The Lay-Clergy: OR, The Lay-Elder. In a Short ESSAY IN ANSWER To this QVERY; Whether it be Lawful for Persons in Holy Orders to Exercise Temporal Offices, Honours, Jurisdictions and Authorities. With Arguments and Objections on both sides, Poyzed, and Indifferently Weighed. Man! who made me a Judge, or a Divider over you? Luke 12.14. By Edm. Hickeringil, Rector of the Rectory of All-Saints in Colchester. LONDON, Printed for John Dunton, at the Raven in Jewen-Street, 1695. The Lay-Clergy: OR, The Lay-Elder. BEING An ESSAY Upon this Question, Quer. Whether it be Lawful for Persons in Holy Orders, to Exercise and Enjoy Temporal Offices, Honours, Jurisdictions, and Authorities? INterest, which (by bribing men's Judgements) rules the World, aught to have neither place nor vote in those that writ or read, Judge or Determine this Question. Self-interest sometimes does (as it always should) give place to right Reasoning and Truth; but, usually, the Bowl follows the Bias, right or wrong; so does our Judgements, Wills and Affections commonly lean to the Swell'd-side, biased with Profit and Honor. Thus Avarice and Ambition in Clergymen, are apt to tempt them to worldly undertake, temporal affairs and employments, unsuitable to their Coats, and unbecoming their Holy Profession; all which are Restrained and Prohibited in several particular Cases by the Canon-Law, and Statute-Law, especially by that Statute made for that purpose, 21. Hen. 8.13. Yet, neither that Statute, nor any other Law, now in force, reaches at any Prohibition of Temporal Jurisdictions and Authorities to be exercised by Spiritual Persons, restraining them only from Farming and Merchandizing, except in some cases, and for their own necessaries; for Clergymen alone were Lord Chancellors, Masters of the Rolls, Lord Treasurers, etc. long after that Statute was made. But, on the contrary, Envy and Avarice in the Laity, are apt to make a Monopoly of all Temporal Offices and Honours, Privileges, Pre-eminence and Authorities to themselves alone, excluding the Clergy; but by what Law, Divine or Human, by what Reason, Justice or Equity, shall now here be impartially enquired. And to that purpose I will recite the strongest Arguments and Objections that have been urged against clergymen's Exercising Temporal Jurisdictions and Authorities, with Answers thereunto. Obj. 1. First, Some have objected that Almighty God does not bless Affairs of State in the Hands of Churchmen, witness (say they) these grand miscarriages in Government, when Archbishop Laud was chief Minister of State to King Chalres I. Ans. It must be confessed, that in a fatal Hour (after the Duke of Buckingham (chief Minion and Favourite to King Charles I.) was stabbed at Ports-mouth, Anno. 1630.) succeeded Laud Archbishop of Canterbury, unhappy for himself, more unhappy for the King and Kingdom. Errors in Government at that time, and more especially during Laud's Ministration, were too palpable for me now to palliate, much less to conceal. No Parliament called for 13 long and weary years (from 3. Car. 1. to 16. Car. 1. weary indeed) by Encroachments and Oppressions in the Stannary-Courts, recanted (too late) and acknowledged, confessed and redressed in the Statute, 17. Car. 1.15. Shipmoney recanted and declared unlawful, 17. Car. 1.14. High-Commission-Court, exercised to the great and insufferable wrong, and oppression of the King's Subjects (the very words of the Statute) annulled and made void for ever, by 17. Car. 1.11. The Star-Chamber Court, (the proceed, censures and decrees whereof were found (too late) to be an intolerable burden to the Subject, and the means to introduce Arbitrary Power and Government, in despite of Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, and other good Laws) pulled down and absolutely Revoked and made void by 17. Car. 1.10. Free Quarter, illegal Impisonment, (of Members of Parliament for daring to speak their minds in the House, by ascertaining the Ancient Laws, and bewailing the Grievances of the Subject) Loans, Coat and Conduct-mony, and other Enormities, under which the People groaned, and which I list not here to particularise, were all laid at Archbishop Laud's door, I confess, and charged not (so much) as the Vices of the man, but the Viciousness of his Holy Profession, in undertaking so grand a Post and Station, not so unsuitable to his Parts and Accomplishments, as a man; but to his Sacred Orders, as a Divine: As if God did not bless Temporal Affairs in the hands of Spiritual Persons. And so many warm Speeches were made to that purpose in the Parliament, in 1640, and 41. That at length they produced and brought forth that Statute, 17. Car. 1.27. Entitled, An Act for disabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority. None prattled more of Magna Charta, than the Speech-makers in that Parliament; and none made a greater Nose of Wax of it: More especially and particularly in that Statute that Disables all persons in Holy Orders from exercising Temporal Jurisdictions: Thus they razed the Foundations, took away the grand Groundsel of the House of Lords, The First of the three Estates of this Realm; no wonder then if all the House of Lords tumbled down soon after; the House of Commons also not continuing very long after; so dangerous it is to pull away the Groundsels, and main Pillars. Did not the Prelates (for they did all in all in those Times) not only get Magna Charta Enacted, but preserved the same from the Violation and Encroachments that should be made upon it (that is) with the weapons of those times, by Damning all to the Pit of Hell that durst infringe Magna Charta; I mean, as far and deep into the Pit of Hell as Bell, Book and Candle could send such Violators of Magna Charta. The first Branch whereof grants and confirms that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole rights and liberties inviolable. In King Charles I. his Reign (before that fatal Statute, 17. Car. 1.27.8. so contrary to Magna Charta, was made) the ferment went high, no wonder then that the mobility did run a madding, when Oppressions will make the Nobility and Wise men mad; nor did they recover their wits but by Phlebotomy in a furious intestine and Bloody-Civil-war: and when their Veins were well emptied and their Pockets too, the People came to themselves, and became compos mentis, their own man again, acknowledging their mistakes all along in foolishly charging the miscarriages in the Government, upon the Profession of one of the Chief Ministers of State; (Archbishop Laud.) For if they had not all been crazed with a notion in the soft place of their Heads, was not the Argument as strong and rational to disable all Laymen from Exercising any Temporal Jurisdictions, because all the said miscarriages were first begun and carried on by Laymen, viz. Buckingham and Strafford; in so much that King Charles I. that loved them both well enough (or too well) and went along with them, acknowledged that he did not think Strafford fit to exercise the place of an High-Constable; Archbishop Laud did but Lackey it after those, and followed their steps, for the way was traced before him; for long before Laud's Ministration King Charles I. twice in Parliament uttered that distasteful Sentence, that gave such Umbrage and disgust to the Parliament, and to the whole Kingdom, and proved of most fatal and bloody Consequence, in the ensuing Civil Wars: for no people in the World have been more jealous of their Liberties, and more apprehensive or alarmed at any threatening presages of Arbitrary Government, than the English; such was that unfeasonable and distasteful Sentence— In that King's Speech.— I own the Account of my Actions to God only.— And the Common-Text for the Manwaring and the Court-Sycophants of those times was Psal. 51.4. Against thee, thee only have I sinned and done this Evil in thy sight. Whence they concluded and inferred, that no King could sin against any but God alone. Strange Logic, more strange Divinity, to draw an universal conclusion from particular Premises, that, because King David said that in the matter of Vriah the Hittite, he sinned against God only, therefore neither he in any other matter or particular, nor any other King in any particular could sin against any but God only. Surely, David, in that particular, sinned against more than God only; for he sinned against his own Conscience, and his Coronation-Oath, and the Duty of a King, which is to be a Shepherd, not a Wolf, and was set up for Edification, not destruction of the People of God; also he sinned against Vriab's Life, and his Wife's Chastity in tempting and debauching her; also he sinned against the Generation of God's Children, made Religion evil spoken of, and made the Enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, as 2 Sam. 12.12. But Archbishop Laud had more ingenuity than to make that Construction of the word only; for only there is interpreted by the following words— in thy sight; which are exegetical of the word— only; (that is to say) As Nathan said unto him, 2 Sam. 12.14. thou didst it (the Murder and the Adultery) secretly; David was cunning in his bloody ways and lustful ways; he called not witnesses of his Adultery, none knew but his Confidents and Pimps, sworn to secrecy; and the Murder was more secret, for he killed by the sword of his Enemies, the sword of the Children of Ammon; so that against thee, thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight; It is plain that David only meant, that he had done that evil only before God, only in his sight, none else were privy to it, or knew of it; at least, he thought so, and so did Nathan, thou didst it secretly, saith he, so cunningly didst contrive it, that none but God only should know of that sin. Besides, only, may (as in Psal. 62.4. and in many other places of Holy Scripture) be taken for especially or Chief; against thee especially, against thee chief have I sinned. Sure I am, none but Parasites, can imagine that a wretchedly-sinful King is not a sinner, cannot offend against any but God. If a King, as King David did, make his subject a Cuckold, does he therein sin against, or offend against none but God? Must not the Cuckold be at all concerned because his Horns were of a King's making? What Divinity is this? Flatterers and Sycophants are the worst of Poisoners; but King Charles I. was thus cajoled long before Laud came into vogue. But, indeed, are King's accountable to God only? I had thought that no King can for his Heart exempt himself from the Judge within him, his Conscience; which if wounded and awake, it will keep him from sleep, as it did poor King David; this Judge put him upon the Rack, and made him roar again, breaking his Bones, Psal. 51.8. So true it is— A wounded Spirit who can bear? This Judge was such a Terror to Cain, that it made him a Vagabond, and to run away with himself, he knew not whither, nor could overrun his Judge and Executioner, for he carried them along with him (as Murderers do) most terribly, in the very Breast; so that Judas, rather than endure it, Hanged himself. Oh wretched Sycophants! To encourage a King to sin, because he is Accountable to God only at the day of Death, and the day of Judgement. As if he (the Rock of Israel) that told King David, 2 Sam. 23.3. That he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God; Should be Answered— must? Must be Just? Is there a necessity for it? must is not for Kings, they are not accountable to any but God, they can sin against God, and against God only; and he reckons not till the day of Death, or the day of Judgement. But, I believe, King David (and some other Kings that I could think of) found a more early day of reckoning, than the day of Judgement; and though they and their Flatterers might put far from them the evil day, yet they could not put it away; yet in foro humano, a King is not accountable. But, waving the Impiety, where's the Policy? By such expressions, to make the People Jealous and afraid of approaching Tyranny and Arbitrary Government? The Kings of England usually have had their Speeches well examined in Council, before they have spoken them in open Parliament. I make no Apology for such language, so offensive to the People, only I say Laud is not to be blamed for the same; for the Venom was destilled into the King's Ear, before he had the King's Ear; and if it was otherwise, what fence, reason or Justice is there, for one Clergy-man's failings, to lay the blame upon all persons in Holy Orders? This would be as ridiculous and unjust, as if all the Laity should suffer for the sins of the Duke of Buckingham and Earl of Strafford, of whose miscarriages in Government, as an Evil Counsellor, King Charles I. was so sensible (though always too late) that he did publicly avow before Strafford's Death, that he did not think him a Man fit for so much as the place of an High-Constable: Was it Archbishop Laud too, that was guilty of being an Evil-Privy-Councellor, When K. Carls I uttered the like alarming Expressions? Such as these, about imprisoning the Earl of Arundel, saying, in the House of Lords— My Lords! I do not (by this) mean to show the Power of a King by Diminishing your Privileges, etc. At which both Houses were strangely affrighted; for the words Implied, that he thought he had such a Power, as King to diminish their Privileges, if he listed; whereas they thought that they held their Privileges per Legem Terrae, not ad Libitum Regis; by the Law of the Land, and not the Arbitrary list or will of any man living: Such Doctrines may go down in Turkey and France, they will not yet pass currant in England, such was that other like ill-advised expression— of that King, namely,— But as for Tonnage and Poundage it is a thing I cannot want; necessarily implying, that if they would not give it him by Law, he would take it by force (as he did afterwards, and was as good as his word in that) taking it without Law. Lesle I could not well say in answer to this Objection, that must be confessed to be unanswerable otherwise, than by acknowledging the miscarriages in Government to be true, and too palpable, for they were felt sufficiently; but that Laymen, not Clergymen had then the Administration of affairs, both in the Privy-Councel, and Cabinet; injuriously therefore were such failings imputed to Laud, and more injuriously to make all men of his Profession, nay, the very Profession it self, to be guilty of his crimes? This is (as Logicians term it) non causa pro causa. To ascribe the treachery of Judas to all the Disciples. Yet, such was the Logic of those mad times in 1640, and 1641. and the same mad Infection still spreads its self, amongst prejudiced, and unthinking men. Of which sort the number was much greater than now a days, or else sure those sleighty Arguments and Objections (against Clergy-men's exercising temporal Jurisdictions) could not have prevailed so far as to be form into an Act of Parliament. But men (even yet) are apt enough to be inclined to any thing that promotes their own interest, or pleases their fancies, how ridiculous soever. Nevertheless, soon after the Restauration and Return of King Charles II. in the first Free, Free- Parliament begun at Westminster, May 8, 1661. The First Act they made was for safety of his Majesty's Person, and Government. And the Second Act, viz. 13. Car. 2.2. was for safety of the two Houses of Parliament and the three Estates of this Realm (Lords Spiritual, Lords Temporal, and the Commons) by replacing the ancient Groundsel which had been so fatally, and with such bloody Consequences taken away by that rash Act, made 17. Car. 1.27. whereby all persons in Holy Orders were disabled from exercising any Temporal Jurisdiction or Authority; therefore the said Act was thereby from thenceforth repealed, annulled and made void to all intents and purposes whatsoever (to give you the very words of the said Act) for that the said Act had made several alterations prejudicial to the Constitution and ancient Rights of Parliament, and contrary to the Laws of this Land, and is by experience (woeful experience, the only Mistress of Fools) found otherwise inconvenient. In the next place, let us consider the subtle Arguments, and knotty Reasonings that went smoothly and currently down with those whose appetites were prepared to relish and receive them, in those easy times that were mistaken in the Causes of Misgovernment; charging the faileurs and miscarriage during Laud's Ministration, to the Vice of his Profession (as a Spiritual Person, and in Holy Orders) therefore vicious and unhappy in him, which would not so have been in a Layman. And that God Almighty blest this, and blasted the other. But such dreams never happen to any but men unacquainted with History, and with the Temper of former times, and of our own. To instance only in the Contemporaries of Archbishop Laud; was there ever an honester Privy-Concellor than Archbishop Abbot? Or that gave the King wiser or better Counsel than he, if the King would have harkened? Was there ever a wiser Statesman and Lord Chancellor than William's Bishop of Lincoln? Or that managed that Place with greater prudence or success; he made his way, tho' he always rowed against the stream, wind and tide against him, Buckingham and Laud. Was there ever an honester or more wise and frugal Lord Treasurer, than Bishop Juxten, his Enemies (the Rump-Parliament) being Judges, and after they had with prying Eyes examined his Books of Accounts? Therefore it is as ridiculous as unjust to make all Clergymen suffer for one man's offence, and attribute the miscarriages of the Man to the Profession, that as Andrew Marvel says, if they keep to their Bibles, make the best Statesmen in the World: And surely they are as likely to keep to their Bibles, and have been as Wise and Honest Statesmen as any other Men, of what Profession soever. For, alas! Laud did not Led but Fellow those bad methods and steps, of raising Money without the People's consont in Parliament; of calling no Parliament to redress Grievances, under which no People ever groaned more; so that those Minions and chief Ministers of State were afraid of Parliaments, afraid to be called to account, and more than one Parliament was disfolved for calling Buckingham to Account; insomuch, that the ills which those Ministers had done, could not be safe, but by attempting greater. King James I. (from the 7th to the 18th year of his Reign (11. years) had not one Parliament; and then, all that was done in that Parliament, was but the old business,) the Mony-business) and an Act of Indemnity; of which, as the Favourites had most need, so they promoted the same. King Charles I. never called but three Parliaments all his whole Reign, which lasted almost 24. years, and the last Parliament he called, outlasted him, at least, the Rump of it. And it is observable, that neither King Charles I. nor King James I. ever parted with a Parliament with smooth Foreheads, dissolving them in a rage, and sending them home with wrinkled Brows, on all sides; which soured the Blood, turned it to Choler; so that (after such long Intervals of Parliament) when they met again, they Vented it in a Rage, and (like Haman) for the affront of one Mordecai, they would he revenged of the whole Tribe, and therefore made that Act, which as aforefaid, disabled all persons in Holy Orders from the exercise of any temporal Jurisdiction. To Effect which, let us listen, in the next place, to their Wise Reasonings. Obj. 2. The next great Argument against Clergy-men's exercising Temporal Authorities, was taken from Holy Scriptures, and from the Example and words of our blessed Saviour, Luke 12.14. When a man came to him, and desired him to speak to his Brother, that he should divide the Inheritance with him. To which the Blessed Jesus replied— Man! who made me a Judge, or a divider over you? Now (quoth they) Is the Disciple above his Master, or the Servant above his Lord? If the Master disclaims the temporal poral Office of a Judge, or Magistrate; how comes his Disciples to claim the same, and by what Authority? Has the Man more power than the Master? Ans. I Answer, That they that swallow such stuff as this, must do it without chewing. For such a construction and improvement of that Text, Disrobes all Lay-magistrates, as well as Clergy-Magistrates, except the Lay-Magistrates renounce their Christianity, and the Service of Christ. For I was in good hopes that all the Judges, Parliament-men, Justices of Peace, and Magistrates in England are and were Disciples of Christ, and his Servants, as well and as much as Clergymen; St. Peter calls the Laymen to whom he writes— The Servants of God. And St. Paul more particularly styles the Magistrate, The Minister, (or Servant) of God. It is no disgrace for the King's Writ to run in the stile that Moses his Precipes and Commands did run— Josh. 8.31. Moses the Servant of the Lord commanded, etc. We must have none but Pagans and Heathens, Atheists and Debauchees for Kings and Magistrates, if we exclude all the Disciples and Servants of Christ; for one and all; exclude one, exclude all; and for the same Reasons. Besides, the distinction of Laymen and Clergymen, are names of Distinction that God never made, but quite contrary; those that we call Lay-People, are more especially called Clergy, or God's Flock, or God's Lot, or God's Inheritance, 1 Pet. 5.2, 3. where St. Peter (whom we call a Clergyman) Commands the Bishops, Elders, or Priests (whom we also call Clergymen) to feed the Flock of God, and not to Lord it over God's Clergy, or God's Inheritance, (viz.) over them which we contrarily call Laymen; And the Statute Hen. 8.21, 13. calls— Lay fee. Pride and Popery first made this Distinction, making an Impropriation of the name Clergy, or God's-lot to the Divines, who called themselves also Spiritual Persons, and Ecclesiastical Persons, and Churchmen; as if God had no Churchmen but Cassock-men, nor any Saints, but such as are in Holy Orders? And what I pray is entering into Holy Orders? Other than being Commissioned or Authorized to do such and such Acts, by men of authority so to Ordain, thus the King Ordains Judges and Justices by Commission; Judges Ordains Gentlemen in the Country to Represent themselves in many cases by taking Fines, Depositions, etc. By Commission too, or Dedimus Potestatem, The King Ordains, or orders the Dean and Chapter to Elect A. B. to be a Bishop. The Congee deslyer is a mandamus. The Patron Orders or Ordains, or appoints a man to such a Benefice; if the Bishop do not accordingly give him Institution, a Writ of Quare Impedit lies against him, so that the Bishop in such cases can neither will nor choose; but if the person Presented be Literatus, and according to the late Acts of Parliament (in Holy Orders) which we call Ordination; but really and truly, the Presentation is the Ordination or Order that Entitles him with the Bishop's Institution to jus ad rem; and in course the Archdeancon's Induction gives him Livery and Seizing, or jus in re and Possession. All this is called Holy Orders, and so Prayers and hearing the Word, are called Holy matters and Holy things, because they more immediately relate to Communion with God; but I understand not how Prayers in a Clergyman is more Holy than Prayers in a Layman; nor how Preaching is more Sacred than Hearing. It is all God's Service, and they that exercise the same, are his immediate Servants, one as much as another, if their Faith and Devotion be equal. Obj. But why did not Christ accept the Temporal Office and Honour of being a Judge? I answer by another question, why is not every man you meet a Judge, and an Award's man, to decide and determine all your Controversies? Your Answer must be the same with mine to the said Quaere, namely, He never had a Commission, a Dedimus Potestatem, an Authority to make such an Award, to divide or decide any such Inheritance or controversy; as neither had Jesus Christ in the Days of his Humiliation, for that he came to suffer for the sins of the World; he could have been born of a Queen, but he chose to be Born of a Poor Woman, in a poorer Equipage than any, and as he was born poor, even so he lived, and so he died; and it was necessary (as it was Proyhecyed of him) that he should be a man of Sorrows and acquainted with Grief, despised and rejected of men, oppressed and afflicted, he was brought as a Lamb to the Slaughter, for it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief, making his Soul an Offering for Sin, etc. Now observe the Vanity of these Rump Orators, and Logicians; would you Christian Magistrates and Ministers of Christ be above, or better than your Master? He was poor and had not an House of his own to hid his head in; neither would you, if you be his true Disciples and Servants, for the Servant is not greater than his Lord; you should be poor as your Master. All this fine Rhetoric (if any were so silly to use it) did not prevail with St. John, to part with his Estate, his House or his Home; our blessed Saviour on the Cross took notice of it, and therefore recommended his Mother to his Care, and Provision; and from that very hour that beloved Disciple carried her to his own home: It was well he had a Home, and to put it to so good an use, it was more than his Master had, who had not so much as the Birds have 〈…〉 Nest, an Home, some men will be Interpreters of Holy Writ, and consider nocircumstances, which altar the 〈…〉. There was a time when Christ sent his Disciples out without purse or scrip, and barefoot; that is, in the time of his Humiliation: But when that was accomplished, or upon Finishing, he gives them new Orders, Luke 22.35, 36. But now, saith Christ, He that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his Garment and buy one. Whereby they had a plainer Commission to wear a Sword than to wear a Cassock: And to want this, rather than, that. Another brisk Orator and Logician in that Parliament (against Clergy-men's exercising temporal Jurisdiction) argues thus. Obj. 3. From 2 Tim. 2.4. No man that warreth, Obj. 3 entangleth himself with the Affairs of this Life, that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a Soldier. Answ. Answ. What's this to Clergymen more than to all other Christians? No Man, no good Christian-man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, implicatur, is entangled in the Affairs of this Life: It is not so well Translated, as commonly, entangles himself; but is entangled; 'tis a passive, not an active word, and spoken of them, Qui tricis & laqueis quibusdam implicantur; that are snared or fettered with or in the things of this Life; catched by the Foot, so that they cannot go. It is a word used by St. Peter, 2 Pet. 2.20. concerning such as are once Converted, and have thereby escaped the snares and pollutions of the World, and are again entangled, or snared. So that St. Paul to Timothy only advises, that no man, no good Christian man that hath escaped the snares and pollutions of the World, should again be entangled and ensnared therein; no, God forbidden: It is just like that of our blessed Saviour's Prayer, John 17.15. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the World, but that thou shouldest keep them from the Evil. And all this is but the Daty, and should be the endeavour of every good Christian, though he live in the World, yet to keep himself unspotted from the World. Agur's Prayer, Prov. 30.8. is excellent to this purpose, give me neither Riches nor Poverty, feed me with Food convenient for me, lest I be full and deny thee, and say, who is the Lord? Or, lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in Vain: Great Riches are a Temptation and a Share, apt to entangle them in Pride, and make Gold their God: Great Poverty is a Temptation and a snare too, apt to tempt men to steal, oppress, take bribes, etc. Not, but that a Rich Man may be an Oppressor, a Cheat, a Thief, a taker of Bribes: Not, but that a poor man too may be poor and proud, and make Mammon his God: But the usual Temptations that attend great Riches are Pride, and confidence in Riches: And the usual Temptations that attend great Poverty, is Cheating, Stealing, and other unlawful Pollutions that are in the world. Now what is become of our Argument? No man that Warreth, no Christian Man that would please God who hath chosen him to be a Soldier, should be entangled, and to his utmost he should take care that he be not entangled in and with the Snares, and Pollutions of the World. They that thus apply this Text to the Clergy alone (which belongs to all Christians) would exempt themselves from being obliged to look to themselves that they be not Polluted with the World, though they live in it: As if none but Clergymen were obliged to be good men, Spiritual men, and good Churchmen, and Disciples of Christ. St. Peter was a Spiritual Person, and an Apostle and Fisher of men, but still kept to the old Trade of Fishing, to maintain his Body. So St. Paul, as he was born a Freeman of Rome, he stands up for his Birthright, when Invaded; and calls to the Roman Army, to help him against 40. Cutthroats that had sworn that they would be the Death of him. Therefore taking care of a man's Life and Livelihood (a duty indispensable except a man be felo de se) is so far from being a Snare or Entanglement; that it is expressly Commanded by the Laws Divine as well as Human: The Laws of God, the Law of Nature, and Law of the Land. If any thing be an Entanglement, or a snare to hinder a man in his Heavenly Race, one would think a Wife should as likely be such a Clog, as a Place of Honour or Profit; but that is so far from it, that it is expressly made a qualification of a Bishop, that he be the Husband of one Wife, as St. Peter was, and as St. Paul said he had Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Licence to Marry when he listed. Obj. 4. Obj. 4 Another Topick (whence these Orators did raise the Arguments against Clergy-men's intermeddling with Temporal Offices and Honours) is taken from Acts 6.2. It is not reason, say the twelve Apostles, That we should leave the word of God and serve Tables. Ans. This has less of Sense to your purpose, Answ. than the former Objections. The Greek-Converts or Christians murmured, because there was not that care taken for their Poor, as was for the Jewish-Christians; wherefore the Apostles caused seven Churchwardens or Deacons, or Overseers for the Poor, to be chosen for that Work: Every Member of the Church cannot be the Head, nor Eye, some have gifts inferior, as the Hands and Feet, all are useful for the Body; this hinders not but the chief Heads and Eyes of the Church may give directions, and have an Eye to the Poor, and to see that the Feet and Hands do their Office. Obj. 5. Obj. 5 A fifth Objection was taken from the greatness of the Work of the Ministry, implied in that question, 2 Cor. 2.16. who is sufficient for those things? Answ. Answ. Who is sufficient? I answer, None are sufficient; What then? Must we despair, lie down and Die? No, no, we must do as we can, though we cannot do all we should? The Duty of a Minister of Christ is no where in sewer words more fully recommended and described than in 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. Feed the Flock of God (called in the 3d. v. as I said before) the Clergy. Our English word, Feed, does but speak by halves, the meaning of the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rule and Feed the Flock: So St. Paul commands the Hebrews to pay Obedience to their Rulers, Pastors, Teachers, that watch for their Souls, Heb. 13.17. Not but that a good Magistrate, a good Judge may be a good Preacher (and many a good Sermon have I heard from the Bench (in some Judge his Charge there) as well as from the Pulpit.) The Elders and Pastors are positively Commissionated and Commanded in 1 Cor. 6.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. to be Judges in all matters of Law or Controversy that can happen betwixt one Christian and another: And so at this day all Christendom over the Teachers are also Lawyers and Chancellors, and Masters of the Rolls, etc. and the Lawyers may Preach too, if they be Gifted and Ordained thereto. Obj. Obj. 6 6. Another flourish of these men's Rhetoric, is taken from the Writ, Reg. 187.6. which among other things hath these words, Non est consonum quod ille qui Salubri Statui animarum & piis operibus continue deservit, ad insistendum in secularibus negotiis compellatur. Ans. Answ. Any Clergyman may bring this Writ of Privilege, if he be chosen a Churchwarden, Constable, Scavinger, or any other place, which he does not like, he shall be excused by this Writ of Privilege; if he please: Non Compellatur; he shall not against his good liking serve. So shall now an Apothecary be excused and discharged from such troublesome Offices; but, he is at his choice, he may serve if he please; the Law does not incapacitate him, but is made in his favour; Is not the Life more than Meat, and the Body than Raiment? Therefore the Law only takes care that they who are more immediately concerned in taking care for the Soul, the Life, or the Body of Man, shall be at leisure to attend the great work, and shall not be forced to attend the less, to the hindrance of what is more necessary. But what's this to the question? For there are many Authorities and Jurisdictions Temporal, as that of a Justice of Peace, Privy-Councellour, etc. wherein a Clergyman can better Rule and Feed the Flock, than those, who though never so able and accomplished for the place, cannot do the good they would to their Flock, for want of Temporal Power, Jurisdiction and Authority. Obj. 7. Oh! But this hinders his Preaching? Obj. 7 Ans. 1. In answer there-unto, I first say, Ans. 1 I do not believe it: But, 2. Is there now a days such need of Preaching of Piety, as there is of the Practice of Piety? There are few so silly, but they know their Duty, and those that do not, may have Preaching enough, store of Preaching, in the Pulpit, in the Press, Sermons, Sermons! The truth on't is, Sermons are of great use to Feed the Flock, but not of more use than Discipline to Rule the Flock, which is equally a Duty: A Justice of Peace shall make ten times fewer Swearers and Cursers and Damners in a Parish than twenty Preachers; But, of late times, Preaching has justled all other Duties almost out of the Church, as if Prayers and Sacraments (by which men have the most immediate Communion with God) were but the Parenthesis of our Religion; and our sense of Religion sufficiently preserved, though they be omitted and left out. Obj. 8. Again, it was objected, Obj. 8 that our blessed Saviour gives a Prohibition to his Apostles, Luke 22.25. lest his Disciples exercise Lordship, and aim at Dominion, as do the Princes of the Gentiles; and the Apostle Peter Commands the Elders not to Lord it over God's-Clergy; and Diotrephes is blamed for seeking pre-eminence. Answ. Answ. This is the Argument of the Levellers; and may as well be used to Level all Christian men, and make an equality of all Honours and Estates in the State as well as the Church: Drive it Home, as they would, and it Levels all Christian Princes, Judges and Magistrates in the State, as well as the Church: For all Christians are, or should be Disciples and Servants of Christ; whereas our Blessed Saviour in the foresaid Prohibition, Levels not all Orders of men, but only Pride and Ambition; he would abate their Pride, restrain their Malice, and mortify their Avarice and Ambition. A great Prince, a great Statesman, a great Prelate should be Humble, loving and kind to his fellow Creatures; their greatest Honour is Humility, and the greatest Humility of Inferiors consists in Honouring all men, especially the King. Nay, Servants (who are under the yoke) would cause the Gospel to be Blasphemed, if they do not count their Masters worthy of all Honours, 1 Tim. 6.1. The Holy Scriptures than are the Magna Charta to conserve Orders and Respects amongst Christians, not to Level and Confound all degrees and Qualities to an Equality. Obj. Obj. 9 9 Lastly, It is Objected that Spiritual Persons are not fitted and qualified by their Education for Temporal Offices, and Honours. Answ. Answ. To which I answer, then let no such unqualified Persons be called to such Places, Offices, and Trusts: But none in England (be it spoken without exception or offence) have had more liberal and ingenuous Education than some of the Clergy, improved not only by Study, but Travel; and are Learned in the Knowledge of Men, as well as Books, and in the Laws of God and the King: Who are more likely to be improved in all manner of Learning, than such as have been Students all the days of their Lives? Who likely to be more accomplished, as to Conversation and Business, than such as have always kept the choicest Company? Nay, some of them are of as good and noble Families as any other Gentlemen, and is a man less a Man, less a Gentleman, less a Knight, or Nobleman, by being a more immediate Servant of God? By being a Spiritual Person does he undress himself and lay aside his Body, wherefore then must he needs divest himself of all care for the Body? St. Peter never exerted more fiery Zeal than when Ananias and Saphira turned Church Robbers, by purloining that Temporal Estate and Riches, which was indeed once their own; and Sacrilegiously picking the Church's Pocket of what was Devoted, and might have otherwise lawfully been kept in their own Pockets. Is a good man the most unfit to be a great man? I had thought that he had been more fit to serve his Country faithfully, the more Faithfully he had served his God. Moses his frequent Communion with God made him not only more able, but consequently more capable to govern the People? And Samuel had no pretence to the Throne, till he was the more qualified to be a Judge over men, after some Discourse betwixt God and him. Nor was David the less (but the better) King by being the Prophet David; nor his Son Solomon less, but more wise by being Ecclesiastes or the Preacher. Was Isaiah less a Prince, and less of the Blood-Royal by being a Prophet of God? Nay, all Nations that ever I saw, or heard of, pay the greatest respects to the Priesthood? What greater King in all Africa at this day than Proster John (that is to say) Presbyter John or Priest-John? The Egyptians, and so the Ancient Hebrews, by one and the same word signified Priest and Prince, Gen. 41.45. Potipherah; Priest of Ou (in the Margin) Prince of Ou; I say, all Nations (except our Britain, since the late confusions) have thought no Station too good or too great for their Priests; both Civil and Barbarous Nations gave thus much to Religion; and what Nation is there in Christendom, Turkey, or Heathenism, wherein Men in Holy Orders are not a Constitutive and Essential Part of the Government? Popish Priests (whom the ignorant Papists believe to be able to make a God) must needs be not only Respected but Adored. But Protestant Ministers in Holy Orders, can never, without as great a Miracle, be kept from Contempt, and given to Hospitality, if they be kept poor by the many Impropriations now appropriated to the Crown and great Men (which once belonged to the Clergy) and now they shall be stripped too of all Temporal Offices and Honours (their just due by the Laws of Nature, of God, and of the Realm) as those enjoyed by them you call Laymen. Bishops have their Baronies jure Humano; who denies it? No Barons have other Right; the Law of the Land is their Birthright, of which when by the Heats and rage of the late Dog-days time, they were madly deprived, what was the Consequence, but the Ruin and Confusion of all men's Birthrights? It must be confessed, that Envy, pure Envy made Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam (when Lord Chancellor of England (one of the First and Worst Lord Chancellors, of a Layman, that ever had the Custody of the Great Seal of England) by shameful Briberies, for which he lost it) say, (when it was told him that a poor Clergyman waited to speak with him below stairs;) Let him come up (quoth he) for I love to see a poor Clergyman. There are, no doubt, very many that have had the same love for the Clergy, they love to see them Poor; they love to see a poor Clergyman. The Lord Chancellors Ancient Title is Clericus Primae sedis, Clerk of the first Form; Clerk, not Clark (a name now commonly given to every Scribbler, and Lawyer's Clerk) but Clerk, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Clergyman, or the Lord's lot: I know, as before, that Pride and Self-conceit monopolised this name (unjustly) to men in Orders, but it has obtained by custom to signify Spiritual persons; be it so, not the Law of God, nor the Language of Holy Scripture, but only Ordination, Presentation, or the Kings. Commission, makes the Distinction at this Day. The famous Dr. Donne was a favourite Lay-Courtier when King James gave him his Hand to Kiss, in assurance that he should be Dean of Paul's; he afterwards was Ordained Deacon and Priest; and well became his Spiritual function I know no Law that hinders grave and sober Lawyers to be Ordained Elders of the Church; nor why Elders of the Church may not (if qualified) be Elders in the State. Sacred Places, sacred Persons, sacred Churches, and Holy Lands, were only so called because they were Consecrated or made over, and Dedicated to God for his more immediate service. But, in these, as in all other gists, bargains and Sales, there goes two words to the Bargain, or gift, viz. The consent of the Bargainer and the Bargainee; the Donorand the Donee. Now, when, and where, and how did Almighty God ever discover that he accepted these gifts? Especially in those times of Popery, when most of those Deo dands were by superstitutious men given or consecrated to God? For 1st. The Sacred Things and Holy Lands so Dedicated, could not properly be called Gifts to God, because they were usually Extortious, forced through Superstition, and extorted from Devout Sick Men and Dying Men, in Expiation for their former wicked and lewd Lives; Thus, by Commutation to escape the pains of an imaginary Purgatory, Redeeming the Penalty of their Debaucheries, with their Purses and Lands. These, the crafty Priests from that time forward, called Holy Lands, Church-Lands, or the Liberties and Franchises of Holy Church; But, Protestants and all Rational Men (whose Judgements warp not through silly and imbibed Superstitions) call these Commutations of Penance. Holy Cheats. And (it is probable) God Almighty calls them so, and saith, who requireth these things at your hands? To bring the Price of a Whore, or a Dog into the House of the Lord, by scaring and frighting poor silly men out of their Lands, their moneys, and their little Wits, with that old gainful Bugbear and useful scarecrow, Purgatory. An High-way-man is Hanged for saying, with Pistol in hand— Deliver your Purse; but these Holy Pickpockets are rewarded and applauded for saying, Purgatory, Purgatory, Deliver your Purse. Then, with an impudent and whore's forehead, making the Holy God an Accessary, a party, and consenting to those Holy Cheats. And if the Popes themselves, their Cardinals, and Priests did believe these Frauds to be really Sacred, God's Right, and God's Lot, they would never have consented to the Sacrilege by alienating them, and converting them to Saecular uses, and a Lay-fee, as formerly they had been. But Cardinal Woolsey and the Pope understood one another, when Woolsey (to satisfy his Ambition) prevailed with the Pope, for a good round Bribe (for the Pope's Wheels seldom move well without greasing) and got a Licence to dissolve many little Monasteries, Nunneries and Friaries, and to convert them into moneys, to purchase and Build himself a Name, by erecting therewith those two famous Fabrics and Foundations, at Ipswich and Oxford; the former, his Birth-place, the latter, the place of his Education. With design to Eternize his Fame and Name (a most needless project!) for the known Whoredoms and Debaucheries of that Butcher's Son of Ipswich are sufficient Chronicles to perpetuate the filthy memory of such an Erostratus. However, this Indulgence of the Pope (to alienate Church Lands) opened the Eyes of King Hen. 8. and his Parliament ' and let them see that the Pope and Cardinals did not believe that such sacred Church-lands and Tithes were so perpetually Consecrated and given to God, but that they might, to gratify their own Avarice and Woolsey's Ambition, without any scruple of Conscience, be converted to worldly uses again, and become (as they were in the beginning) a Lay-fee. For the King and Parliament perceived (and yet they were Papists, purblind with Superstitions) that the Laity had been most abominably gulled of their Lands, at that extravagant rate, that the Church-Lands were more than a third part of the Kingdom; which caused so many Statutes of Mortmain, as in Magna Charta, cap. 36. and many more since that time. So that, of all Affections, with which the Soul of Man is possessed, Superstition seems to be the most powerful and Violent; it opens the griping hand of the most Covetous Miser; it tears out all Natural Affection from the Bowels of the most tender Parent; witness Philip of Spain that Sacrificed his dearest Son to the Bloody Inquisition, as of old such Bigots Sacrificed their Children to Moloch; it Sanctifies and Hallowes all Murder and Villainy; it humbles the most Ambitious Potentate; witness Hen. II. of England; for personage, none more proper, stout and aimable, for Armies and Victories so powerful and successful, yet he gave his back to the smiters, and was whipped by the shaved Crowns (the Monks of Canterbury) till the Blood run down his Royal Back, in superstitious Expiation of the Death of a proud Prelatical Rebel, Becket, whose shrine was an hundred times more rich, and more Devotion paid to his Altar, than to that of the Blessed Jesus, such is the force of mad Bigotry and Superstition. But that missed broke up in a great measure when the light broke out in the Reign of Hen. VIII. the contemporary of Martin Luther, and John Calvin; in so much that the word Sacrilege, Sacrilege (with which the Wily Priests had done Wonders to Enrich themselves, and Beggar the Kingdom) had lost the greatest part of its Bugbear-force and Terror. Which was happy for this Kingdom; for if the crafty Priests had prospered a little longer in their Holy Frauds, all England had long this been St. Peter's Patrimony; the Church of England had not been in the Kingdom; but the Kingdom in the Church, the Clergy (that at first came out of the Laity, had long this devoured (as the Papists say they do) their Maker and Creator. But it was Priestly and Antichristian Pride alone that made the Clergy such Cormorants, and then to distinguish themselves from the Laity, and be a distinct body of themselves, setting themselves above all that is called God, the Lay-magistrate; But such distinction of Lay and Clergy, is a stranger to the Language of Holy Scripture, and to the sentiments of right Reasoning. Was not St. Peter a Clergyman? And yet he Exhorts the Pastors of the Church to feed the Clergy, or God's-lot and Flock, viz. The Laity, as we improperly term them, as was said before, for Clergy is their Christian-Name. Search the Scripture, and you shall always find that by Church of God, is meant the Laity with their Pastor's at the Head of them; quite contrary, our Ancient Statutes (Penned by Popish-Priests) by Holy Church, and all her Liberties and Franchises, mean only the Clergy, forsooth, excluding the Laity; but I say, Laity and Clergy, Lay-fee, and Church lands, are distinguishing Terms that God never made, and is the sole Invention of Antichristian Pride. And so long as these two words— Church and State are kept in vogue, as if they were two Bodies, two distinct Corporations, they will always be clashing and quarrelling in their Interests, and drive on several Designs and Projects; of which we may say as of two Ships that sailing contrary ways meet in the Ocean, Si collidimur, frangimur, if we clash one against another, we shall split one another; but they are not two, but one, and Lay-Clergy is but one word, and what God has joined together, let not wicked man put asunder. This Unity of Persons (Clergy and Lay) takes away all distinctions of Lands, as Church-lands, and Lay-fees, which King H. 8. and his Parliament begun practically to understand, when they took the Church-lands (which the Popelings Superstition had Monopolised to the Clergy alone, robbing the State) and made them Crown-lands. For to the Crown all Deodands appertain, and I will justify it against all the Bigots, that they were Lawfully disposed of by Act of Parliament, which in England is the only thing that distinguishes and ascertains all men's Properties and Liberties, and places all Lawful Landmarks. Nature makes no distinction of meum and tuum, for Property and Right in the Kingdom, is only ascertained, and known by the Law of the Land. But, 2dly. How can God be robbed, except it can be proved that those Church-lands were his, and that he (who hates Robbery for a Burnt-Offering) did ever accept thereof? How can it be proved that his word was one of the two words that went to the bargain, when such Holy-lands, and Sacred Persons were Dedicated to him? Tithes and Offerings were God's Lot, under the Law; of which he might have been robbed, not so under the Gospel. Sacred they were only in the use, whilst well employed in the more immediate service of God, Divine Service; but the Character is not indelible, they cease to be so, when the good and right use ceases, or turns to an Abuse, and never were accepted by God, that we know of, or ever were acknowledged to be God's peculiar, especially when purchased by Superstitious craft, robbery and fraud; for it is written, Let no man go beyond (out-wit) or defraud his Brother in any matter, for the Lord is the Avenger of all such. The Magistrate is God's Deputy, and the Avenger, and in England he has done his Duty, in Redeeming these superstitious Church-lands, reducing them to the State, (their ancient Channel) and who art thou that darest to gainsay this Minister of God to thee for good? Demas was Ordained, but what became of the Indelible Character, when he turned an Apostate-Priest in the Ido!-Temple at Thessalonica? Julian (the Emperor) was once in Holy Orders, and given or ordained or devoted to God; but, if God had accepted the gift, he had not afterwards, by his Apostasy, given himself to the Devil: but where's the Indelible Character all this while, so much boasted of by the Papists, and so much prated of by some Protestants? Our Holy Religion is of its own store rich enough, without borrowing from Hypocritical dresses, or groundless and vain Pretences. Moses the chief Magistrate Ordained his Elder Brother Aaron Chief Priest, and Nature wrought in him, so that he preferred all his own Family and Tribe (Ordaining all the Tribe of Levi, fit or unfit, even before they were Born) to be Clergymen to the World's end; and gave them not only great Gleabes, but the Tenth (whereas Levi was at most but the twelfth part of the other Tribes) even of all their Labour and Increase; the eleven Tribes drudged hard to make the Tribe of Levi easy, I do not say, Lazy. But under the Gospel there are no such entailed Ordinations, nor a Clergy-Tribe; the Laity and Clergy are now all of one Flesh; and they ought to be all of one mind, which can never be, whilst they are distinct corporations, either in Fact, or Name. Even under the Law, the chief Magistrate King Solomon deemed it no Sacrilege to degrade and deprive the Highpriest Abiathar, and Ordained and Installed in his room one of his own Favourites. Nay, Moses could not so monopolise the Priest's Office, and Church-Benefices and Benefits to his own Tribe, but other Tribes put in for a warm share long before Jeroboam's time; one of the House of Judah was an Interloper, and got Ordination, Judg. 17.7. So that, neither the Church-Affairs were Administered only by the Tribe of Levi, nor the chief Administration and Government in the State was confined to the Tribe of Judah (as King David's good nature and kindness to his own Tribe did design it) for King David's project lasted not three Generations, Judah was the Royal Family during the Reigns of David and Solomon, but the Sceptre departed from Judah (by the Revolt of ten of the Tribes) in the Reign of that impolitic Prince, Rehoboam, and an Ephraimite Reigned in Jeroboam; who had the Art, or Kingcraft to cajole the people, who must be pleased, or else their King's Crown sits neither easy nor fast upon his head; Jeroboam had the knack of it, whilst silly and Rash Rehoboam was Abdicated; what portion (say the people) have we in David, neither have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse, To your Tents, Oh Israel! now see to thine House, David. Thus we see, that even under the Occonomy of the Old Testament neither Offices in the Church nor State were confined to One Set of Men, much less to such a distinct Tribe of Levi, or Churchmen, distinguished and characterized from other men; no, not so much as in Habit, Garb or Name. For St. Peter (a Fisherman) was a Fisherman still, even after he was a Preacher and Fisher of men; and I doubt not but he wore a Fisher-man's Habit, Clothes and Garb suitable to his Trade, as did St. Paul and the rest. Nor were Magistrates excluded from Degrading, Ordaining or Commissionating Churchmen, and Depriving them likewise; making Churchmen Statesmen, and vice versa, Statesmen Churchmen, Ministers of the Church and State, or Servants to the State; for they are not (as I said before) two distinct Bodies, two distinct Corporations, but the Church is a Member and part of the State; It was only Popish Pride and Antichristian Prelacy that advanced the Mitre above the Crown. And all our aucient Statutes (made in the Unhappy Reign of Popery) run in one strain, as if the Church of England was adistinct Body from the Kingdom of England. Thus the first Chapter of Magna Charta grants, That the Church of England shall be free, and shall have Her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable; and 3 Rich. 2.1. That Holy Church have and wholly enjoy Her Franchises and Liberties, by the manner she as hath had, etc. What a do is here to maintain this She? This She (Holy Church) can never be meant to be the same Body with the He (the State) for which cause the old Statutes often mention the Lay-Fec in opposition and distinction to Church-lands. But it was never-well with the King and Kingdom of England, when this She strove to wear the Breeches, and kept a Purse and Cupboard by herself alone, peculiar and independent of the He, the King. For in the days of yore, when Popery (or Antichristianism) was rampant above all that is called God (the Magistrate) our King could not, durst not hang a Murderer or Traitor if he were a Clergyman or Churchman, till Holy Church was pleased to Depose, Disrobe, and unclergy the Traitor or Murderer. And if the King and State had never so much need of Money, not a Farthing durst they Assess this same She Holy Church in pain of Excommunication; (a terrible Bug in those days, though Solomon said, The curse that's causeless shall not come) and in pain of Transgressing Magna Charta, except She herself consented to such Assessment, in Convocation; for which cause Parliaments and Convocations were usually Contemporaries; So also are they now, from Custom rather than use, Convocations being now little more than a mere formality; the King and Parliament make bold to pass such Royal Aids into Acts, without ask the consent, or so much as consulting the Convocation Houses, no not so much as in matters of Religion, little or no notice being taken of them. For Noblemen and Gentlemen are now Book-learned, and generally may entitle themselves too (K. Hen. the first's cognomination) Beau-Clerks: And the benefit of the Clergy (in Felon's Convict) is now by Common-Law and Statute-Law granted in common to Laymen, who also have the mercy of the Book; and as the Laymen are capable of the benefit of the Clergy, why not also of the Benefices of the Clergy, if the King Ordain or Commissionate them? So also Clergymen are capable of any Benefit in the State, if the King Ordain or Commission them thereunto; even as they usually are Commissionated in all other kingdoms of the World, whether Christians or Turks, Jews or Gentiles. And every man that is capable may justly to himself adopt the Motto of Julius Caesar (who was Pope of Rome, and Roman Emperor, both Pontifex Maximus and Imperatour, Highpriest in the Church, and General and Dictator in the State, as famous for his Sermons and Orations, as for his Bastails and Conquests, as Eloquent as Valiant, renowned for the sharpness of his Pen, as his Pike, both for the Word and Sword) ex utroque If a man be able for both, he is capable of both; this is the common consent of all Nations, and therefore ought (in Cicero's Opinion) to be esteemed The Law of Nature, which is never contrary to the Law of God. Omni in re Consensio Omnium Gentium lex naturae putanda est. All the Lawyers in Israel and Judah were Divines, and all their Divines Lawyers; and so it is at this day, in all those vast Territories where Mahomet anism does obtain, and which spreads more Land (in these three best Inhabited Parts of the World, Europe, Asia, and Africa) than Christianity and Gentilism both put together. But to come nearer home, Leges Angliae were of old truly styled Leges Dei; the Laws of England are called the Laws of God, not only because they are (for the most part) extracted out of holy-writ, but because they are the Long-approved dictates of right Reason, the only Image of God, in which man was Created; And can it be improper for a Divine to be well-skilled in the most lively Draughts of his Maker's likeness? The gross or supine ignorance of our English Laws and Constitutions gave vent to those Flaguy-Doctrines of Nonresistance and Absolute and Arbitrary Government (after the mode of France) in Loans, Freequarter, Shipmoney, etc. during the unhapy Ministry of Buckingham, Strafford and Laud, that countenanced those two Court-Parasites and Ear-wigs (Montague and Manwaring) who poisoned the Ears of Charles I. with such infectious Doctrines that proved to be so fatal to the King and three Kingdoms. 'Tis true, indeed, both Mountaigne and Manwaring were doomed and condemned for the same in open Parliament, Sentenced and Fined, and made incapable of all Ecclesiastical Benefices and Promotions. But the Parliament was no sooner dissolved, but they were (both of them) punished with two Fat Bishoprics, but of fatal consequence. For duckoyed and drilled on with such like hopes of Preferment, a numerous crowd of Tories and Tantivees, in the three late Reigns, trod in Manwaring's steps in hopes thereby of Manwaring's Fate. Which (yet) was not worth the aspiring unto, for he did not long enjoy the Fruits of his Court-Sycophantry; but died poor and an Heterodox-Divine, because he was not an Orthodox-Lawyer. And was therefore condemned by the Parliament as unfit for the Church, because he was so ignorant of the Laws of the Land, (a fault unpardonable in a Divine of the Church of England, who wants the one half of his Trade, or Profession, and is not complete Master of his Art, without good knowledge in the Laws Municipal.) Thus have I shown, That the Lay-Clergy is but one goodword, and a Lay-Elder (in this sense) no Centaur, but (though a great rarity) The most Accomplished Divine, and able for (and therefore capable of) Secular Authorities, and of both Provinces; or (if you please) or rather (if the King please) they make but one good Province. But whether, such a Divine thinks it expedient to accept thereof, is a Second Question. For he is accounted the wisest Divine (at least) one that best consults his own welfare and repose, who withdraws himself from the Crowd and Bustle of this silly World betimes, before he be so far engaged that all Return is impracticable, and no fair way left for an honourable and safe retreat. It is easy to get into Place, not so easy to stay in, but much more difficult, when plunged in, to scramble out. The Conclusion. Pro Captu Lectoris habent sua fata Libelli. Books have their fates, they hit, they miss; Just as the Reader's Palate is; And what does one man's Gusto please, Is to another a Disease. Or, in Burlesque, thus, Each Book has several fates, Videlicet, Even as the Readers please to relish it. Thus have I, gentle Reader, with good and honest design, endeavoured to demolish that Partition-wall (betwixt Church and State, Laity and Clergy) erected by Popish and Prelatical pride, making the Church and Churchmen a Body and Corporation distinct from the State, and driving on several and opposite Ends and Designs; whereas they should be United and go hand in hand; or rather are indeed one and the same (or aught to be so) in a Christian State: As the King is head of the State, so is he also recognized to be the Head of the Church, 26. Hen. 8.1. What? Two Bodies to one head? Out upon't; 'tis Monstrous; I cannot abide to see it. And herein, if I have not pleased thee, I have done my endeavour, and therein have pleased myself. And if I be in an Error, it is one of the most harmless in these mad times, wherein — Quis non molitur inepte? Nullum magnum Ingenium sine mixtura dementioe. A Worm or Maggot (in the Head Of the most subtle man) is bred. Wisemen (at some odd hours) we see, Have some short fits of Lunacy; And every skull (all must confess) Has a soft place in't, more or less. FINIS. ADVERTISEMENT. ☞ THE Letter written by Sir DUNCOMB COLCHESTER a little before his Death; containing his Remarkable Instance (which Letter was read publicly by his order, in the Parish Churches of Michael-Dean and Westbury) is now Published, with other late instances of that Nature. All which are annexed to Mr. TVRNER's Essay upon the Works of Creation and Providence, lately published: To this ESSAY is added a SCHEME of the History of Remarkable Providences (now preparing for the Press.) As also a large SPECIMEN of that Work. Price bound 2 s.— Both Printed for John Dunton, at the Raven in Jewen-street. And may also be had of Edm. Richardson near the Poultrey-Church. ☞ If any Minister's Widow, or other person, have any Library, or parcel of books to dispose of, if they will send a Catalogue of them, or notice where they are, to John Dunton, at the Raven in Jewen-street, they shall have ready money for them, to the full of what they are worth.