A CONSIDERATION AND A resolution.  
FIRST, 
 Concerning the right of the Laity in national counsels. SECONDLY, 
 Concerning the power of Bishops in affairs secular.  
Prepared for the Honourable House of PARLIAMENT.  
By Sr. E. D. Kt. and Baronet.   

A CONSIDERATION upon THE LATE CANONS.  
THat the late Canons are invalidous, it will easily appear, and that they are so originally in the foundation, or rather in the founders of them, I will assume upon myself to demonstrate, having first intimated my sense by way of preparative.  
The Pope (as they say) hath a triple crown, answerable thereunto, and to support that, he pretends to have a threefold Law. The first is, jus divinum, episcopacy by divine right; and this he would have you think to be the Coronet next his head, that which doth circle and secure his power. Our Bishops have (in an unlucky time) entered their plea and pretended title to this crown, Episcopacy by divine right.  
The second is Ius humanum, Constantin's donation, the gift of indulgent Princes; Temporal power. This Law belongs to his second, or his middle crown; already also pleaded for by our Prelates in print.  
These two crowns being obtained, he (the Pope) doth frame and make his third crown himself, and sets that upmost, upon the top— This crown also hath its Law, and that is Ius Canonicum, the Canon law, of more use unto his Popeship then both the other— just so our Prelates from the pretended divinity of their Episcopacy, and from the temporal power granted by our Princes they would now obtrude a new Canon-Law upon us.  
They have charged their Canons at us to the full, and never fearing that ever they would recoil back into a Parliament they have rammed a prodigious ungodly oath into them.  
The illegality and invalidity of these Canons (as I conceive) is easily discoverable by one short question, viz. what do you call the meeting wherein they were made? give it a name to know it by: who can frame his argument aright unless he can first tell against what he is to argue? would you confute the Convocation? they were a holy Synod? would you argue against the Synod? why they were Commissioners, would you dispute the Commission? they will mingle all powers together, and answer that they were some fourth thing, that we neither know nor imagine.  
Quo teneam nodo mutantem Protea? unless they will unriddle themselves, & own what they were, we may prosecute, but hardly with concludent arguments. Yet I venture.  
I have conferred with some of the founders of these new Canons, but I profess clearly, that I could never yet meet with any one of that assembly, who could (in behalf of their meeting) well answer me the first question in the catechism, what is your name? Alas, they are parted before they know what they were when they were together.  
The sum of the several answers, that I have received, doth amount to this. They were a convocational— synodical— assembly of Commissioners, indeed a threefold Chimaera, a monster to our laws, a Cerberus to our Religion.  
A strange Commission wherein no one Commissioners name is to be found. A strange Convocation that lived when the Parliament was dead: A strange holy Synod where one part never saw, never confirred with the other.— But indeed what use or need of conference, if that be true of these Canons, which I read of the former ones, Notum est canon's formari Lambethae, priusquàm in Synodo ventilentur?  
Thus far preparatory. I proceed to my argument, whereby to manifest the invalidity of these Canons, not borrowing but avoiding what have formerly been instanced by others.  
I will neither inveigh upon them as unnamed Commissioners, nor infirm them as the work of a dead Convocation; But will take them in the capacity of their own affected title of a Synod. Such they bragged themselves to be whilst they sat: Such they style themselves in the Title-page of these (never to be canonised) Canons— The words are— Canons treated upon in Convocation— agreed upon in Synod.  
Thus treating in one capacity and agreeing in another: is a new mould to cast Canons in never used before. Canons bred, in a Convocation, borne in a Synod. Thus although we find not one good father, here are yet two mothers to one ill-favoured child; never known before, nor imagined but of Bacchus, whom the Poet calls among other attributes— Solúmque bimatrem.  
I proceed, if their meeting be a Synod, either it is so by Donation, by Election, or only by usurpation.  
Donation from the King, is this title and authority, indulged to them by his majesty: look through all his highness' Letters Patents, and they are not once saluted with the ambitious title of a Synod. Yet in the Canons they have assumed it seventeen times, it is their own pride, their own presumption.  
The King hath not done it, (pardon me) no Prince ever did it or can do it; no power regal, imperial, or papal did ever attempt it, to ordain that William, & Richard, Matthew and John, &c. and I know not who more, being met and assembled upon other summons shall by a Commission be on a sudden translated from what they were, into an unthought-of national Synod, without voice or choice of any man to be concerned: this never was done, this never can be well done.  
As for due election for such meetings, this indeed is or aught to be of the true esse to a Legitimate Synod. But due election made up by voices is so much a stranger to this Synod, that their fatherhoods will confess that they were never trusted to this Synod, as a Synod by any, either of the Clergy or of the Laity.  
Concerning the choice of a few of them, and but a few (about 50. as I guess) chosen to the Convocation house, that will never render them a lawful Synod, until they can prove metamorphosis and Transubstantiation.— For the votes of all their choosers upon expiration of the Convocation house returned back home to every man's bosom from whence they breathed. So that if you will en-live the same men to be now synodal, who were before but convocational, you must renew the old Pythagorean Transmigration, for they want the breath and life of an election. A new one you have not, and the old one is not to be had but by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
Besides I do affirm & shall approve, that the electors to a Convocation and to a Synod are not all one. The clergy only do, and of right only aught to choose unto the Convocation house. The reason; we of the Laity (so they will call us) have our houses of Commons where our trusties by virtue of our voices do sit at the same time. But in the choice unto a Synod, we who must be bound by the determinations of the Synod, ought also to be interessed in the parties determining. This is clear enough in reason, and will be better cleared presently.  
Of Synods I find five several sorts, first a general or universal Synod; secondly, Patriarchichall, Thirdly National, fourthly provincial; fiftly a Diocesan Synod. I pass by the two first and last, as not pertinent to this time and affair. Concerning provincial and national Synods a word or two; If I knew which to call their late meeting. They run on in riddles: and I want Oedipus at every turn.  
These Canons, were they forged in one Synod national, or in two Proncialls?— were they two provincial Synods? how then come their acts and Canons to be embodied together? how comes it to pass that all the Canons speak in the singular number? The Synod; The holy Synod; The Sacred Synod. Sacred will now be hardly granted, unless as the Poet doth,— Auri sacra fames.  
Was it then but one? was it a national Synod? why the Provinces (We all know) never did convene, they never met together. Look on the representative body of the Commons of this whole Land: every one within the same walls hearing every one's argument, and thereupon mending, altering, and (as occasion is) correcting his own judgement, & afterwards ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman},) joining in unanimous consent. And if the able members of the North beyond Trent were divided from the rest, there would be quickly found a want of their worth and weight, nor could their sitting at the same time at York, make the rest a house of Commons here, for the whole kingdom must be represented entire.  
But as we have done the Title Synod, so let us give them the attribute national, a national Synod, and yet see how inconsistent and invalidous they are!  
The very esse of every Synod doth subsist in a double foundation. Fundamentum materiale and fundamentum formale.— The due materials of a Synod are the inteteriour qualities and endowments of the persons where of the Synod consisteth, not their external dignities and promotions. And therefore every man thus qualified is as capable to be of the Synod, as any Dean or Archdeacon of them all.  
The fundamentum formale, is Delegatio ab ecclesia & debita electio. A due choice to be made by all that are or shall be concerned in the determinations of the Synod: and this trust of choice may fall upon another man, as well and as soon as upon Deane or Archdeacon.  
I will not quarrel the want of able parts in any the members of that late doubtful dangerous meeting: I grant them the materials of a true Synod, but will insist only upon the second, want of form, want of due election: which if they want the most virtual and most obliging tye, and the most binding part is wanting.  
That they had no such election, we need not go forth to prove; No one man in the kingdom can say that he gave a voice to the election of any one Deane or Archdeacon to sit for him in that Synod, nor were the clerks chosen by all who were to be bound. So then there remaineth only to be proved this. That such election of persons, by all persons to be concerned in the Decrees, and Canons, is necessary to the constituting of a lawful Synod; which is all one as to say, that the elections to a Synod ought to by, both be the Clergy and the Laity.  
I will trouble you but with one reason, and a very few instances, all br●ifely.  
The Acts and Canons of every lawful national council or Synod, aught to bind the whole Nation both Laity and clergy: But this cannot be reasonable and just, if the Laity be excluded both from consultation and from choice of consulters. The reason is plain. It is ground in nature, and so confessed upon this very case by Dr. Feild, who hath it out of Occom— quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet. And this is so clear a maxim, that in this very sense also; for the Laity to be present at counsels this very aphorism is used by the Pope in his own gloss upon the Canonist Gratian. Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet. Surely our clergy are much too high, if herein they would outgo the very Canons of the papal Synods, and conclude that which shall bind all, where all are not admitted to treat; neither by themselves nor by proxy.  
Now the benefit of this Law of nature and of Reason (as Dr. Field calleth it) we claim. The present Canons do concern us. I may be a churchwarden, my son may be a Master of Art; then must I present upon their yet unborn articles, and he must swear their oath of Covenant— well, they were never trusted by us unto a Synod, and therefore ought not to tie us up unheard, it is against nature and reason.  
To second this Argument by instance in proof of practice, I shall produce a few, and but a few of many examples and authorities: the originals I cannot now Command, but must be content to name a few extracts, which by way of transcript do walk along with my vademecum.  
The point that I would establish is this, that in Synods and counsels where Lay men are concerned in the Decrees, there the Laity ought to be present to consult if not also to decide the conclusions. I will but point, I will not enlarge to the vouching every place verbatim; Dr. Feild, Dr. Fulke, Goulartius, are clear and positive in this point.  
Our Statutes for correcting & gathering together the former Canons into a new body, do clearly evidence this unto us; in all which there is an equal proportion mixed, sixteen of the clergy and as many of the Laity.  
The Author of the history of Trent is frequent in this point, adding this for a reason, that in a general council, the universal Church cannot be represented if the Laity be excluded. So by the rule a paribus: The reason holdeth the same, a national council cannot represent a Nation if but one degree of men, men of one quality and capacity be only present, and the rest altogether excluded.  
Gratian, the Canonist doth allow the Laity to be present, especially in such counsels as do treat of faith, and for proof doth vouch Pope Nicolas.  
I will omit many proof●s of many Emperors being personally present and precedent in many counsels, by themselves and sometimes by their vicegerents, as Marcellinus, Candidianus, Martianus, &c. yet even this is argumentative for us, and a preservative of our right, for the Laity to be present.  
The Greek historians are so plentiful that I will but name them.  

Theodoret. l 5. c. 9  
Eusebius de vita Constantin. l. 3. c. 9 & 10  
Sozomen. l. ●. c. 16. & 17.  
Niceph. Callistus. l. 8 c. 15.  
Socrates. l. 1. c. 5. & l 6. c. 2.   
Among the Latin fathers Cyprian is very plentiful.  
As for counsels, look,  
Nice. 1. vouched by Eusebius de vita Constantini— 4 conc. Carthag. cited by Gratian.— The council of Eliberis in Spain. Council of Constantinople in Theodoret.— council of Constance; And the second of Nice.— where it is said of that imperial Lady the famous Pulcheria Augusta, that ipsa persemet ipsam in sancta quarta Synodo sedit: which fourth Synod was with Martianus the Emperor.  
To these I add the very Ordo celebrandi concilia written by Isidor, and like unto the Modus tenendi Parliamentum.  
Thus much for human testimony, I have done with my hasty notes, only I add this, and I beseech you to intend it.  
Whilst we of the Laity had our power and voices to choose our own Ministers, and our own Bishops, (which was our ancient right, constantly allowed & practised in the best Primitive times, whereof the proofs are yet evident enough) so long (I say) we might trust them in a Synod, whom we first had trusted to direct and guide our souls in all the ministerial function.— But to conclude us up now and shut us out contrary to the Law of Nature and Reason, contrary to ancient usages: not to admit us to determination, nay to exclude us from consultation, and after all to take from us all assent both in choice and in refusal of Pastors to be set over us, and yet to bind us by decres so made, may prove (I fear) no less than soul-tyranny. I do not press the deserved right of our choice of Pastors: but one thing more, lend me patience to add as supreme Coronis to all that I have said for right of Laity in Synods.  
Look I beseech you in the first Synod that ever was held in the Christian Church and that for so great and singular a cause as never was occasion for the like in the world before or since: you have it in the first of the Acts of the holy Apostles, and it is for the choice of a new Apostle. There were in this Synod and of this Synod, the eleven Apostles, Acts 1. 13. with the brethren of the Lord, verse 14. There were the Disciples, there was Turba {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a multitude, of about a 120 names, ver. 15. Saint Peter tells them that out of that number one must be ordained to be a witness of the resurrection of our Saviour; thereupon what doth the multitude of Disciples there present. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} verse 23. they place or set two before the Apostles: And the same men viz. all the Disciples verse 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} they give forth their lots, and thereupon, the lot falling upon Mathias, he was numbered (saith our Translation) with the eleven Apostles; but the original is more {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} communibus calculis annumeratus est, he was by common assent or by common voices reckoned with the eleven. Now who were these common voices, who were these 120 men? Evangelists, Bishops, Deacons, and Presbyters or Elders, as yet there was not one in all the world, the Apostles were but eleven, perhaps not numbered in this 120. The Disciples if you will say, that they were there and were Clergy men, yet they were but 70. So that here is no evasion: the Laity were present, and not passive only, they were active in this so original, so weighty a Synod.  
My second instance in this kind, is out of the second council that ever we read was held, and this is Acts 6. where the Apostles call a council for the choice of 7 deacons. Then the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples to them, ver. 2. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. They being assembled do not say, we have decreed, we have ordered and ordained, and enjoined, but their language is verse 3. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, brethren look ye out, the word is the same as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} both from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to oversee, do you oversee among you, seven men of honest report. And the saying (as it is verse 5.) pleased {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the whole multitude, there is a consent of theirs, more plain in {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} they the multitude chose seven, Stephen and Philip, &c. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} whom they (still the multitude {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) verse 6. did set or place before the Apostles.  
The third and the last shall be the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the great and general council held by the Apostles upon the dissension of the Church in point of Circumcision (and that is Acts 15.) there you shall again find present, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} verse 12. All the multitude: but you will say and object that the next word is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the multitude kept silence. True, ergo what? Therefore they speak not at all in this council? nothing less. But ergo they had spoken before: for it is plain by the word. Then all the multitude kept silence. If they had nothing there to do but to be always silent, this particle of time, Then might well have been spared. This may perhaps be objected and therefore ought to be prevented, for the further clearing whereof, observe (I pray) the next verse, v. 13. where in like manner, it is said of Paul and Barnabas {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. And after they held their peace, ergo they had spoken. And therefore the friar who collected together a body of counsels (Peter Crabbe the German) doth even from this place infer a consent of the people saying, Tacuit omnis multitudo Consentiens Petro.  
But if you would have this more clearly evidenced beyond all exceptions, I pray take notice of the resolution of this Synod, verse 22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church. With the whole Church, what is that? The blessed Apostles and their fellow labourers did not engross, and (as our churchmen affect to do) usurp and monopolise the word Church, as proper only to churchmen.— No you shall find it even in the Epigraphe of the Canons and Decrees of this true, holy, and sacred Synod, that the despised Laity are in these Canons conjoined with the blessed Apostles although Pope and Patriarch, Primate and Metropolitan, Archbishop and Bishops, yea even down to Deane and Archdeacon: (I have heard it) do despise the thought of admitmitting the Laity. I do not say to decision, but even to Consultation, nay to the very choice of consulters in Religion: nay lower even so much as to have a negative power, when a man of inability, and of ill life is obtruded upon them; I proceed, for I would not orare but probare, look verse 23. They that were present had voice, They who voiced the Canons, joined in the decree, and sending the decree unto Antioch. The words are thus, The Apostles and Elders, and Brethren send greeting to the Brethren which are in Antioch, &c. Here the Brethren at Jerusalem are (with the Apostles and the Elders) actors in and authors of the Canons in this council agreed. There is no evasion, no clusion, to be had, unless you can prove that all the Brethren in Antioch to whom these Brethren in Jerusalem did write, were only clergy men.  
Which if you should affirm, our Clergy will hardly be pleased with you, for they must then be of the multitude (not a special lot) for Barnabas and Paul did deliver this Epistle (being t●e decree of this Synod) to the multitude {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as it is found in the 30 verse. And when they had gathered the multitude together they delivered the Epistle.  
Thus much in way of pursuit for this one argument, that no Canons can bind the Laity where we have no voice of our own, nor choice of the clergy persons who do found them, nor assent in the susception of them after they are framed. Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet.  
It remains as a wish that every member of that meeting, who voted these exorbitant Canons, should come severally to the bar of the Parliament house with a Canon book in his hand, and there unless he can answer his catechism (as I called it) and show what is the name of their meeting, and (Unless he can manifest that the Laity are no part of the Church) conceptis verbis in such express terms as that house should think fit, to abjure his own ill begotten issue, or else be Commanded to give fire to his own Canons.  
FINIS.   
HOSEA 8. 4. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. They have reigned to themselves, and not by me: they have been princes, and I knew it not. 
THAT BB. ought NOT TO HOLD secular POWER.  
Our Lord and Saviour (blessed for ever) being indeed a King, Pilate (his Judge) seemeth to start and be in fear at that great title: Although our Saviour had told him (John 18. 36.) saying, My kingdom is not of this world: Pilate (still in fear) sought to release him (John 19 12.) but more in fear of Caesar (the King at that time of this world) he adjudged the Lord of life to death, yet honourably writeth his Title (Mat. 27. 37.) This is Jesus the King of the Jews. This title he then was crowned withal, when life and death divided his soul and body asunder; that in a manner it may be said, he never was King indeed, until he was out of this world.  
If he who was our Lord and Master (joh. 13. 13.) had not this world's royalty, whence cometh that the Pope is Crowned? and his cardinal's in purple? whence have our Bishops their Lordships? and as themselves call it (Bishop Hall in his Episcopacy, &c. part§ 2. p. 106.) jura regalia) their royalty and rites of Baronage?  
It may prove a disquisition deep and dangerous, yet I desire (without envy to their pomp or persons) to wade so far as may satisfy a mind that loves Truth, and desires to be led by it: and this with all possible brevity. There hath been a happy and blessed reformation of our Church, God send a better, and a more severe reformation of our Churchmen, or else our Church is now in danger to be deformed again.  
The state of this inquiry may be this, viz. whether the Ministers of Christ's kingdom may receive worldly titles, and execute worldly offices and powers? or more generally thus: Whether a Clergy man may semel & simul, be both a Clergy man and a Layman, in power, office and authotity over other men in both kinds?  
Go we to the fountain head (Luke 22. 24) There was a strife among them (the Apostles) which of them should be accounted the greatest; which of the twelve soever began this emulation of power. Certain it is that the two 'zounds of Zebedee, James and John with their mother first presumed (Mat. 20. 20.) to come and ask the highest places of honour (next to the very throne) in the kingdom of Christ; which kingdom was conceited by them shortly after to be raised in the splendour of this world: This is genuinely gathered from this very story, generally confessed, & clearly confirmed in the history of the Acts, &c. where the Apostles do ask our Saviour, even after his resurrection saying (Acts 1. 6.) Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel. Therefore to these two brethren and their mother, so much mistaken in the nature of his kingdom he maketh answer (Mat. 20. 22.) ye know not what you ask. He presently showeth the entertainment of his kingdom, A cup to drink of, that many were like to pray might pass from them; but they answer they are able to drink thereof. This their answer as it proved true in all the twelve Apostles, so by the providence of God, one of these two brothers (Acts 12. ●●) James, was the first of all the rest, who drank the cup of martyrdom, and as some think John was the last of the Apostles.  
Equals look awry on the ambition of their fellows. These two were vain in their high request, and the other ten murmured at their presumption (Math. 20. 24.) They were moved with indignation saith Saint Matthew: (Mar. 10. 41.) They began to be much displeased, saith Saint Mark. But by this happy error of these two Apostles, our Saviour takes occasion to instruct them, and the other ten, and in them all other Ministers belonging unto him, how far different the pastoral care of his Church, is from the power which governeth in commonwealthes.  
Here upon the son of God calleth unto him all the twelve Apostles, saying, (Mat. 20. 25.) ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion, &c. (Mar. 10. 24.) ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise Lordships, &c. (Luke 22. 25.) The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordships, &c. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. But it shall not be so among you. This is a statute not to be repealed. This is spoken authorative & definitivè, it is the determinate Law of a just authority. A Canon ordained and irrevocably fixed by the wisdom of God. Confirmed by an example above all argument (Mat. 20. 28. Mar. 10. 45.) For the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to Minister. (Luke 22. 22.) I am among you as he that serveth. And before this he had taught them, (Mat. 10. 24.) That the Disciple is not, above his Master. (joh. 13. 15. 16.) I have given you an example, that you shall do as I have done to you, verily, verily, the servant is not greater than the Lord.  
This ministry being thus performed in humility, and without worldly titles. The Ministers shall be then exalted. Our blessed Saviour in the express words following saith unto them (Luke 22. 29.) I appoint unto you a kingdom (but addeth) as my Father hath appointed me. Now his own kingdom is spiritual, or as himself said unto Pilate, not of this world. Let them then renounce temporal, and they shall have spiritual honour. But some of the Clergy would (it seems) confound both kingdoms, being ambitious to inherit Glory in the Kingdom of Grace. I fear our Bishops do not know how sublime a virtue Christian humility is! how full of Honour.  
Every {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} must be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, let the greatest be (Lu. 22. 26.) as the youngest that is the way to be a right Elder, he must be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Luk. 22. 27. as he that serveth that is the way to be ministered unto. He must be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (Matthew 20. 27. Mark 10. 44.) a servant, that he may be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the prime or chief. He must be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (Mat. 20. 25.) a Minister that he may be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a great one. These antitheses our Saviour hath placed in the text upon the former occasion.  
From hence, may well be argued as a Corollary, to these undoubted premises, that no Minister of the Gospel can lawfully assume, hold, or exercise that power which by the Lord of the Gospel is inhibited to his Ministers. But our Saviour Jesus Christ (Lord and only head of his Church) hath inhibited all temporal Lordship, Magistracy & Dominion unto his servants. Therefore no Minister of this Gospel may hold or exercise temporal Lordships or dominion.  
These words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. It shall not be so among you, do so straighten the Bishop's mitres, that they sit uneasy on their heads: to soften & as it were to line them for their ease: the Bishops that are and would be both papal and Protestant do quilt a gentler sense into these words than can bear analogy with the Text. They search the original and pretend to find another sense in our saviour's sentence.  
This Text (say they) forbids not unto Clergy men, the use and exercise of worldly titles, power, offices, dignities, Commands, dominion, Lordships, &c. but the abuse of them: domineering and tyrannising with them. This they pretend to make firm out of the Greek word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; which they would have so taken in the worst sense of exorbitant power, even for tyrannising. So then, they would teach us, that, Lord it they may, & Lord it they may not: Lord it they may with all pomp, state, power; Lord it they may not, with pride, vanity, & oppression. But I shall easily prove this interpretation to be inconsistent with the scope & analogy of the Context.  
Will they frame their argument from the verb {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be a Lord, or to rule? or from the preposition {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, added and united thereunto? neither will serve. And if the pomp of our Prelates cannot avoid the power of this text, they are down for ever. Let me therefore scan it to the full.  
First {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be a Lord, or to have rule or Lordship, is never properly taken in that ill sense which they would he ere create, as having unjust, or oppressive power. It is derived from the usual and most frequent title of our Lord and Saviour, whom the holy Scripture so often saluteth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Lord. Here is no shadow for Tyranny.  
The true sense of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is authoritatem habens one that hath authority: being derived from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} authority which is known to be approved and ordained by God himself from whom all lawful authority is derived. Mark how well this word is sensed through all authors: Demosthenes calleth the heads and chief of the city {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. A law in force and principal authority is called by Aeschines {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Galen calleth the chief and principal members of a man's body {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: yet one member doth not tyrannize over another. Aristotle (6. Ethic.) hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} propria virtus, (that is) a virtue properly or principally so called. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is one that is Lord or master of himself, not one that domineers over himself. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (Apoc. 1. 10.) The Lord's day. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (1 Cor. 11. 20.) The Lord's Supper. Saint Paul saith that (Rom. 7. 1.) The law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth, he doth not mean that the law is a Tyrant, yet the word is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (Rom. 14. 19) Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the living and the dead: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. From {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Lord cometh {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Lordship: four times mentioned by the holy Apostles, but never taxed as a power tending to Tyranny, but to be obeyed in them who duly are therewith invested, as may be seen. (Ephes. 1. 21. Coloss. 1. 16. 2 Pet. 2. 10. and Jude 8.) Clearly then in {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} there is no print of usurpation or of oppressive and tyrannical power. If there be, we are then well warned to beware of our Bishops, who not only own the title {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, but expressly plead for it, as Bishop Hall in his late Episcopacy, (part 2. page 104.  
Secondly, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the very word (used by Saint Matthew, and Saint mark, in these before alleged texts) whereby our Saviour forbiddeth his Apostles to exercise Dominion or Lordship is a compounded word of two {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. That is, to rule as one that hath authority. I may render it to be, or to behave oneself ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} juxta, Secundum) according as one that hath authority.  
This preposition in words compounded hath sometimes a signification of his own, sometimes none at all as in {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. clearly it hath no special signification in this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, much less a force so exegetical as to draw the lawful power of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} into the exorbitancy of a Tyranny. That it hath no force here, is by this apparent, for that the speech of our Saviour, recorded by the holy Ghost in Saint Mat. and S. Mark by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} are rendered by the same spirit in Saint Luke) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. So that plainly you must not pretend tyrannising to be meant in the sense of one place except you can find it also in both, unless you will come to this that he forbiddeth tyranny in one place, & worldly power in the other, which if you do you grant the question.  
This is enough alone, yet for a further interpretation of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} look in (1. 28. Genesis) where God giveth unto man in the time of man's innocency, the rule and dominion over all his creatures, even whilst they all were (Gen. 1. 31.) very good. The name and word of power in that great Charter granted is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Now the time of this power granted, the person to whom it is granted, the creatures all good on whom it was to be exercised, & above all the goodness of Almighty God who granted it, do exclude all imagination of a tyrannical power, and admit only of a fatherly mastership over the new creatures of God.  
If then the frequent and constant sense of both {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, be only to have power and authority, civil, temporal, and ordinary dominion, and that all such authority is forbidden them, how poor and weak is that evasion for our Bishops, who would have this speech of our Saviour taken in a forced sense different from all these other places? and would forge a new meaning, as if our Saviour did not here forbid {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but only {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, not a Commanding lordliness, but a Tyrannuos use of it; when as it is hereby evident, that Christ having ordained the Aristocracy of twelve, did therein and in his reprehension here take away those several benches of honour, and that proud imparity of temporal power which our Bishops do swell withal.  
That the former speeches of our Saviour, doth destroy the lordliness of our Prelates, let us confirm it with a farther consideration, which is thus. Our Saviour Christ being (1 Cor. 1. 24.) the wisdom of God, must be thought to fit and suit his answer to the question and request made unto him by the two Apostles. But what Bishop in defence of his usurped power, dares affirm that two such admirable (Gal. 2. 9) Pillars, as James, and John, should ask of such a Master iniquam dominationem, a cruel dominion over their fellows, as if the meaning of their request were thus. Master, gives us two leave to tyrannize over the other ten! He had taught them before, (Mat. 5. 5.) Blessed are the meek and (Math. 11. 29.) Learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart: Can it then be thought that the beloved Disciple and his brother, shall ask of the master of all Humility, a tyrannical power to oppress their partners? No man hath such a heart of lead to think, yet there have not wanted foreheads of brass to affirm so: certainly, in that Kingdom of Christ, by them as then supposed to be temporal, they desired the honour to shine in civil dignity, & eminency of power and authority, which (no question) they intended to have exercised with all brotherly moderation, yet are they (and I wish our Bishops also were) answered with his reprehension, first (Math. 20. 22.) ye know not what ye ask, next with his absolute denial and forbiddance, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. it shall not be so among you.  
Will the practice of Saint Paul, and the council of Saint Peter serve for comment to this text? Saint Paul saith {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, (2 Cor. 1. 2. 4.) We Lord it not. Saint Peter (1 Pet. 5.) Himself an Elder to other Elders, exhorteth them to feed the flock, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} overseeing it: and that not by constraint {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, nor as being Lords. But as in the fifth verse, All of you be subject one to another.  
Therefore my resolution stands clear upon this vote; That it may be declared that true and right Episcopacy is incompatible and inconsistent with secular power. They who give in their names to be labourers in God's vineyard must not go out of the door, and think to return at pleasure: their whole time they have vowed to the great Master of the Vineyard, and I find no wages promised but to them who enter and continue there to the last hour. No man putting his hand to the plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. Luke 9 62.  
Let therefore this inhibitory statute against Bishops having temporal Lordships, stand (as it must stand) irrepealable {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. It shall not be so among you.  
FINIS.