 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 regality, and the rest were
O O
Q (
forbidden by the Jewish Law. 175
ward show, at least a sour 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'.' This ex-
press text of Scripture troubled the Brownists
and the rest extremely; 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 it is 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
Circumtonsi. Selden, Prsefat. to his titles of honour,
Ex Gedreno. But whether the 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 hypocrisy being not a robe large enough to
hide all of them ; and some of their conventicles have of
late heard ill.
/ Lev. xix. 27.
O O
o o
176 Judicial Law.
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*.' 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
1 1 Cor. xiv.
O : c
o o
Sacramental difference between 177
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. 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.
o 6
; O
178 the Law and the Gospel.
First, because more or less strictness doth not
vary the covenant in nature though it doth in
grace; formagis et 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 Sacra-
menti, the substance of the Sacrament is one
and the same. And so it is 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 eat 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 V And much less can
extent or continuance vary nature : not extent;
for fire contained in a chimney, and spread
miserably over a city, is one and the same in
nature. Not continuance; for then a father
a And so Arist. pursues it. Imperare et parere, non
diflferunt secundum magis et minus, quia differunt specie.
Arist. 1. ii. Polit. c. 8.
b 1 Cor. x. 3, 4.
o ^ o
o o
Christ the Justifier in both. 179
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 , 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 d .' 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 expressly written , that
the * Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to
c 1 Cor. i. 30. d 2 Cor. iii. 14, 18. Gal. iii. 24.
o o
o o
1 80 Typ e an d antitype connatural.
Christ, that we might be justified by faith.'
Our schoolmaster; 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 of the Law's
instruction. And this instruction it could not
so fully give, if this schoolmaster 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. Arid 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,
o o
>- O
Priesthood of the Word Incarnate. 181
and not the very image of the things themselves,
and therefore with those sacrifices could make
nothing perfect'.' But Christ is the Body itself *.
And when ' He came into the world, He saith,
Sacrifice and burnt-offering Thou wouldest not
have, but a Body hast Thou given Me 1 '.' 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 1 .' Nay, so says
Christ Himself k . ' 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 Melchisedec, 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 Melchisidec/ xatra, wr
Toi%n : or as Mont, reads in the margin secundum
morem, according to the form, manner, or rule,
of Melchisedec's Priesthood. And as Melchi-
f Heb. x. 1. * Col. ii. 17. h Heb. x. 4.
I Ps. xl. 7. k John v. 46.
-O
182 Priesthood of Aaron shadowy.
sedec and Christ are type and antitype in their
Priesthood 1 , so the Priesthood of Aaron under
the Law, was but a shadow of the Priesthood of
Christ under the Gospel. And therefore the
Priesthood 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 appropriated 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 Priest-
hood can give no rule, none at all, to the
1 For those Priests served but to the example, and to
the shadow, &c. But now hath he obtained a more
excellent Ministry. Heb. viii. 5, 6.
O O
i : O
Instructiveness of the Law. 183
Ministry 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 1 ", < 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 to the
Apostle",) then can it give no rule in any thing
else pertaining to the Gospel. For the reason
if it be good, holds alike, it is of another nature.
Nay, yet farther, if this reason be true,
universally true, (as it is here given,) then it
reaches to and through the whole Law. No
part of it can give any rule to men or things
under the Gospel. For if no rule to things,
then none to men, who must do or leave un-
done ; 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
m Heb. vii. 12. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 13.
o o
184 Libertinism of arguing
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
labour 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 n . Whereas ' Christ came not to take
away the Law, but to fulfil' it for us , and in
some measure to enable us to keep it also. Arid
in the Gospel, when the Scribe told our Saviour,
that to ' love God with all the heart, and his
neighbour as himself,' (upon which command-
ments hang the whole Law?,) ' 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
n Rom. iii. 8. Mat. v. 17. P Mat.xxii. 40.
o o
O -O
against the Law. 185
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 GodV And though this
be bad enough, and will prove a fruitful mother
of all libertinism and profaneness, 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 Lawgiver 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 unsavoury
consequences as (for ought I know) may justly
be gathered from them. Aud let me tell him
1 Mat. xii. 34.
) _ 6
o o
186 The Apostolic rule
in the mean time, it is a dangerous thing to be
so busy with the Law of God ; and so without
distinction, as he is, lest he intrench upon the
Lawgiver 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
it is manifest by the Apostle in the places'
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 that which
was before be not of another nature from this,
then his reason is false, which says it can give
no rule because it is 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 pro-
position. For whether that which was before, be
or be not of another nature, yet it can give a rule.
r 1 Cor. ix. 9, 13, 14. Rom. xv. 4. 1 Cor. x. 6, 11.
o o
in this matter. 187
I have been long upon this passage, because
I conceive the main controversy 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
gratify him, by being as brief as possibly I can
in all that follows. Thus then this Lord pro-
ceeds :
" The question which will lie 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 sap 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."
o o
O Q
188 Profaneness of Be z a
After this Lord had told us we need not go
so high for the business, he conies now to state
the present question. Where he tells us what
himself means by Episcopacy. Namely, Hie-
rarchical Episcopacy, such as is properly and
now commonly so called in the world. And
this his Lordship adds, because of that distinc-
tion made by Beza in his Tract de Triplici
Episcopatu, Divino scilicet, Humano et Sa-
tanico. 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. Peering in his printed speeches tells us*,
that others in milder language keep the same
sense, and say there is Episcopus, Pastor,
Prceses, and Princeps. So in his account
Episcopus, Princeps, and Satanicus, is all one
in milder terms. But the truth is, that in the
most learned and nourishing ages of the Church,
the Bishops were, and were called, Principes,
Chief and Prime, and Prince, if you will, in
Church affairs. For so Optatus* calls them the
* Sect. 16. p. 122.
1 Apices et Principes omnium. Optat. 1. adv. Parm.
O- O
c o
about Episcopacy. 189
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 Dio-
cesan or Hierarchical Bishops, which doubtless
these Fathers would neither have given nor
taken, had Episcopus, Princeps, and Satanicus
been all one. Nor would Calvin" have taught
us, that the Primitive Church had in every
province among their Bishops one Archbishop,
and that in the Council of Nice Patriarchs were
appointed which should be in order and dignity
Princeps Ecclesise. S. Hilar. 1. viii. de Trin. Prin.
Greg. Nazianz. ascribit {%**, Principarum, ad Re-
gimen Animaruni Episcopo. Orat. 17. et 20.
Quid aliud est Episcopus quam is qui omni Principatu
et Potestate superior est ? in materia et'gradu Religionis.
Ignat. Ep. ad Trail.
Principes Ecclesise fiunt, &c. Opus imperf. in S.
Matth. Horn. 35.
Principes futures Ecclesise Episcopos nominavit. S.
Hier. in Esai. vi. 60.
u Quod autem singulse Provinciae unum habebant
inter Episcopos Archiepiscopum, quod item in Nicena
Synodo constituti sunt Patriarchse, qui essent ordine et
dignitate Archiepiscopis superiores, id ad Disciplinse
conservationem pertinebat. Calv. 4 Inst. E. iv. 4.
o ^ ^ o
o -o
190 What Puritans mean
above Bishops, had he thought either such
Bishops or Archbishops 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 ( x for less it is not)
x Job xviii. 16.
o o
by pruning exuberant Hierarchies. 191
laid upon us; or at least not yet. But what
shall follow in time, when this Bill hath used its
edge, I know not. Well, if not root and branch
taken away, what then ? What ? why, it is
but whether those exuberant and superfluous
branches, which draw away the sap 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 husband-
man, 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?.
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 sap and divert it, and make the Vine less
X John xv. 2.
.0 i o
) : O
192 Objections to this.
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 sap ? Whether a
company of laymen without anyorder or ordi-
nance 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
o u
, 9
And fears. 193
Church itself which is the Vine, which bears
Episcopacy, may bleed to death in this kingdom,
-before men be aware of it. And I am in great
fear, if things go on as they are projected, that
Religion is upon taking its leave of this king-
dom. 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 ad-
" vaiicement over the Presbyters,
" (which although it were but a
" human 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 ig-
" norance and superstition of succeed-
" ing 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
o - o
194 Dignity of Bishops
" 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 con-
" tinued ?"
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 ad-
vancement over the Presbyters ? And you may
be sure they shall be reduced if they once fall
into the hands of this zealous Lord. Reduced
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
o o
o o
in early times. 195
works' sake, as then our predecessors 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 inducement thither : and this is manifest
out of his own next words. For there he says,
their first advancement was but a human device
for avoiding of schism. But a human device ?
Why first, our Saviour Himself chose twelve
Apostles out of the whole number of His
Disciples, and made them Bishops, and ad-
vanced over the Presbyters, and all other be-
lieving 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
Bishopric and Apostleship of Judas 1 . Now
that Christ Himself did ordain the Apostles
z Acts i. 20, 24, 25.
o
o - o
196 The Episcopate is of Christ.
over the ordinary Disciples, Presbyters or
others, is evident also in the very text ; for He
chose them out of His Disciples*. And to
what end was this choosing out, if after this
choice they remained no more than they were
before ? Nay, He chose them out with a special
ordination to a higher function; as appears in
St. Mark iii. where it is 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 St. Mark
is eVonje-gy, 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 trans-
lation 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
Matthias" was one of the Seventy when he was
chosen ; and then this choice needed not, if the
* Luke vi. 13.
*> Euseb. 1. i. Hist. c. 12. and 1. ii. c. 1.
o - o
o o
Authority of Tradition. 197
Seventy had been before of equal place and
calling with the Apostles. For as S. Jerome
speaks, he that is preferred, is preferred de
minori ad majus, from a less and a lower, to a
greater and a higher degree. Now it is traditio
universalis, the constant and universal tradition
of the whole Church of Christ, which is of
greatest authority next to Scripture itself, that* 1
Bishops are successors of the Apostles, and
Presbyters made in resemblance of the Seventy
c S. Hieron. Ep. ad Occan.-
d A pud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi :
apud eos (i. e. Montani 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 Ps. xliv.
Sicut autem duodecim Apostolos formam Episcoporum
prsemonstrare nemo est qui dubitet, sic et hos LXXII
figuram Presbyterorum, i. e. secundi Ordinis Sacerdo-
tium egessisse sciendum est. Beda in Luc. 10.
Apostoli eognoverunt contentionem de Nomine Epis-
copatus oboriturum, et ideo constituerunt prsedictos, et
cum consensu Universae Ecclesise. Clem. Ep. 1. ad
Corinth, p. 57.
But I am prevented here by a Chaplain of mine,
Mr. Jer. Taylor, in his Book entitled Episcopacy
Asserted, . 10.
o 6
Q
198 What honours have gathered
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
human device to avoid schism. But there hath
been so much written of late to prove Episco-
pacy no human 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 of-
fensive ; 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 addition of such things as their
own ambition, and the ignorance and supersti-
o
Q- O
round the Episcopate. ] 99
tion 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 Emperors and great Kings have con-
ferred 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 busy Lord is at
leisure to tell me. In the mean time I doubt
the piety and devotion of these times is here
miscalled ignorance and superstition, while the
knowledge of these times, in too many, is a
O O
o o
200 Political offices
running headlong into sacrilege, as the best
way to cure superstition.
But these things, whatever they be, his Lord-
ship tells us, are now continued for several
politic ends. Yea, and with his Lordship's
favour, for several and great religious ends too.
But if they were continued for politic ends only,
so the policies be good and befitting Christians,
I know no reason why they may not be cou-
linued. For, as for that which is here given by
this Lord, it is either weak or false. He says
these things are heterogeneal to their function,
that is weak. For, it is not possible for any
Priest, that is not cloistered, to live so in the
world, as to meddle with nothing that is hetero-
geneal to their function. And he says farther,
that these things are inconsistent with their
function ; and that is 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 e six of
each Tribe have been of the Sanhedrim, and so
by consequence six of the Tribe of Levi; and
e Bertram de Poit. Jud. c. 6.
o o
o o
not inconsistent with Priestly ones. 201
so the High Priest might be always one, and a
chief in that great Cour', 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 Priesthood was. For beside their
sacrificing, they were to read and expound the
Law, as well as we the Gospel. For so it is
expressly set down f . ' They (that is, the tribe
of Levi) shall teach Jacob Thy judgments, and
Israel Thy laws.' So that meddling 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 further, 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
f Deut. xxxiii. 10.
O O
Q- Q
202 Services of Bishops in old times.
predecessors for many hundred years together,
that neither they nor we could see and discern,
what was and is hurtful to ourselves, 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
meddling 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 plenti-
fully done, they cannot hurt themselves by it ;
and to others, and the very public itself, 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 judi-
" cature, and their employment by
" obligation of office in civil affairs.
" I shall insist upon this to shew,
A
o o
Bishop Juxon. 203
" first, how these things hurt them-
" selves ; and secondly, how they have
" made and ever will make them hurt-
" ful to others."
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. Juxoii,
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
6 o
o o
204 Civil honours of Bishops ;
from their subjects. And this, as it is every
where true, yet it is 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 Par-
liaments 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 punished : for no causes
were handled there but Ecclesiastical, and those
such as were very heinous, either for the crime
itself, or the persons which committed it, being
too great or too wilful to be ruled by the
inferior jurisdictions. As for the Star Chamber,
there were ordinarily but two Bishops present,
a ad it was fit some should be there : for that
o o
O C
diminished by the Reformation. 205
court was a mixed court of law, equity,
honour, and conscience, and was composed 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 main-
tain the equity of the court. So here were but
two Bishops employed, 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 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 ;
O i O
206 Example
" They themselves are hurt thereby in
" their conscience and in their credits.
" In their conscience, by seeking and
" admitting things which are incon-
" sistent 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 con-
sciences 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 other-
wise : 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 offered, or in a manner laid upon some
of them by the supreme power, are hurtful to
their consciences, because they are inconsistent
with the function to which God hath set them
o-
o o
of St. Austin. 207
apart. But I have proved already, that they
are not inconsistent with that function, and so
there is 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 it is well known that St. Augustin did
both in great perfection, so high up in the
Primitive Church, and in that great and learned
age : for he complains 8 that he had nor fore-
noon nor afternoon 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 dis-
patched with that great dexterity to most men's
content, h that men did not only bring their
secular causes before him, but were very de-
ft S. Aug. Ep. 110.
h Et homines quidam causas suas ssecuiares apud nos
finire capientes, &c. S. Aug. Epist. 147. et Amb. 1. v.
Epist 33.
c o
o o
208 St. Ambrose.
sirous lo have him determine them. 'And
St. Ambrose was in greater employment for
secular affairs than St. Augustin was, for he
was Bishop and Governor of Milan both at
once ; and was so full of this employment, that
St. 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 Clergymen of great note,
who have been employed in great embassies, and
great offices under Emperors and Kings, and
discharged them with great fidelity and ad-
vantage to the public, and without detriment to
the Church. And surely they would never have
* Non enim quaerere ab eo poteram quod volebam
sicut volebam, secludentibus me ab ejus aure et ore
catervis negotiorum hominum, quorum infirmitatibus
serviebat. S. Aug. 1. vi. Confess, c. 3.
Similiter Zozomen. refert de Epiphanio, 1. vi. Hist,
c. 3.
Et de Jacobo quodam, Theod. 1. ii. Hist. c. 30.
Et de Chrysostomo, Socrat. 1. vii. Hist c. 8.
Et Constantinus communicabat cum Episcopis Con-
silia de expeditione sua contra Persas. Euseb. 1. i. de
vita Constant, c. 35.
) O
o- o
Ancient Canons. 209
taken this burthen upon them, had their con-
science been hurt by it, or had it been incon-
sistent 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
" misemploy things dedicated, and
" set apart, to the service of God.
" They are called to preach the
" Gospel, and set apart to the work
" of the Ministry ; and the Apostle
" saith, ' Who is sufficient for these
" things ?' shewing that this re-
" quireth 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 w r orld, will draw a guilt upon
" them, as being inconsistent with
O O
o - . -
210 Priests must not misemploy
" 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 misemploy things dedicated and set
apart to the service of God. And therefore, as
Ministers must not misemploy their persons or
their times, which are dedicated to God and His
service ; no more must laymen take away and
misemploy 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
scainblhig 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
6
o o
their persons or their times. 211
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 preservation, 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
public safety of the state as well as their own*
Nor doth that of the Apostle k , ' Who is suf-
ficient 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 considered,) 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 1 ,' and if able, then doubtless sufficient.
And the Greek word is the same, i'xetioe, sufficient in
the one place, andWMTo faZf, made us sufficient
k 2 Cor. ii. 16. I 2 Cor. iii. 6.
O-
-o
212 To give civil counsels
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 preach-
ing 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 to settle the
Lord's-Day, arid other Holy-days under the
Gospel, for the public 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 public 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
o o
is not misemployment. 213
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 he 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
Clergymen 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 speak-
ing of Bishops having any thing to do in civil
affairs, he speaks of nothing but taking of
offices. Now a Clergyman 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 world all do.
Now that a Bishop or other Clergyman may
lawfully meddle with some temporal affairs,
(always provided that he entangle" 1 not himself
m 'FT? !xT*/ ; implicatur.
O- O
o o
214 Example of St. Luke
with them; for that indeed no man doth that
wars for Christ as he ought ,) is, I think, very
evident, not only by that which the Priests did,
and might do under the Law; hut also- by that
which was done after Christ, in the Apostle's
time, and by some of them. To study and
practise physic 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 , 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 St. Paul himself, when
he might have lived on the Gospel by the
Lord's own ordinance P, would never have be-
taken himself to live by making of tents q , 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 :
n 2 Tim. ii. 4. Col. iv. 14. P 1 Cor. ix.
1 Acts xviii.
o o
o o
and St. Paul 215
and this Lord and others, who would not have
Ministers meddle with civil affairs, are content,
not only, to the disgrace of the Ministry, but
even of Religion itself, to hear feltmakers, and
ironmongers, and gardeners, and brewers, and
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-preach-
ers shall hurry them to Heaven in some fiery
chariot ; and I myself in time might be brought
to believe it too, did I not see Phaeton setting
the Christian world on fire, but no Elias there.
Nor yet will St. Paul's example any whit
advantage them : for he was no ignorant trades-
man, but a learned Pharisee, brought up under
Gamaliel'. 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 know-
r Acts xxii.
o , o
O C
216 Our Saviour has not
ledge 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 St. Paul's revelation as well as his trade,
and then I will say more to them. But this
Lord is very full in this theme, and falls upon
another argument.
" In this respect (saith he) our Saviour
" hath expressly prohibited it, telling
" his Apostles that they should not
" lord it over their brethren, nor ex-
" ercise jurisdiction over them, as was
" used in civil governments among
" the heathen. They were called
" gracious lords, and exercised juris-
" diction, 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
O O
o o
prohibited it 217
" 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 expressly prohibited
it : and if it be so, there is an end of the con-
troversy. No question but it is utterly unlaw-
ful, if our Saviour prohibited it. But where is
it that he hath done so ? Where ? Why it is
where he tells his Apostles, that they should
not ' lord it over their brethren.' Not lord it
over their brethren ? that is true. Nor exercise
jurisdiction over them ? that is false, if the
proposition be general; for then there can be
no order, no government, among Churchmen.
And if it be particular, no such jurisdiction as
o o
>_ O
218 Instances
was used in civil government among the heathen,
then it is fit to weigh this place through and
throughout. Well then ! The mother of Zebe-
dee'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 .'
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 St. Mark, x.
35. tells us ; and they came with her when she
made it ; so St. Matthew, xx. 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 1 ,
which (I conceive) He would not have done,
had not they been in the business : and partly,
because the other ten disdained" at the two
brethren for this*. Secondly, if it were here
8 Mat xx. 21.
1 Ver. 22, 23.
u Or were moved with indignation,
* Ver. 24.
o- o
) O
from the Gospels. 219
meant by 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? ;' 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 in-
dependent power ; for so xocTotxv^isvtiv signifies,
which takes not away superiority over others, so
they be subject to the Prince and State. Or
y Yer. 25, 26.
o
O , O
220 Instances
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
and at My left is not Mine to give 7 ',' is, that
God the Father 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 is 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 it is all one to our present business, which
z Annot. in Mat. xx. 23.
C <
o o
from the Gospels. 221
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 3 ,' that cannot prejudice all juris-
diction in men in Holy Orders ; as if to meddle
with it were forbidden by Christ, or, as if it
were Antichristian, as now it is made ; since it
is plain that Christ there forbids neither the
title, nor the preeminence, nor the authority,
but the vain-glorious affectation of it b , and that
is 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 , and then, for ought I know,
this truth will come in as strongly to pull down
a Mat. xxiii. 8. b Ver. 5, 6. Ver. 1.
o o
o
222 Instances
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 he greatest who
is the greatest servant to the rest : though the
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 is 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 supe-
riority 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 heirs; 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 neces-
sary government thereof, though they neither
do nor may domineer over their brethren. And
o o
from the Gospels. 223
therefore where St. Matthew d reads it, he that
will be, ply*<s, great; and, ^r^aro?, first among
you; there St. Luke e hath it, o P.IIT&H, greater;
and, gjyot^svo? f , chief or leader. 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 institu-
tion 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 left his Church
in a worse condition, than this Lord acknow-
ledges 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,
d Mat. xx. 26, 27.
e Luke xxii. 26.
f And St. Paul uses it for a Bishop or Governor,
Heb. xiii. 1.
Q
c o
224 Instances
that ' he which lays his hand to the plough,
and looks 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 g .
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 Chris-
tian, 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
8 Luke ix. 62.
O O
O O
from the Gospels. 225
may meddle, that will live godly in Christ
Jesus.
If this be not sufficient, this Lord will prove
it ere 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 received 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 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 sea-
" son 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 Min-
" istry."
o 6
o
226 Misinterpretation
I see my Lord will not mend his terms,
though they mar the sense, and mislay the
question. For no man says that which this
Lord so often repeats ; namely, that a Bishop
or any other Clergyman may entangle himself
with the affairs of this life (which yet may he
with covetousness and voluptuous living, as
much or more than with being called to counsel
in civil affairs) hyany office received from man,
from the discharge of that office, which God
hath called them unto. No ! God forbid ! this
would hring 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
o = o
o o
of Holy Scripture. 227
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 Lord-
ship adds, I doubt his Lordship understands it
not as the Apostle means it; for it is a text
very much abused by ignorant zeal. For when
he saith, ' Woe unto me if I preach not the
Gospel",' what doth he mean ? if he preach riot
once a quarter ? No sure, that is 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 inde-
pendent congregations, and then call it preach-
ing: 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
h 1 Cor. ix. 16.
o-
-o
o o
228 What it is
you St. Paul interprets himself 1 ; it is to ' preach
the word.' It is indeed, and neither schism nor
sedition, which are the common themes of these
times. It is to be instant in preaching the
word, as God gives ability and opportunity; it
is 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 ;
it is to rebuke, exhort, and instruct with know-
ledge 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 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 mariner, is not only to go up into
2 Tim. iv. 2.
o o
to preach the Word. 229
the pulpit, and thence deliver wholesome and
pious instructions, and necessary and Christian
reproof, though this be, as the commendable, so
the ordinary, way of public preaching, that most
at once may hear. For he may be said to
preach the Gospel, that any ways declares Christ
crucified, and informs the understandings and
consciences of men, for right belief and true
obedience, be it privately or publicly ; be it by
word of mouth or by writing : and a man may
be seasonably instant this way sometimes, when
in the public way of preaching he cannot. And
if this be not so, how is it said of the Apostles k ,
that ' in the temple, and in every house, they
ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus Christ.'
' I have taught you publicly, and from house
to house 1 .' 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 m ,' and espe-
k Acts v. 42. 1 Acts xx. 20. m Rom. xii. 7.
> O
o o
230 Apostolic
cially this of the Ministry ; 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 wait-
ing upon his office. He must wait upon it,
that is true; but he must provide necessaries
too, that he may be able to wait. Next this
Lord tells us,
" The practice of the Apostles is answer-
" able 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 secu-
" lar affairs and employments upon
" them, that they would not admit of
" the care and distraction that a busi-
" ness far more agreeable to their
" callings than these would cast upon
" them, and they give the reason of
" it in Acts vi. 2. ' It is not reason
o o
o . o
practice. 231
" 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 en-
tangling 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. For if
any offices or employments, how agreeable
o o
o o
232 Apostolic
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 successors may not,
trouble themselves with them : when as yet the
Apostles might, and their successors 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
Clergymen now. Which may appear by the
very reason they have given, and here remem-
bered, 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
jtetTatefyocvTxs, 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.
O O
o o
practice. 233
" 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 con-
" tinually unto prayer, and to the
" ministry of the word. Did the
" Apostles, men of extraordinary gifts,
" think it unreasonable for them to be
" hindered 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 sit-
" ting at council-tables, to govern
" states, to turn statesmen instead
" of Churchmen, to sit in the high-
" est courts of judicature, and to
" be employed in making laws
O
o o
234 Office
" for civil polities and govern-
" ment ?"
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 their widows were
neglected in the daily ministration".' There-
fore till the work grew so heavy, and the con-
tentions so warm, the Apostles themselves did
order those tables, and attend them too.
Therefore the work was not unlawful in itself
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 itself, is ever so ; there-
fore the most that can be made of this example
is, that it was lawful, very lawful, and charitable
too, for the Apostles to take care of those tables
n Acts vi. 1.
o o
of Deacons. 235
themselves ; and they did it. For all the
provision for the poor was brought and ' laid at
the Apostles' feet ,' 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 increasing burthen too
heavy for both the one work and the other,
then, 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 it is 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 pre-
ferred. But then you must not measure preach-
Acts iv. 35.
) _ . 6
O : O
236 Office
ing only by a formal going up into the pulpit :
for a Bishop (and such occasions are often
offered) may preach the Gospel more publicly,
and to far greater edification, 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 advance-
ment of the Gospel, than any one of Lordship's
sect at a table's 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 chillness 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 up both the verity
o o
o o
of Deacons. 237
and devotion which attend religion; and, Non
minor est virtus, quam qu&rere, parta tueri.
So there may be as great virtue in the action,
though perhaps not equal necessity of it.
Besides, Deacons were not laymen, but men
in Holy Orders, though inferior to the Apostles ;
as appears by Stephen's undertaking the Liber-
tines and Cyrenians in the cause of Christ;
and Philip's preaching of Christ in Samaria,
and baptizing p . And if they were of the
Seventy, (as Epiphanius thinks they were q ,)
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
P Acts vi. 6, 9. viii. 5, 38. q User.
o o
O ' O
238 Office
tables, and to distract them from preaching of
the word ; which they thought unfit for them-
selves 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 r , that in things of moment they could
do nothing Nee quicquam without the au-
thority of the Presbyters. So they meddled
still.
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 8 . ' But we will give ourselves
continually to prayer, and the Ministry 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
r Calvin in Acts xxi. s Acts vi. 4.
o o
o :
of Deacons. 239
considered not) this word continually is not in
the text. For in the Greek the word is TT^OO-
tcetTiv<ro(M , 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 rhetoric, which I shall answer as
I repeat it. Did the Apostles, (saith his Lord-
ship,) men of extraordinary gifts, think it un-
reasonable for them to be hindered from giving
themselves continually to preaching the word
and prayer, by taking care of the tables of the
poor widows ? No ; sure 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
is no such word in the text. The word is, owe
#g<rrv, ' it is not meet.' Now many things may
not be meet or comely, which yet are not alto-
gether unreasonable : nay, which at some times,
and upon some occasions, may be meet and
O-
-o
240 Apostolic practice.
comely enough ; nay, perhaps necessaiy for the
very Gospel itself, and therefore no way un-
reasonable ; howsoever at this time unfit for the
Apostles, and worthily refused by them.
Well; the rhetoric 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 suffi-
ciently 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 surprised
O _ O
o o
Preaching and government. 241
with it as altogether unlocked 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 knows what trouble befel
him, and in time they will know why too, 1
hope. Besides, the care of government, which
is another part of a Bishop's office, and a neces-
sary 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.
o o
o o
242 Greater reason for Church
And preaching (as it is 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', 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 rhetoric 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 Statesmen instead of Church-
men. No, but doing the duty of Churchmen,
to mingle pious counsels with Statesmen's
wisdom. To sit in the highest courts of judi-
cature. And why not, in a kingdom where the
laws and customs require it ? Not to be em-
ployed in making laws for civil polities and
government. And I conceive there is great
reason for this in the kingdom of England, and
1 John xxi. 15.
O
o o
Statesmen since the Reformation. 243
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
itself, 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, aud 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
o o
o o
244 For what reason.
laws, so is there greater reason for it since the
Reformation than before. For before that time
Clergymen 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
Clergymen are and have long since been ex-
cluded from being Members of the House of
Commons, and now the Bishops and their votes,
by this last Act, are cast out of the Lords'
House. By which it is at this day come to
pass, that by the justice of England, as now it
stands, no Clergyman hath a consent, by him-
self 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
o o
Loyalty of the Bishops. 245
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 cany what
they pleased, especially in the Upper 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 de-
o o
o _
246 Loyalty of the Bishops.
vout taking away the Bishops and the Church-
lands, and perhaps the Parsons' tithes 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 prophesy
a little : and it is hut 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 con-
fusion, 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 em-
" ployments, they must not be there
" as ignorant men, but must be know-
" ing in business of State ; and under-
" stand the rules and laws of govern-
" ment, and thereby both their time
o o
O
Their learning. 247
" and studies must be necessarily
" diverted from that which God hath
" called them unto. And this surely
" is much more unlawful for them to
" admit of, than that which the
" Apostles rejected as a distraction
" unreasonable for them to be inter-
" rupted 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, it
is 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, 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
o <
o c
248 Bishops hateful
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 fonnerly
in this, and doth at present in other neigh-
bouring 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
bums still, and as it hath fired him already out
of the Church, and made him a Separatist ; so
it would now fire the Bishops out of the State,
O
o o
to Separatists. 249
and make them members of Antichrist. His
Lordship goes on therefore, and as before he
told us the practice of the Apostles was an-
swerable 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 Ministry,
" presseth this argument from the
" example of a good soldier : ' no
" man that warreth entangleth him-
" self 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 Ministry,
o o
o o
250 Separatists 9 sour divinity
presseth this argument from the example of a
good soldier ; that ' no man that warreth,
IP* tix,iT on, entangles himself with the affairs of
the world".' The word e^5rAg<w signifies invol-
vere et permiscere se, to involve, and, as it
were, throughly to mingle himself with that
which he undertakes ; to be so busied, ut extri-
care se non possit, that he cannot untwist him-
self 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 x . But this bars not all meddling with it. For
the Geneva note upon that place says plainly,
he may not entangle himself; no, not so much
as with his household 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 compe-
tency which this devout age thinks sufficient for
the Ministry. Nay, which is more, he may by
so doing fall under that heavy sentence of the
u 2 Tim. ii. 4. x Anuot. ibid.
o o
o 9
on this matter. 251
Apostles 7 , ' That if he provide not for his own,
he hath denied the faith, and is worse than are
infidels.' Nay, which is yet more, if all med-
dling 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 x . 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
fear of this Lord's sour divinity, that all med-
dling 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 com-
mand 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
y 1 Tim. v. 8. * 2 Tim. ii. 4.
) O
O :
252 Separatist divinity.
sin, not to busy 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
employed (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 Ministry, (as
here he affirms,) as for the general work of
Christianity. For a , he exhorts to constancy
and perseverance, that he be strong in the grace
which is in Jesus Christ. And then this argu-
ment 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
a Ver. 1.
O
o
Lord Say's conclusion. 253
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 com-
" mandment of our Saviour, by the
" practice and doctrine of the Apostles,
" and I may add by the Canons of
" ancient Councils grounded there-
" upon, 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 reason-
" able for them to admit of; if they
" shall notwithstanding entangle them-
" selves withal, and enter into, it will
" bring a guilt upon their souls, and
" hurt them in respect of their con-
" sciences."
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 argu-
o o
o <
254 Canons of ancient Councils.
ments. 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 is his desire Clergymen
should) to the next point.
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 worldly affairs, by the Canons of ancient
Councils grounded upon the Apostles' doctrine.
The Church is much beholden to this Lord
that he will vouchsafe to name her ancient
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 ancient Coun-
o o
Bp. Taylor on Episcopacy. 255
cils as I find, and see what they say in this
business.
The first I meet withal is but here I find
myself met with and prevented too, by a book
entitled, Episcopacy asserted", made 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 Clergymen 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 Chap-
lain hath not met with or omitted. And the
last that I meet with is the 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 Prelates 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
b Episcopacy Asserted, . 49.
c Cone. Sardicens. edit. Lat. apud Bion. torn. i.
par. i. p. 431.
o o
o o
256 Practice of Constantine.
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 is
their office and duty directly: and I see no
reason why the physicians should be forbid to
visit the places of greatest sickness. This I am
sure of, Constantine the Great d commanded the
personal attendance of Bishops and other Clergy-
men in his Court. And if it be temporal, they
may go : that is 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, iii whom doth or should reside the
care of Religion and religious conversation.
d Euseb. de Vita Constant. 1. i. c. 35.
6 o
o
Council of Carthage. 257
But perchance I have known some counsels
miscarry for want of this.
The next is the first Council at Carthage d ,
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 any failure in such great accounts. And
in the code* of the African Councils it is thus
read, non sint conductores et procurators, nee
ullo turpi et inhonesto negotio, victum queer ant:
which I think is the truer reading. And then
this Council doth not forbid all meddling 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 Coim-
d Cone. Carthag. 1. Can. vi.
e Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. Can. xvi.
6 O
o o
258 Eliberis.
cil of Eliberis f , about the year of our Lord 306,
where the Canon seems to be very strict against
Clergymen's going to markets arid fairs, negoti-
andi causa, to make profit by negociation ; 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 negociate,
either for their necessary maintenance or im-
provement of their fortunes, so that they
wandered 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
f Episcopi, Presbyter! et Diaconi de loeis suis nego-
tiandi causa non discedant, nee circumeuntes provincial
quaestuosas nundinas sectentur. Sane ad victum suum
conquirendum, aut filium, aut libertum, aut merce-
narium, aut amicum, aut quemlibet mittant: et si
voluerint negotiari intra provinciam, negotientur. Cone.
Eliberit. Can. xviii.
o o
o o
Sum of them all. 259
all ; that neither Bishop nor other Clergyman
might or may, by the Canons of holy Church,
ambitiously seek, or voluntarily of himself
assume, any secular engagement. And as they
might riot 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 8 , yet
they might do .any lawful thing imposed on
them by their superiors. And so might the
Bishop (who had no superior in his province)
if the Prince required his service; or that he
thought it necessary for the present state of the
e Aut negotiis ssecularibus se immiscere prseter
pupillorum si forte leges imponant in excusabilem
curam, aut civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiastiearuin rerum
solicitudinem habere prsecipiat, aut orphanorum ,et
viduarum, eorum qui sine ulla defensione sunt, ac
personarum quse maxime indigent Ecclesiastieo adju-
torio, et propter timorem Domini causa deposcat. Cone.
Chalced. Act. xv. Can. iii.
) O
O O
260 The Bishops might be
Church in which he lived : for if he might
transmit 11 his power to those of the inferior
Clergy, no douht 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 Clergyman, 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 Chal-
cedon, 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 immiscere 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 the
Canon of any Council which I have yet seen,
h Balsamon. in Concil. Chalcedon. c. iii. p. 327.
O C
o o
called by Princes to help them. 261
that speaks most against Clergymen's 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 ancient 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
O-
o . c
262 This allowed by Christ,
attending poor widows' tables was to the
Apostles : and yet he sees what some Canons
of ancient Councils have decreed in this case.
Besides, we cannot have a better or a clearer
evidence of the true meaning of the ancient
Canons than from the practice of the ancient
Fathers of the Church, who were strict and
conscientious observers of the Canons, and yet
(as is before proved) meddled in many, and
some the greatest civil affairs, being employed
as ambassadors from great Emperors and Kings:
and Balsamon' observes, that whensoever it
shall please the Prince to call any Bishops to
such employments, they neither are to be re-
strained by the aforesaid Canons, nor censured
by them.
I conclude this point then, that Bishops are
not prohibited to meddle with civil public
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
1 Balsam, in Cone. Carthag. prima, Can. xvi.
p. 328, 329.
o o
p 9
the Apostles, and Church Canons. 263
I may add, not by Canons of ancient Councils
(rightly understood), nor are all of them
such distractions as will bring a woe upon
Bishops or other Clergymen, though they
meddle with them : I rather believe some things
will be in a woeful case if they meddle riot. And
in some cases there is 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 et
Ecclesice, 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 contraiy, proceeds now to the next point,
and says, that
o 6
O O
264 Secular business does not
" In the next place, this meddlin
" poral affairs doth blemish them, and
" strike them in their credits; so far
" from truth is that position which
" they desire to possess the world
" withal, that unless they may have
" those outward trappings, or worldly
" pomp, added to the Ministry, 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 us 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
o ; 6
o (
degrade the Episcopate. 265
to the Ministry, 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 heen long since cut short enough
in England ; and he that will not look upon the
Bishops with an evil eye, must needs acknow-
ledge 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 courtesy,
" but they have cast them out of the
" consciences of men ; and the reason
" is this, every thing is esteemed as it
o o
Q .
266 Secular business does not
" is eminent in its own proper excel-
" lency ; 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 excel-
" lency is spiritual, the denial of the
" world, with the pomps, and prefer-
" ments, and employments thereof.
" This they should teach and practise."
Well then, the question is, Whether the
honour of Bishops and their employments in
temporal affairs, as they are at this day mode-
rated 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 wise as this Lord thinks himself, and
yet he says plainly k , that though wisdom in
itself be far better than folly, yet ' the poor man's
k Eccles. ix. 16.
o o
o , o
degrade the Episcopate. 267
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 despite which the
boisterous multitude, when their sins are re-
proved, are apt to cast upon them. And
whatsoever this Lord thinks, it is a great credit
and support to the rest of the Clergy, and being
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 con-
sidered in abstract, in and by itself 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 courtesy,
but have cast them out of the consciences of
o o
o o
268 Episcopate degraded
men. It is 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 Parlia-
ment hath taken away their trappings. As for
that which follows next, that these things have
cast them out of the consciences of men, that is
not so : for in other kingdoms that are Chris-
tian, 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, schism and separation
hath 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, ' Wisdom is better than
o o
o o
"by the late schism. 269
folly V 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, it is 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, it is merely fallacious. For
arguments drawn from natural things, which
ever work constantly the same way, to moral
things, which depend upon voluntary and mu-
table 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 is true, because they are
agents determined ad unum, to that one ope-
ration, 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
1 Eccles. ix. 16.
o o
) O
270 Our Lord's words
other things so long as they can observe the
Apostle's rule m , 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 be so
" amongst you :' instead of honour
" and esteem, they h'ave brought upon
" themselves, in the hearts of the
" people, that contempt and odium
" 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
m 1 Cor. vii. 31.
o o
o_ , o
carelessly brought forward. 271
" contend for it, before their own ;
" which being spiritual, is far more
" excellent, and which being proper
" to the Ministry, 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 ampli-
ation, 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 con-
trary 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, it is
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 pre-
o o
o o
272 Sectarian hate of Bishops.
cept, 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 hypocrisy. 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.
o o
o o
T/ie present Bishops. 273
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
myself, 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. It
is true, that their own calling being spiritual, is
far more excellent ; and I shall the better be-
lieve 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
itself, 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 flesh and blood are so dull,
that little will be done. And suppose this
religious Lord, and some few like himself, would
-c
> o
274 Present Bishops.
value and esteem them for their spiritual calling
only, yet what are these to so many as would
contemn 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
o-
i Q
Lord Say's second argument. 275
" will make them hurtful to others.
" The reason is, because they break
" out of their own orb, and move
" irregularly. There is a curse 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,
o c
o o
276 This kingdom blessed
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 blessings and successes have come
both upon this kingdom and other nations, by
counsels given by Clergymen ; 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 fall from
" their regular and proper motions,
6
O
by counsels of Clergy. 277
" they would set the world on fire.
" So have these done. While they
" kept themselves to the work of the
" Ministry alone, and gave them-
" selves to prayer and the Ministry
" of the word, according to the ex-
" ample 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
" heaven to earth, and they did grow
" once to be advanced above their
" brethren ; I do appeal to all who
" have been versed in the ancient
" Ecclesiastical history, or modern
" histories, whether they have not
" been the common incendiaries 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 there-
Q
c_ c
278 Apostles meddled
" by casting them into bloody
" wars."
This argument is grounded upon si ccelum
ruat, if heaven falls, we shall get store of larks.
But heaven cannot fall, and so it is 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, Clergymen are not so fixed to their
orbs as those heavenly bodies are, but in them-
selves 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 public 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
6
o o
271 temporal affairs. 279
to prayer and to the Ministry 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 brought the
money, and laid it at the Apostles' feet",' 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 lay-
ings 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 ex-
ample 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
n Acts iv. 37.
o o
o o
280 The Apostles.
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 , 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 it is well
known Christ and his Apostles did ? Indeed,
if any Bishops or other Clergymen 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
Acts iv. 32.
O (
O (
Ecclesiastical history. 281
Chief in order p , 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 ancient or modern
Ecclesiastical histories; that is 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 human nature, as that it follows it into
all professions and estates of men : and I would
to God Clergymen had been freer from this
fault than histories testify they have. But this
hath been but the fault of some ; many
reverend Bishops in all ages have been clear of
it, and it is a personal corruption in whomso-
ever 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 ex-
cepted) been the common incendiaries of the
P Luke xxii. 20.
o
O -
282 The Bishops
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 ,' there would be a full dis-
covery 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 yourselves about with
sparks, walk in the light of your own fire, and
in the sparks which yourselves have kindled.
This shall ye have of My hand, ye shall lie
down in sorrow'.'
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 inter-
meddle in secular affairs; that so to do is
hurtful to themselves in conscience and in
q Ps. Ixxxvi. 17. * Is. 1. 11.
o 6
o o
not incendiaries. 283
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, con-
tended 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 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 med-
dling in temporal affairs. But whatever caused
o o
284 Calvin's Presbytery
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 ancient Barons'
wars in England upon his Lordship and the
honourable Barons now living. But howsoever
by this it is plain, that this Lord would not only
have the Bishops turned out of all civil em-
ployments, 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 is 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 Ministry ? No,
by no means: only the Bishops are faulty.
For do you think that Calvin would have taken
-O
o o
meddle as much. 285
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 9
inflict civil punishments in his consistory. For
he committed divers to prison for dancing, and
those not mean ones neither ; and he l arbitrated
divers causes; and in a great controversy
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 ih&t v fratres mei (saith he)
huic provincice subeundce 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 merely 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
' Omnes in carcerem conjecti sunt, &c. Calvin.
Epist. ad Farellum.
t Calvin. Epist. ad Viretum, fol. 373. Edit. 1575.
u Calvin. Epist. ad Farellum, fol. 384.
o o
o o
286 Beza on the embassy
himself brags of it, that the Senate was his
and the people his *. And to increase his
strength, and make it more formidable, he
brought in fifty or more of the French his
countrymen and friends, and by his solicitation
made them free denizens of the city; * 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* tells
us ; my worthy predecessor a Archbishop Ban-
croft assures me, Beza was one of these three-
score. And yet what a crying sin is it grown
in a Bishop to be honoured with a seat at the
council-table ? Besides this; when Geneva sent
a solemn embassy to Henry IV. of France,
x Senatum esse nostrum. Calvin, ad Farellum, fol. 72.
Populum esse nostrum. Calvin, ad Viretum, fol. 73.
X Calvin. Epist. ad Viret. fol. 163.
Bodin, 1. ii. de Repub. c. 6.
a Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline, c. 26.
o o
; O
to Henry IV of France. 287
about the razing of a fort which was built near
their city by the Duke of Savoy, b 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 himself . And I am sure lasus
proximus may reach into the cognizance of
almost all civil causes. Or can any man
imagine that so religious a man as Mr. Dam-
port, 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
*> Thuan. Hist Anno 1600. c. 125.
c Beza de Excommun. p. 47.
o o
) O
288 Henderson the Scot.
upon and confirmed ; 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 suffered 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 opi-
nion ? 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 it is a venture but
it shall prove treason againt the fundamental
laws of the kingdom, and an endeavouring to
bring in an arbitrary government. Well ! I
will tell you a tale. There is a Minister at this
day in London, of great note among the fac-
tion, well esteemed by this Lord and others of
this outcry against the Bishops' votes in Parlia-
O
o
Religion of the times. 289
ment, and their meddling in civil affairs ; this
man (I will spare his name) being pressed by
a friend of his, how he came to be so eager
against the Church, of which and her govern-
ment 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 it is no matter for all this; his Lordship
hath yet more to say againt 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 ;
o
o
290 Untruth.
" 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 needs
say it is 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 depend-
" ency upon the Pope, and any foot-
" ing thereby out of the land, there
" were never any that carried them-
" selves with so much scorn and
" insolency towards the Princes of this
" kingdom, as they have done. Two
o o
o o
Insolency of Clergy. 291
" of them the Bishop that last spake
" hath named, but instances of many
" more may be given, whereof there
" would be no end."
It is true indeed we need not go out of our
own kingdom for examples of their insolency
and cruelty. For in so many ages it is no
wonder in any kingdom to find some bad ex-
amples, be it of insolency, cruelty, or what you
will : especially in the midst of so much pros-
perity as accompanied Clergymen in those
times. But it is 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, carried 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
O O
o o
292 Insolency of Roundheads.
subsist out of the land : which may, and I hope
will, be a sufficient warning to his Majesty and
his successors, never to let in again a foreign
supreme power into any of his dominions. For
it is 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 dependence as the
Bishops then had, that dare use the most graci-
ous 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 Archbishop 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
o o
o o
Richard II. Henri/ IV. 293 !
be no end; this is a piece of this Lord's loud
rhetoric, which can have no truth in it, espe-
cially 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 hi 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 irreligiously and
traiterously 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
c o
294 A misgoverned
desolation it might bring upon us, God in
Heaven knows. So this Lord may see, if he
will, what a Parliament itself 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
6 _ c
o o
Parliament. 295
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 incon-
venience, 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 inconvenience.
Had I said thus much, I had been a Papist out
of question. Secondly; I will appeal to any
prudent and moderate Protestant in the Chris-
tian 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, it is
because they have such an absolute dependency
upon the King, that they sit not there as free-
men. Where, first, it is strange to me and my
reason, that any dependency on the King, be it
never so absolute, can be possibly so great an
O
_ O
I
296 Bishops as free
inconvenience to the King, as (that upon) an
independent foreign power is ; the King being
sworn to the laws, hut the Pope being free, and
(as he challenges) not only independent from,
but superior 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 Lord-
ship. And of this belief I must be till the
contrary shall be proved; which his Lordship
goes thus about to do.
" 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 Bishop-
" rics being still in expectancy ; and
" for their fears they cannot lay them
" down, since their places and seats
c-
o o
as other Lords. 297
" 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
" deprived of their office, and thereby
" of their places, at the King's plea-
" sure."
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 charged 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,
O O
Q O
298 The lay Lords less free
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 it is
not likely they will lay them aside, greater
Bishoprics being still in expectancy. Truly, I
do not know why a deserving Bishop may not
in due time hope for a better Bishopric ; and
yet retain that freedom which becomes him in
Parliament, as well as any Nobleman 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 yourself.
As for fears, his Lordship tells us roundly
O (
o o
than the Bishops. 299
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 annex-
ation 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 con-
science 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 borne
the Bishops company : though in this I com-
mend neither. Thirdly, I know some Bishops
who had rather lose not their Baronies only,
but their Bishoprics also, than vote so un-
worthily as this Lord would make the world
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
Q O
300 Bishops not dependent
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
King's 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 Lordship's 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 exclusoClero,
" so may they be by any King at
" his pleasure in like manner. They
" must needs therefore be in an abso-
" lute dependency upon the Crown,
" and thereby at devotion for their
<f votes, which how prejudicial it hath
" been, and will be to this House,
" I need not say."
-O
o o
as Judges are. 301
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 riot
suppose the King's government to be tyran-
nical, 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 Lordship's 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 Bishoprics at
the King's will and pleasure, and consequently
neither their Baronies nor their places in Par-
liament.
And I would have my Lord consider, whether
all the Noblemen that sit in that House, by
o- o
O (
302 Bishops' Baronies.
blood and inheritance, be not in the same con-
dition upon the matter with the Bishops. For
as Bishops may commit crimes worthy depriva-
tion, 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
ancieriter descent, than any the ancientest
Nobleman of England can plead for himself.
For Edward the First, he was a brave Prince,
and is of glorious memory, and respected the du-
tifulness 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
o o
> o
Parliament of Carlisle. 303
conceive nothing can be gathered out of the
Titles or Prefaces of those Acts, against either
the Bishops' presence at, or their voting to those
laws, by any prohibition or exclusion of them,
by those famous Kings. For though the
Statute of Carlisle 11 , 35 Edward I. not printed,
be recited in the Statute 25 Edward 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 expressly that the Statute
of the Staple, 27 Edward 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
* Et similiter in the Statute of 27 Ed. III. and
38 Ed. III. both of Provisoes.
. o o
o o
304 Statute of Edward L
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 itself of 38
Edward III. For in the last chapter of that
Statute, though the Prelates be omitted in the
preamble, yet there it is expressly 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 error
risen by it. For that Parliament was held
Anno 35 Edward I. and was the first of Pro-
visoes : and, as appears in the Records, the
Prelates were present. e But in 25 Edward I.
the Parliament was summoned to London, and
Rotulo Clausar. 25 Ed. I. M. 6. Dorso.
o o
, - O
Statute of Edward I. 305
the Bishops called to it. And there was'
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 sum-
mons 25 Edward I. but these two. That
which his Lordship infers upon this is, that
therefore the Bishops are in absolute depend-
ency 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 fore-
speak. After this his Lordship tells us what
he hath done in this great argument, saying,
f M. 25. Dorso.
o o
306 Lord Say's
" 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."
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 argu-
ment ; yet I conceive he hath not shewed what
he thinks he hath. It is true, he hath strongly
laboured it, but I hope it will appear he hath
not mastered 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 ancient.
" 2. That they are established by law.
o 9
objections. 307
" 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
" easy."
I know not how easy 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 weakening the House of Peers preserve
them against the eagerness of the House of
Commons; and that in the very House of
Peers itself. Let us see then and consider how
easy the answer will be to these, and how suf-
ficient also.
" To the first. Antiquity is no good
" plea ; for that which is by experi-
" ence 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
6 o
) O
308 Puritan notion
" irregularities are as ancient which
" have heen thought fit to be re-
" dressed ; and this is not so ancient,
" but that it may truly be said, non
" fuit sic ab initio."
This answer may be easy enough ; but sure
it is not sufficient : nor do I wonder that anti-
quity 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 ancient,
it smells of Antichrist. Yea, but if it be found
hurtful, the longer it hath done hurt, the more
cause to remove it. That is true ; if it be hurt-
ful in and of itself; so is not this. If it does
hurt constantly or frequently; else you must
cast out the lay Lords' votes too, and his Lord-
ship'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 ancient and yet redressed, I will consider
of them, and then either grant or deny. In the
o o
of Antiquity. 309
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
ancient, but that it may be truly said, non fuit
sic ab initio ; his Lordship is much deceived.
For that speech of our Saviour's 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 it. But I
hope his Lordship means it not so here, to put
it off that Bishops had not votes in the Parlia-
ments of England from 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 begin-
ning; as is this particular to the beginning
g Matt. xix. 8.
) O
o o
310 Henry III.
of Parliaments in this kingdom, And then,
under favour of this Lord, the voting of
Bishops in Parliament is so ancient, that it can-
not be truly said, non fuit sic ab initio : for so
far as this kingdom hath any records to shew,
Clergymen, 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 lifetime, 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
" bylaw, (his Lordship says,) the law-
" makers have the same power and
O
o o
Law-makers. 311
" 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 is 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 is a
dangerous thing to be often changing of the
laws ; especially such as have been ancient, and
where the old is not inconvenient, nor the new
necessary; which is the true state of this busi-
ness, 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 public good, and
o o
o o
312 Breach
" they have power respectively of
" accepting or refusing."
This is an easy 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
easy 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 is of equal,
if not greater, strength against the Lords yield-
ing to the Bill to the infringement 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
O
o . o
of Privilege. 313
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 satis factoiy 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 fol-
lowing 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
> o
, O
314 Bishops'
" 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 sit-
" ting 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 de-
pending upon their office ; yet the King, which
gives alone, can no more justly or lawfully alone
take away their office without their demerit, and
that in a legal way, than he can take away
Noblemen's honours. And therefore, for ought
is yet said, their cases are not so much alike as
his Lordship would have them seem. In this
O
o o
Baronies. 315
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 ex-
" eluded ; 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 con-
straint of the State; nor from any opinion of
o _ o
o o
316 Lords
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 Lords' 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 it is 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 busi-
ness, 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
o
Q O
and Commons. 317
Parliament began, and may with far more ease
be next compassed now the Bishops are thrust
out ; both because there are fewer in the Lords'
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 easy 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 swallowed up among the many,
and might be quite overmastered, 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
c : o
o o
318 Errors better borne sometimes
House, I make no question but their votes are
gone next after the Bishops. And if his Lord-
ship 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 error in the foundation, when it
" shall be found, and the master-
o ~ (
than taken away. 319
" builders be met together, 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 .error in a
kingdom is borne 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 error 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 men's ? And partly,
o o
o
320 Masters in politics.
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 mis-
take, and call that the error, 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 error in
the foundation. But if this answer satisfy not,
his Lordship may hope his next will. For,
" Secondly, he says, This is not funda-
" mental to this House. For it hath
" stood without them, and done all
" that appertains to the power thereof
c o
o o
Bishops' votes. 321
" without them, yea, they being wholly
" excluded : and that which hath been
" done for a time at the King's plea-
" sure, may be done with as little
" danger for a longer time ; and when
" it appears to be fit, and for public
" good, not only may, but ought to
" be done altogether by the supreme
" power."
It seems this Lord distrusts his former
answer about mending fundamental errors 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
o -<
o
322 Indoctum
the Bishops and the Lords : and therefore for
ought which yet appears to me, either the
Lords' votes are not fundamental to that House,
or the Bishops' are.
But his Lordship proves they are not funda-
mental 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 Parlia-
ment as well as the Clergymen. And therefore
were this Lord indifferent, he might argue that
Lawyers' votes are not fundamental in the Com-
mons' House ; which is true, though no way
convenient : rather than the Bishops' votes are
not fundamental in the Lords' House ; which is
o- : o
o o
Parliamentum. 323
utterly against all truth and convenience. But
his Lordship's tooth is so sharp, and so hlack
against that order, that he snaps at them upon
all, and upon no occasion, and would in venom
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 pro-
position is unsound in itself: 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 per-
haps not endured by the subject. Secondly, I
am confident, let the tables be but turned from
a Bishop to a Layman, 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
o o
o o
324 Queen Elizabeth
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
mere 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, clapped 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 oftener at other Princes' pleasure
with as little danger. Or will this Lord say
this was not done at the Queen's pleasure, 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 has
as good right, and with as little breach of Parlia-
ment-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.
o- o
o o
and Peter Wentworth. 325
Since I had written this, the Observer 11 steps
in and tells us, that a mere 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 done.
It is true, that a mere 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 is 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, It
is 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.
h Observations upon some of his Majesty's late
Answers, p. 7.
>- o
o o
326 King Charles
But otherwise the people's affection to the Prince
can be no rule nor measure of the Prince's
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
public; 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 con-
demning 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 plea-
sure, 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 con- I
demn 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, can-
o o
o o
and the Ship-money. 327
not be often repeated or continued; but with far
greater danger than it was once done. Though
for the thing itself, if it were riot 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 people's liberty, will in time (unless God's
infinite mercy prevents it) do that in this king-
dom, 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 public good, not only
may, but ought to be done altogether by the
supreme power. So then here this is his Lord-
ship'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 public 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 supreme 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
c o
328 Parliament
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 public
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 public 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 be made
up into a law by the supreme power, but fitted
only to such times; under his Lordship's fa-
vour, 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
public 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. It
O
O
not infallible. 329
is true, they may make such a thing into a law,
and it is fit for the most part so to do ; but to
say they ought to do it, is more than I can
helieve. 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 public 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 public good, do not turn to the decay
of religion, and the great damage and detri-
ment of King and Peers, of Church and State.
Amen.
o o
O-
o-
o o
A SPEECH
DELIVERED
IN THE STAR-CHAMBER,
On Wednesday, June 14, 1637,
AT
THE CENSURE
OF
J. BASTWICK, H. BURTON, AND \V. PRYNNE ;
CONCERNING
PRETENDED INNOVATIONS
IN
BY THE
MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD,
WILLIAM LAUD,
THEX LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
o o
o o
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,
1 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
O
, o
334 DEDICATION.
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
employment to attend this. Yet choose
I rather to obey your Majesty, than to
sacrifice to mine own privacy and con-
tent.
Since then this speech, uttered in public
in the Star-Charnber, must now come to
be more public 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 ar-
rows, and their tongues a sharp sword*.'
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 V
* Psalm Ivii. 4. b Prov. xviii. 6, 7.
o
o o
DEDICATION. 335
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 6 , than they are
utterly false, which is our happiness.
But I must humbly beseech your Majesty
to consider, that it is not we only, that
is, the 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 lose 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
e Jude, ver. 13.
O O
O
336 DEDICATION.
majesty can any Prince retain, if he lose
his honour and his people ?
God be thanked, it is 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 them-
Q (
Q O
DEDICATION. 237
selves to an account, and to remember,
that blasphemy against God, and slander-
ing the footsteps of His Anointed, are
joined together 41 . For 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 blas-
pheme God.
But then, as I desire them to remem-
ber, so I most humbly beseech your
Majesty to account with yourself too :
and not to measure your people's love by
the unworthiness 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
I heart to see the moderation of your
government, and your constancy to
d Psalm Ixxxix. 50. l Wherewith Thine enemies hath
blasphemed Thee, and slandered the footsteps of Thine
Anointed.'
o o
: ' O
338 DEDICATION.
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
suffered in these three most notorious
libellers' persons.
And first, for my own profession, I
humbly beg of your Majesty to think
Mr. Burton hath not in this many fol-
lowers, and am heartily sorry he would
needs lead. The best is, your Majesty
knows what made his rancour swell ; I
will say no more.
And for the Law, I truly honour it
with my heart, and believe Mr. Prynne
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
O ,
o : -9
DEDICATION. 339
of the Church, and abuse your good and
well-minded 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 it
is most certain they are not,) that so the
Church-governors may go on cheerfully
in their duty, and the people's minds be
quieted by this assurance, that neither
the law, nor their liberty, as subjects, is
thereby infringed.
And for Physic, the profession is
honourable, and safe ; and I know the
Professors of it will remember, that,
/s
o o
340 DEDICATION.
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 Common-
wealth. Bastwick only hath been bold
that way. But the proverb in the
Gospel, in the fourth of St. Luke 6 , is all
I will say to him, Medice, cur a teipsum,
Physician, heal thyself. 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 myself and my brethren
have been very coarsely used by the
tongues and pens of these men, yet shall
I never give your Majesty any sour
counsel ; I shall rather magnify your
clemency, that proceeded with these
offenders in a court of mercy as well as
St. Luke iv. 23.
o c
o o
DEDICATION. 341
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 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 Common-wealth. 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 us, and pervert them.
o o
o
342 DEDICATION.
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.
O-
o
LAUD
CHURCH RITUAL.
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. 1. ix.
t. 36. Nor how patiently some great men, very
great men indeed, have born animo civili (that is
Suetonius's word 8 ) laceratam existimationem,
the tearing and rending of their credit and repu-
tation, with a gentle, nay, a generous mind.
But of all libels, they are most odious which
pretend Religion : as if that of all things did
In Jul. c. 75.
o
O : O
344 What is
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 loathsome quill.
There were times when persecutions were
great in the Church, even to exceed barbarity
itself: did any Martyr or Confessor, in those
times, libel the governors ? 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 venom which libellers spit.
For St. Ambrose, who was a stout and a worthy
Prelate, tells us, not that himself, but that a far
greater man than he, that is King David, had
found out (so it seems in his judgment it was
no matter of ordinary ability) grande inven-
tum, a great and mighty invention, how to
swallow and put off those bitter contumelies of
the tongue c : and those of the pen are no whit
c In Apol. i. David, c. 6.
6
o o
persecution. 345
less, and spread farther. Arid 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.
In the mean time, I shall remember what an
ancient, under the name of St. Hierome, tells
me d , indignum est et prteposterum, It is un-
worthy in itself, and preposterous in demeanour,
for a man to be ashamed for doing good, be-
cause 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 consci-
ous, 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 settling of it to
d Ad Ocean, de Ferend. Opprob.
o o
346 Puritans
the rules of its first reformation, are the
causes (and the sole causes, whatever are pre-
tended) of all this malicious storm, which hath
lowered 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 to 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, hath been more
guilty of innovation than they, while themselves
cry out against it, Quis tulerit Gracchos P
And I said well, Quis tulerit Gracchos? For
it is 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 6 is, (would they all speak
e Burton's Apol. p. 110.
O
: O
not persecuted. 347
out, as some of them do,) that we are Bishops ;
were we not so, some of us might be as passable
as other men.
And a great trouble it is 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, though 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 is a mere ignorant shift; for our
being Bishops, jure Divino, by Divine right,
takes nothing from the King's right or power
O
o o
348 Episcopacy
over us. For though our office be from God
and Christ immediately, yet may we not exer-
cise 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 king-
doms, 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
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 of 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.
: O
jure Divino. 349
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 other-
wise, but he libels against the King and the
State, by whose laws we are established. There-
fore, 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
o
o c
350 Zeal and jealousy
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 know-
ledge. Now zeal, as it is of excellent use,
where it sees its way ; so it is very dangerous
company, where it goes on hi the dark f : 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 causelessly hate, might miscarry in it.
You may see it in the example of St. Paul himself,
whose very zeal in the darkness of his understanding,
which he then had, made him persecute Christ and His
Church, Acts xxii. 3, 4. And he was very dangerous
company then ; for he breathed out threatenings against
the Disciples, Acts ix. 1. So true is that of St. Greg.
Naz. Orat. 21. Zelus iracundiam acuit : All zeal puts
an edge to anger itself: and that must needs be danger-
ous in the dark.
o-
o o
for Religion in England. 35 1
For the main scope of these libels is to kindle
a jealousy in men's minds, that there are some
great plots in hand, dangerous plots, (so says
Mr. Burton expressly 5 ,) 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.
The King most desperately : For there is
not a more cunning trick in the world, to with-
draw the people's hearts from their Sovereign,
than to persuade them that he is changing true
Religion, and about to bring in gross superstition
upon them.
And 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
Page 5.
O ;
o o
352 King Charles in Spain.
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 hap-
piness 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 myself, 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 discover
that his base and irreligious falsehood) to shame
O
o o
No plot against Religion, 353
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 myself, to pass by all the scandalous
reproaches, 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 attempt-
ing 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
o- -6
o o
854 Nor towards Popery.
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 for-
sooth, 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 falsehood of this
may appear, I shall humbly desire your Lord-
ships to give me leave to recite briefly all the
innovations charged upon us, be they of less or
greater moment, and as briefly to answer them.
And then you shall clearly see, whether any
cause hath been given of these unsavoury libels ;
and withal, 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.
o
O ; O
Sermons. 355
Where the first innovation is h , " That the
" last year's fast was enjoined 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 in-
convenience observed in the former. And there
was visible inconvenience observed in men's
former nocking 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 used to
h Page 2.
o *
) O
356 Sermons.
do, to hear some humorous men preach ; for on
the Sundays, when they better kept their own
churches, the danger is not so great alto-
gether.
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 per-
formed 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. Burton's ;
for this his printed libel was a Sermon first, and
a libel too. And it is the best part of a fast to
abstain from such Sermons.
2. The second innovation is', " 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
1 Page 3
o o
Wednesday Lectures. 357
" suppress all the Wednesday Lec-
" tures 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 myself 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.
3. The third innovation is k , " That the
" prayer for seasonable weather was
" purged out of this last Fast-Book,
" which was (say they) one cause
* Page 3.
O O
p O
358 Shipwrecks caused
" of shipwrecks 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 Archbishop 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 con-
trary 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 justify, uuder his
Majesty's power, all such alterations made
therein.
Secondly, for the particular. When this
last Book was set out, the weather was very
o o
o o
by omitting a Prayer. 359
seasonable. And it is not the custom of the
Church, nor fit in itself, 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, It is 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 neces-
sary 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
O
, O
360 A Collect omitted.
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 ' 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 men-
tion 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.
And thirdly, for the branch in the other,
which is the first Collect, though God did
deliver our forefathers out of Romish super-
stition, yet (God be blessed for it) we were
never in. And therefore that clause being un-
Page 3.
o o
O , (
Abuse of Fasting. 361
fittingly expressed, we thought fit to pass it
over.
5. The fifth innovation m 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 com-
mitted, did therefore leave it out; because in
this age and kingdom there is little opinion of
meriting by fasting.
Nay, on the contrary, 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" is, " That the
" Lady Elizabeth and her princely
" children are dashed (that is their
m Page 3. * Ibid.
O
O
362 Queen of Bohemia left out.
" phrase) out of the new Collect,
" whereas they were in the 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 con-
sider, 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 poison his people with this conceit ; that the
Lady Elizabeth and her chidren would keep
Popeiy out of this kingdom, but the King and
o 6
o o
The King's children. 363
his children will not. And many as good offices
as these have they done the King quite through
these libels, and quite through his kingdoms.
For my part, I honour the Queen of Bohemia,
and her line, as much as any man whatsoever,
and shall he as ready to serve them ; hut T know
not how to depart from my allegiance, as I
doubt these men have done.
7. The seventh innovation 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
Page 3.
o o
o . o
364 The King's children.
made in my predecessor's time, before I had any
authority to meddle with these things farther
than I was called upon by him.
Secondly, This is not therefore to lay any
aspersion upon my predecessor ; for he did hi
that but his duty : for his Majesty acknow-
ledges 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 in-
tolerable impiety and horrid treason they charge
upon us.
In this method the innovations are set down
in the News from Ipswich. But then in Mr.
Burton'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 repeat any of these, but go on
to the rest, which Mr. Burton adds.
, O
) O
Sunday before Easter. 365
8. The eighth innovation P is, " That in
" the Epistle the Sunday before
" Easter, we have put out in, and
" and made it at the name of Jesus
" every knee shall bow ; which alter-
" ation, he saith, is directly against the
" Act of Parliament."
Here give me leave to tell you, it is at the
name of Jesus, in the late learned translation
made in King James's time. About which
many learned men of best note in the kingdom
were employed, besides some Prelates.
But to this I answer : First, it is 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.
P Burton's Apoloay, p. 2.
6- o
O O
366 Sunday before Easter.
Thirdly, This can make no innovation. For
in the name, and at the name of Jesus, can
make no essential difference here. And Mr.
Prynne (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 error 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
gratify the preciser sort. For therein they
followed the Geneva translation, and printed at
Geneva, 1557 q , where the words are, ' at the
name of Jesus.' And that is ninety-four years
ago ; and therefore no innovation made by us.
Fifthly, This I find in the Queen's Injunc-
tions 1 ", without either word in or at. ' When-
soever the Name of Jesus shall be in any Lesson,
^ In Octavo. r Injunction 52.
O O
Fifth of November. 367
Sermon, or otherwise pronounced in the church,
(it is enjoined) that due reverence be made of
all persons, young and old, with lowliness of
courtesy and uncovering of the heads of the
men-kind, as thereunto doth necessarily belong,
and heretofore hath been accustomed.' So here
is necessity laid upon it, and custom for it, and
both expressed by authority in the very begin-
ning of the Reformation ; and is therefore no
innovation now.
9. The ninth innovation 8 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 changed thus, from ' root
" out that Babylonish and Antichris-
" tian sect, which say of Jerusalem,'
" &c. into this form of words ; ' root
" out that Babylonish and Antichris-
" tian sect (of them) which say,' &c.
" The second place went thus in the
9 Page 3.
o o
o o
368 No form for Fifth of November
" old : f cut off these workers of ini-
" quity, whose religion is rehellion.'
" But in the Book printed 1635, it is
" thus altered ; ' cut off those workers
" of iniquity, who turn religion into
" rehellion,' &c."
To this I say, first, It is a notorious untruth,
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 is left to the Church ;
therefore here is no innovation against that Act
of Parliament.
Secondly, The alteration first mentioned, that
is, ' that sect,' or ' that sect of them ;' is of so
small consequence, as it is not worth the speak-
ing of: besides, if there be any thing of moment
in it, it is 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
o o
o o
ly Parliament. 369
for his Majesty's Coronation; his Majesty
expressly commanded me to make the alter-
ations, 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 itself go to work. The one is,
that I moved his Majesty to command the
change. And the other, that now, when I saw
myself challenged 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 myself to my oath.
And yet, fourthly, that you may see his
gracious Majesty used not his power only in
O
B b
o o
370 But left to the judgment
commanding this change, bat 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
the Eighth's time 1 , and also under Edward the
Sixth", 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 it is a far greater scandal to call their
religion rebellion, than it is to call their chief
Bishop tyrant.
And this reason is drawn from scandal, which
must ever be avoided as much as it may.
t It was put into the Litany of Henry the Eighth's
time, as appears in his Primer, with his Injunction
before it.
u And it is in both the Service Books of Edward the
Sixth, both that which was printed 1549, and in that
which was after, anno 1552.
O : ! (
o o
and power of the Church. 371
My second reason is, That the learned make
but three religions to have been of old in the
world, Paganism, 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 it is generally received,) perhaps it will be
of dangerous consequence sadly to avow, that
the Popish religion is rebellion. That some
opinions of theirs teach rebellion, that is appa-
rently true; the other would be thought on,
to say no more. And this reason well weighed,
is taken from the very foundations of Religion
itself.
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
o
that is against the ground both of State and the
Law. For when divers Romish Priests and
Jesuits have deservedly suffered death for
treason, is it not the constant and just pro-
fession 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,
6
Q O
372 Alterations in the Service.
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 rebel-
lion, and not for his religion.
And this King James of ever-blessed memory
understood passing well, when (in his premoni-
tion to all Christian Monarchs*) he saith, " I do
constantly maintain, that no Papist either in my
time, or in the time of the late Queen, 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.
* Page 336.
o o
o o
Prayer for the Navy. 373
10. The tenth innovation y is, " That the
" Prayer for the Navy is left 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. Nor 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 conse-
quence 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
/ Page 3.
. O
o o
374 Altar Service.
to be ready for his christening, as he most pro-
fanely scoffs.
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 z 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
ancient 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 ancient course of the Church
is by and by called an innovation.
z Page 105.
p o
Altar Service. 375
Secondly, with this the Rubrics of the
Common Prayer Book agree : for the first
Rubric after the Communion tells us, that
upon holy-days, though there be no Com-
munion, yet all else that is appointed at the
Communion shall be read. Shall be read ?
That is true, but where ? Why, the last
Rubric 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 Com-
munion, but the prayers which accompany the
Communion, (which are commonly called the
Second Service,) are to be read at the Commuion-
Table. Therefore, if this be an innovation, it
is made by the Rubric, not by the Prelates ;
and Mr. Burton's scoff, that this Second Service
must be served in for dainties 3 , savours too
much of belly and profanation.
" 12. One thing sticks much in their
" stomachs, and they call it an inno-
3 Page 105. [Then the Second Service, as dainties,
must be said there.]
> O
o o
376 Doing reverence
" vation b 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, it is a very old one.
For Moses did reverence at the very door of
the Tabernacle c . Hezekiah, and all that were
present with him, when they had made an end
of offering, bowed and worshipped* 1 . David
calls the people to it with a Venite, ' O come, let
us worship, and fall down, and kneel before the
Lord our Maker 6 .' And in all these places (I
pray mark it) it is bodily worship.
b Page 105. e Numb. xx. 6. d 2 Chron.
xxix. 29. e Psalm xcr. 6.
o o
o o
on approaching the Altar. 377
Nor can they say, that this was Judaical
worship, and now not to be imitated. For long
before Judaism began, Bethel, the house of
God, was a place of reverence f . Therefore
certainly of and to God.
And after Judaical worship ended, Venite,
adoremus, as far upwards as there is any track
of a Liturgy, was the introitus of the Priest, all
the Latin Church over.
And in the daily prayers of the Church of
England, this was retained 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
itself, when they are come.
Therefore even according to the Service-book
of the Church of England, the Priest and the
people both are called 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
f Gen. xxviii, 17, &c.
O O
O O
378 Doing reverence
moderate, (God grant it be not too loose there-
while,) that no man is constrained, no man
questioned, only religiously called upon, Venite,
adoremus, Come, let us worship.
For my own part, I take myself bound to
worship with body as well as in soul, whenever
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 Psalm Ixxiv. 6, (and
such times have been,) yet would I worship in
what place soever I came to pray, though there
were not so much as a stone laid for Bethel.
But this is the misery, it is superstition now-a-
days for any man to come with more reverence
into a church, than a tinker and his bitch
come into an alehouse; the comparison is too
homely, but my just indignation at the pro-
faneness of the times makes me speak it.
And you, my honourable Lords of the Garter,
O
o o
on approaching the Altar. 379
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 it is Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my
Body : but in the pulpit it is 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 proclaimed. And God
hold it there, at His Word; for, as too many
men use the matter, it is Hoc est verbum dia-
boli, 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 is not new.
And idolatry it is not, to worship God to-
wards His Holy Table; for if it had been
idolatry, I presume Queen Elizabeth and King
>__- O
380 Doing reverence
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 yourselves
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 *,) to give due honour and
reverence, Domino Deo, et Jlltari ejus, in mo-
dum 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
In Libro Nigro Windeforiensi, p. 65.
O
o o
on approaching the Altar. 381
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 answered, *it was settled by a
Chapter Act three years before. Hereupon
that great King replied, " No, I will 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 pro-
ceeded, that they should do this duty to Almighty
God, not slightly, but ad modum Virorum
Ecclesiasticorum, as low, as well, as decently,
as Clergymen use to do it.
Now if you will turn this off, and say, it was
the superstition of that age so to do ; Bishop
Jewel will come in to help me there. For
where Harding names divers ceremonies, and
particularly bowing themselves, and adoring at
the Sacrament ; I say, adoring at the Sacrament,
not adoring the Sacrament ; there Bishop Jewel
(that learned, painful, and reverend Prelate)
o o
o o
382 Reverence towards the Altar.
approves all, both the kneeling and the bowing,
and the standing up at the Gospel, (which as
ancient as it is in the Church, and a common
custom, is yet fondly made another of their
innovations:) and farther, the Bishop adds*,
" That they are all commendable gestures, and
tokens of devotion, so long as the people un-
derstand what they mean, and apply them unto
God." Now with us the people did ever un-
derstand 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 is', " The
" placing of the Holy Table Altarwise,
" at the upper end of the Chancel,
fc Bp. Jewel's Reply to Harding's Answer, Art. iii.
Div. 29.
1 Page 4, 5, 105.
) O
Q (
The Altar placed north and south. 383
" that is, the setting of it north and
" south, and placing a rail before it,
" to keep it from profanation, which
" Mr. Burton says, is done to advance
" and usher in Popery."
To this I answer, that it is no Popery to set
a rail to keep profanation 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 appeal's 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, I leave
to any reasonable man to judge.
o
o o
384 The Altar placed north and south.
And yet here is nothing done, either by
violence or command, to take 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 uniformity ; 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 needs call it so,) is done either to
advance or 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 Westminster,
and other places; and all this of purpose to
advance or usher in that Popery which she had
driven out ?
And since her death have two gracious Kings
kept out Popery all their times, and yet left the
Holy Table standing, as it did in the Queen's
time, and all of purpose to advance or usher in
! Popeiy, which they kept out ?
6 -o
o o
at the upper end of the Chancel. 385
Or what is the matter ? May the Holy
Table stand this way in the King's Chapel, or
Cathedrals, or Bishops' Chapels, and not else-
where ? Surely, if it be decent and fit for God's
service, it may stand so (if authority please) in
any Church. But if it advance or usher in any
superstition and Popery, it ought to stand so in
none.
Nor hath any King's Chapel any prerogative
(if that may be called one) above any ordinary
Church to disserve God in, by any superstitious
rites. Where, give me leave to tell you, that
the King and his Chapel are most jeeringly,
and with scorn, abused, in the last leaf of
Mr. Burton's mutinous appeal, for such it is.
Secondly, This appears by the Canon or
Rule of the Church of England too; for it
is 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 Chapel or Cathedrals
6- -6
c c
o -
386 The Altar placed
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 practice 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 vitant 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 is 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 : it is my Lord the Bishop of
Salisbury.
Some difference was lately rising about
placing the Communion Table in a parish-
o <
c o
north and south. 387
church of his Diocese. The Bishop, careful
to prevent all disorder 11 , sends his Injunction
under his hand and seal to the Curate 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." Therefore
this is no innovation, since there is Injunction
and Canon for it.
The other passage is this," It is ignorance (saith
that learned Bishop) to think, that the standing
of the Holy Table there, relishes of Popery."
Therefore, if it do not so much as relish of
Popery, it can neither advance it, nor usher it
in. And therefore this is a most odious slander
and scandal cast upon us.
So here is enough both for the practice and
rule of the Church of England since the Re-
formation. Now before that time, both in this
k May 17, 1637.
o *
388 The Altar placed
and other Churches of Christendom, in the
east and west ordinarily, the Holy Table or
Altar stood so. Against this, Mr. Burton says
little.
But the Lincolnshire Minister comes in to
play the Puritan for that. Concerning which
book, (falling thus in my way,) and the name-
less author of it, I shall only say these two
things.
The one is, that the author prevaricates from
the first word to the last in the book; for he
takes on him both for the name and for the
placing of the Holy Table, and the like, to
prove, that generally and universally, and ordi-
narily in the whole Catholic 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 Eastern and Western
Churches, nor of Fathers and Histories of the
o o
o
north and south. 389
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 alleged,
and true too in the sense that the Minister
takes them, (though in very truth, the places,
most of them, are neither truly alleged, nor
sensed,) yet they are but exceptions of, and
exemptions from, the general practice. And you
know both in law and reason, exceptio firmat
regulam in non exceptis. 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 pre-
tends ; or else to have written this book wholly
and resolvedly against both his science and his
conscience.
And for my own part, I am fully of opinion,
this book was thrust now to the press, both to
O- :
390 The Altar, north and south.
countenance these libellers, and, as much as in
him lay, to fire both Church and State.
And though I wonder not at the Minister,
yet I should wonder at the Bishop of the
Diocese, (a man of learning and experience,)
that he should give testimony to such a busi-
ness, and in such times as these.
And once more, before I leave the Holy
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 begin-
ning of the Reformation, though there were a
law for the taking down of the Altars, and
setting up of Holy Tables in the room of
them ; yet in some places the Altars were not
suddenly removed. And what says the Queen
in her Injunction to this ? Why she says, " that
there seems no matter of great moment in this;
saving for uniformity, and the better imitation
of the law in that behalf 1 ." Therefore for any
danger or hurt that was in the Altars, name or
thing, they might even then have been left
1 Injunct. ultim.
) o
. _ O
Discipline. 391
standing, but for unifonnity, and the imitation
of the law.
But howsoever, it follows in the same Injunc-
tion, " 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 innova-
tion comes with a mighty charge,
and it is 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 stayed.
In that sheet is this charge; the
words are,
" The Prelates, to justify their proceedings,
" have forged a new Article of Re-
" ligion, 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
o o
Q Q
392 Bishops' Power
" their language) into the beginning
" of the Twentieth Article of our
" Church. And this is in the last
" edition of the Articles, Anno 1628,
" in affront of his Majesty's Declara-
" tion before them, &c."
The Clause (which 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
S tar-Chamber. For it is not to be found in
the Latin or English Articles of Edward VI. or
Queen Elizabeth, ratified by Parliament."
And then in the margin thus, " If to forge a
will or writing be censurable in the Star-Cham-
ber, 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 ?"
, O
o
over Discipline. 393
This is a heavy charge, my Lords ; but I
thank God the answer is easy.
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 heinous 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
annexed 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 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 justify their charge) that this
Clause is not to be found in the Articles, Eng-
o o
o r
eS94 Bishops' Power
lish or Latin, of either Edward VI. or Queen
Elizabeth.
I answer: The Articles of Edward VI. and
those made under Queen Elizabeth, differ very
much. And those of Edward VI. are not now
binding. So whether the Clause be in or out
of them, it is 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 Lord-
ships shall see the falsehood and boldness of
these men.
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
O '
o
over Discipline. 395
were agreed on but the nine and twentieth day
of January, anno 1563.
And in all these, this affirmative Clause for
the Church's power is in. And is not this
strange boldness then to abuse the world, and
falsely to say it is in no copy, when I myself, out
of my own store, am able to shew it into so
many, and so anciently ?
But, my Lords, I shall make it plainer yet :
for it is 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 copies, be they never so
many or never so ancient.
Therefore I sent to the public records in my
office, and here under my officer's hand, who is
a public 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
o
396 Bishops' Power
expurgatorius 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 will 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 the year 1571, the
Articles we re 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
o o
.
over Discipline. 397
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 it is plain, that, after the stir about
subscription in the year 1571, the Articles were
settled 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 contra-
diction, 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 S tar-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 it is time I should,
with the innovations charged upon the Prelates,
and fit to be answered here.
o 6
Q
398 Bishops' Power
Some few more there are, but they "belong to
matter of doctrine, which shall presently he
answered, justo volumine, at large, to satisfy all
well-minded people. But when Mr. Burton's
book, which is the main one, is answered, (I
mean his book, not his railing,) neither Prynne,
nor Bastwickj nor any attendants upon Rabsha-
keh, 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. It is Mr. Burton's charge 1 " upon
the Prelates. " That the censures formerly laid
upon malefactors, are now put upon God's
Ministers for their virtue 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 virtue and piety, there is all
the reason in the world we should be severely
punished ourselves. But the truth is, the virtue
and piety for which these Ministers are punished
m Page 175.
o o
O
over Discipline. 399
is for preaching schism and sedition, many of
their sermons being as bad as their libels, as
Burton's libel was one of his sermons first.
But whether this stuff have any affinity with
virtue 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 foully carried himself, that he breaks forth
into these words D , " I never so much as once
dreamed, that impiety and impudency itself, in
such a Christian State as this is, and under such
a gracious Prince, durst ever thus publicly 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 St.
Cyprian ; when he, then Bishop of Carthage,
was bitterly railed upon by a pack of schismatics,
his answer was, and it is now mine ; " They
have railed both bitterly and falsely upon me,
n Page 7. Lib. i. Ep. 3.
c o
o- o
400 Bishops 9 Power
and yet non oportet me par la 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, remembering that of the
Psalmist p , ' Fret not thyself, else shalt thou be
moved to do evil.'
Neither yet, by God's grace, shall the re-
proaches of such men as these make me faint or
start aside, either from the right way in matter
of practice, (they are St. Cyprian's words again* 1 ,)
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
household, as it is in St. Matthew x. 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
P Ps. xxxvii. 8. q Ib. p. 10.
o (
, _Q
over Discipline. 401
hearty thanks for your noble patience, and your
just and honourable censure upon these men,
and your unanimous dislike of them, and defence
of the Church.
But because the business hath some reflection
upon myself, I shall forbear u> censure them,
and leave them to God's mercy and the Kind's
justice.
BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.
OXFORD EDITIONS.
*. d.
KEBLE'S Selections from HOOKER . .18. . . .5
Autobiography of Bp. PATRICK 18" 3 6
PATRICK'S Advice-to a Friend 18 3 6
Heart's Ease 18 3 6
on Repentance and Fasting . 18 3 6
Book for Beginners 18 2
SUTTON'S Disce Mori 18 3 6
Disce Vivere 18 3 6
Meditationson theSacrament 18. . * .3 6
WILSON'S [Bp.] Sacra Privata 18 3 6
Parochialia 18 3 6
TAYLOR'S Golden Grove 18".... 3 6
LAUD'S [Abp.] Devotions 18" 3 6
Autobiography 18. . . .5
SPARROW'S Rationale on the Book of > 18o , _
Common Prayer $
KEN'S Manual of Prayers 18" 2
WELLS' Rich Man's Duty : with > lgo ^ g
Dowsing's Journal S
SARA VI A on the Priesthood 18" 3 6
BULL'S [Bp.] Vindication of the 1fio Q R
Church of England $ '
In the Press.
SHERLOCK'S Practical Christian, with Life of the
Author, by his pupil Bp. Wilson.
BP. PATRICK on Prayer.
.
.->
.
283.081 11$ 99k
283.081
L363
Laud,
Liturgy, episcopacy, and church
ritual
I
1
m
<mt
