AN HUMBLE EXAMINATION OF A PRINTED ABSTRACT OF The Answers to Nine Reasons of the House of Commons, AGAINST The Votes of Bishops in Parliament.  
Printed by order of a Committee of the Honourable House of Commons, now Assembled in Parliament.  
LONDON, Printed for P. Stephens and C. Meredith. 1641.   

AN HUMBLE EXAMINATION OF A Printed ABSTRACT of the ANSWERS given to Nine REASONS of the HOUSE of COMMONS, Against the Votes of Bishops in Parliament.  

I. REASON of the House of Commons.  
BEcause it is a very great hindrance to the exercise of their Ministerial Function. 
To this Reason a fourfold Answer is sent abroad.   

ANSWER.  1. Is is not so much hindrance as their convening to General Counsels, Synods, Convocations, Assemblies, Classes, and the like, in all the Churches Reform, or otherwise. 

EXAMEN.  
Convening to General Counsels, Synods, etc. when need requireth, is a proper part of their Ecclesiastical Office, and so cannot rightly be termed any hindrance to their Ministerial Function at all. For then, although they be enforced to be absent from their particular Congregations, they do still move within their own proper Orb, for the more public Service of the Church: and so they may with more reason expect a blessing on it. But when they Vote in Parliament, as Peers, in Civil and Secular Affairs, touching Trade, Merchandise, and other particulars of State policy, they be Eccentrick, and out of their own Sphere, and Calling. This therefore must needs be not only some hindrance, but, a very great hindrance to the exercise of their Ministerial Function: because, to qualify them to give such Votes, with judgement, they must necessarily bestow themselves most, if not altogether upon the study of, and searching into all those Secular matters which in Parliaments be, or may be debated and voted, and in the inquiry into all those principles and deep mysteries of State, wherein, all that vote in the House of Peers, aught above all others to be most conversant; which cannot ordinarily be attained, without spending most of their time and study thereupon: Si enim velit Episcopus, ut caelesti pariter & terreno Regi placeat, ad utrumque se officium dividere, certe Rex caelestis, qui sibi vult ex toto cord, tota anima, tota virtute serviri, ministerium divinum non approbat, non diligit, non acceptat. Nam nec terreni Principis ratiocinia quisquam dimidius sufficienter administrat; 
Matth. Parker Antiq. Britanni. in Huberto ex Wil Nubrig.  as a learned Archbishop of Canterbury, out of another grave Author, hath observed.  
And since, to be able to give a Vote in the Lord's House of Parliament judiciously, and for the benefit of the public, requires such constant industry, daily observation, and no small experience of all kinds of secular affairs, with their several casual turn, and vicissitudes: I cannot see how Bishops; voting in that House, can avoid one of these three evils, either they must give their votes ignorantly (and ignorance usually runs wrong;) or corruptly, to serve other men's turns, be they right or wrong, or else they must necessarily bend most part of their lives to secular studies and employments, to which they were never bred, from which their Ministerial Function should exclude them, and for which many godly Bishops and others, beside sundry Counsels, in all ages have condemned them; many of those Ancients having alleged that Scripture, in 2 Tim. 2.4. (Nemo militans Deo, implicat se negotiis secularibus, etc.) to this very purpose.  
For more expedition, I shall only name some of those Authors and Counsels. Cyprian. Epist 66. juxta Pamel. Can. 6. Apost. apud Zonaram. Concil. Carthag. 4. Can. 16. Concil. Chalced. Oecum. Sess. 15. Can. 3. August. Epist. 110. Greg. Magn. Dial. lib 1. Praefat. Excerpt. Egberti Can. 16. & Can. 57 Concil. Calchuth. Can. 10. Anselm. in Concil. Westm. ut videre est in Gulielm. Malmsb. de Gestis Pontif. l. 1. Mat. Par. Hist. Angl. in the Cases of Walter B. of Durham, in time of Will. the Conq. and of Hubert Archb. of Cant. in Ric. 1.  
Yea, we shall find this sharply condemned by popish Prelates themselves. Corp. jur. Can. didst. 88 And Othobone the Pope's Legate here, in Hen. 3. his time, censured it, and provided against it, as vitium horrendum. Const. Legat. cap. Cum honest. But I leave them.  
See also tindal in his Tract of Obedience of a Christian. B. Hooper, on 8. Command. B. Latymer, Sermon called the Plough. B. jewel, defence of Apol. par. 5. chap. 4. divis. 2. Mat. Parker, Archb. of Cant. Antiquit. Brit. in Huberto, where he is very large, sharp, and solid in this point. Take a passage or two, because his Book is not in every hand. Neque enim, si verum judicare volumus, in Republica Christiana quicquam sani atque integri seculum illud (Richardi primi) tulit. Fictaque & adumbrata Religionis specie proposita, totus Clerus in sceleribus, muneribus, honoribus, & rapinis, neglecto penitus verbo, impune volutabat. Hujus mali origo ab hoc profluxit, quod contra Orthodoxorum Patrum decreta, Clerus nimium mundanis se negotiis immiscuit. Then he goes on to show a fearful example of God's vengeance upon one of them, who had been advanced to a very high Office in the State, which Relation he thus closeth up; Cujus generis exempla idcirco proferenda sunt, ut deterreatur a vectigalibus Regiis, & Civilibus publicisque occupationibus Clerus, & Evangelio propagando praecipue studeat ac incumbat. And how ever he after takes notice of somewhat which happened in the beginning of Henry 3. wherein he seems to prefer the fidelity of the Clergy to that of the Laity in administering of Civil Offices, yet he doth it not as allowing the Clergy to be so employed, but rather as secretly taxing the Nobility of that time for being so unfaithful to the King and Kingdom, which surely is no warrant for the Clergy to step out of their own Calling.  
It is true that anciently Bishops have been allowed to intermeddle in some Civil affairs, at sometimes. Constantine made a law to that purpose, in case of voluntary appeals from civil judicatories, Sozom. li. 1. cap. 9 And Valens added to it, in cases of Hospitals and Schools. Hist. Counc. of Trent. Yet the mischiefs of such intermeddling, were soon felt and groaned under. Hence Honorius and Arcadius made a Law against it, and Valentinian afterwards put it in execution even in Rome itself. So did other Emperors, as appears by the Corpse of the Civil Law, in many places. Indeed some succeeding Emperors, gave relaxations, and enlarged the power and pre-eminence of Bishops so fare, that at length there was no reducing them to their ancient limits, till that once glorious Sceptre was become so inglorious as to be wholly at the devotion, command, and dispose of the Mitre, to the perpetual ignominy, and irreparable undoing of that puissant Empire.  
And whereas some urge that Statute De Provisoribus in 25. Edward 3. for Bishops intermeddling in Civil Affairs, because it is there said, That the holy Church of England was founded in the estate of Prelacy within the Realm of England, by the King's Ancestors, and other of the Nobility, to inform them and the People of the Law of God, and to make hospitalities, alms, and other works of Charity in the places where the Churches were founded, etc. and for this end, their Lands, revenues, etc. were assigned by the said founders to the Prelates, etc. And the said Kings in times past, were wont to have the greatest part of their Council, for the safeguard of the Realm, when they had need, of such Prelates, and Clerks so advanced etc. This last Clause doth only prove de facto, that so it was used; but doth not legitimate the use; all stories of those times being full of complaints against the mischiefs which arose out of it. And that very Statute declares the prime end of advancing the Clergy into an Hierarchy, was to counsel the Kings and others in the Law of God, not in Civil and Martial matters. And so far is such intermeddling in Secularibus, from being countenanced by the Laws of this Kingdom, that by the common Law; (which is the most fundamental Law of the Realm) all in holy Orders are so carefully exempted from such encumbrances, that if any Clergy man happen to be put into a temporal Office, he must, upon the pleading of his Orders, have a Writ awarded him out of the Chancery to discharge him. Regist. 187.6.  
Therefore it was fare from the intention of the first Founders of our Hierarchy, to employ them in Civilibus, but only to make use of their counsel in Spirituals.  
There is yet one thing more, much insisted upon by some of the Prelates, to prove the lawfulness of their intermeddling in Secular Matters. And it is a passage of Saint Augustine, De opere Monachor. Cap. 29. where he saith, It were fare more profitable for him to spend his time in reading and praying, Quàm tumultuosissimas perplexitates causarum alienarum pati de negotiis secularibus, vel judicando dirimendis, vel interveniendo praecidendis; 
1 Cor. 6.  quibus nos molestiis idem afflixit Apostolus, non utique suo, sed ejus qui in eo loquebatur arbitrio. Ergo, say some Bishops, they have warrant so to do, yea a command from the Apostle, and from the Spirit of God himself.  
To this it may be answered. 1. That in that very place St. Austin doth bemoan this, as being Ecclesiarum quibus servit consuetudo the custom of those Churches: and the practice began, after Constantine made a law to warrant it; for S Aust. there saith that Paul never submitted to it, nay rather he gave order to make them judges that were meanest, and had least to do. And albeit St. Austin there adds that this toil he undertook, non sine consolatione Domini in spe vitae aeternae, ut fructum feramus cum tolerantia. Yet this was not spoken, as rejoicing in the employment, but as bearing it with more cheerfulness in hope of eternal life after it. 2. As for the employment itself, he complains, violenter irruptum est, & non permitter ad quod volo vacare ante meridiem, post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneor. Epist. 110. 
Possidon. in vit. Augustini ca 19  and Possidonius that lived with him many years, bears him witness that hanc suam a melioribus rebus occupationem, tanquam angariam deputabat. Therefore it was, that (in Ep. 110.) he desired the people that they would suffer him to put over all those businesses to Eradius whom he had chosen to be his successor in his Bishopric, which when the people had granted, the good old Father presently unburdened himself, Ergo fratres quicquid est quod ad me perferebatur, ad illum perferatur, ubi necessarium habuerit consilium, meum non negabo auxilium.  
3. If this be not enough, let me answer Bishops, 
Treat. Of Christian Subjection and Antichristian Rebellion. par. 3.  by a Bishop, viz: by Bishop Bilson, who, being pressed with that place of Saint Austin, de opere Mon: by the Popish crew under the name of Philander a jesuite, returns this answer under the veil of Theophilus an Orthodox Divine; a Truth it is, the Bishops of the Primitive Church were greatly troubled with those matters, 
* And I have showed before upon what occasion. Prefat. in Dial.  not as ordinary judges of these causes, but as Arbiters elected by consent of both parties. And I could requite you with Gregory's own words of the same matter in the same place, quod certum est nos non debere, which it is certain we ought not to do. But yet I think so long as it did not hinder their Vocation and Function, though it were troublesome unto them, they might neither in charity nor in duty refuse it, because it tended to the preserving of peace and love amongst men. And the Apostle had licenced all men to choose whom they would for their judges, no doubt meaning that they which were chosen should take the pains to hear the cause, and make an end of the strife. But it is one thing to make peace between brethren, as they did, by hearing their griefs with consent of both sides; and another to claim a judicial interest in those causes, in spite of men's hearts.  
Thus he, and how home this comes to our Bishops, that will needs still contest and struggle to retain their Votes in Parliament in all civil causes whatsoever, undervaluing all the Reasons of the House of Commons, and contrary to the just desires of the whole body of the Kingdom, I need not use more words to declare.  
To finish this point. All that hath been said against the Clergies intermeddling with Civil and Temporal affairs (other than for necessary and comfortable provisions for Lively hood) drives to this Conclusion, that if it be so great an hindrance to the exercise of the Ministerial Function to be employed in temporal matters which are but ordinary, it must needs be a fare greater hindrance to that holy calling, for Bishops to Vote in Parliament, because they cannot do it as it ought to be done, without so much skill and dexterity in secular affairs of all sorts that possibly can come within the debate and resolution of a Parliament, as must needs take up the greatest part, if not the whole of a man's time, study, strength and abilities be they never so great and many, to fit him for that great service altogether beside (I might add inconsistent with) his Calling of the Ministry.    

2. ANSWER to the first REASON.  It is propter majus bonum Ecclesiae. 

EXAMEN.  
Cujus contrarium, etc. What good they have done in Parliament, for the Church (unless to uphold the Synagogue of Rome,) let all Histories speak, that have taken any notice of the acting and carriage of matters of Religion debated, and Voted in Parliament, since the first entrance upon a Reformation in this Kingdom.  
It is true that in the Reign of King Henry the eight, one Cranmer was active in the cause of God, against those six bloody Articles, which cost so many their lives. But, of all the Hierarchy, not one was found to join with him, but all opposed, and he alone for three days together was feign to stand to it, and at length, by the malice, practice, and potency of the Prelates, he was overcome, and the cause carried against him, Acts and Monuments par. 2. page 1037. edit. 1610. This was in the year 1540  
When about four or five years after, Cranmer, in two several Parliaments used his best endeavours to get that bloody Law repealed, and had before hand (as he thought) drawn over to his side the Bishops of Worcester, Chichester, and Rochester, who promised to assist the cause in Parliament; yet when it came to the trial, all the Bishops forsook him and the cause again. In so much as the King himself, and the Nobility stood to him so fare, as to give way to a moderating of the former Law, when the Bishops would not abate the least part of the rigour thereof. Antiq. Britanni. in Cranmero.  
In King Edward the sixth his Reign, it is true, a blessed Reformation was happily begun; but, by whom? By the Bishops? No verily, Cranmer only excepted. For he and the Protector were the men that advised the King, and went through with the work. As for the great Bishops, Gardiner of Winchester, and Tonstall of Duresme, Bonner and others, they served to fill prisons, and divers ran away. And in all Letters of the Lords for more particular Reformation, it was only Canterbury and the Nobility that did promote the business. See Acts and Monuments in King Edward the sixth.  
But in Queen Mary's days, who but Bishops for the Mass, and all the gross body of Popery, both in Convocation and Parliament? Cranmer, and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops were soon persecuted, and at length committed to the fire; while the Popish Prelates, being restored to their places, spared no diligence to promote Popish Idolatry throughout the Kingdom, and that by their Votes in Parliament, whereby they might more plentifully shed blood by a Law.  
When GOD delivered this Kingdom from those Marian flames, and set up blessed Queen Elizabeth, it cannot be denied, but that in the Bill for restoring all ancient Jurisdictions to the Crown and for reestablishment of Religion and ejection of Popery, the Lords Spiritual are named in the Act, because the bill being carried by the greater number of Votes, the dissenting party which was the less, are included in the rest, and it becomes the Act of all, in common repute, and esteem of Law.  
But little thanks to the Bishops for any of that Reformation which was then restored. We find the Bishops of Winchester, Litchfeild, Chester, Carlisle and Lincoln appearing in open defence of Popery while that Parliament was sitting. Act and Monuments par. 2. page 1619. edit. 1610. But these were not all that stood for that cause: Witness the deprivation of Heath Archbishop of York, Tunstall Bishop of Durham. White of Winchester, Thyrlby of Ely, Watson of Lincoln, Baines of Coventry and Litchfeild, Bourne of Bath and Wells, Christopherson of Chichester, Oglethorp of Carlisle, Scot of Chester, Morgan of Saint david's, beside Bonner imprisoned, Pates of Worcester, Goldwel of Saint Asaph in exile, for the same Pseudo-Catholike cause. None of all which can with any probability of reason be imagined to have Voted for the restoring of the Truth, they being by virtue of that Statute deprived for opposing the Truth.  
And albeit, I know nothing but by hearsay of the general carriage of Bishops in Parliaments since, and so do not charge them: yet how often they have withstood bills against Nonresidency, 
* In 31. Elizabeth a Bill against non-resident passed the House of Commons, & being in the other House greatly approved of & much spoken for by many of the Temporal LORDS, yet, through the earnest labouring of the Bishops, it could have 10 passage there. Another Bill for reforming Ecclesiastical Courts in King James his time, passed, till it fell among the Bishops, and there was stayed.  Pluralities, and other evils and defects in the Reformation of Religion, and of their Courts, the world hath been sufficiently informed; insomuch as the House of Commons hath already declared and resolved at a General Committee of the whole House, june eleventh, 1641. That the Bishops have been found by long experience to be great hindrances of a perfect Reformation, and of the growth of Religion. En majus bonum Ecclesiae produced by the Vote of Bishops in Parliaments!  
And as their voting in Parliament, in matters of Religion, is ad detrimentum, potius quam ad utilitatem Ecclesiae; so it cannot be imagined how their Votes there, in Civilibus, should conduce more ad majus bonum Ecclesiae: Except the wilful and incorrigible continuing in a course foreign and contrary to their proper Calling, and such as (being duly performed) is a very great hindrance to the exercise of their Ministerial Function (as hath been before declared) can redound to the greater good of the Church, which they seldom look after, unless to receive the profits of it, and to plague those who are profitable in it, that themselves may more splendidly and securely (in Parliament; and every where else,) Lord it over the whole heritage of God.    

3. ANSWER, to the first REASON.  The Apostles unnecessarily put themselves to more hindrances, to work for their livelihood, Acts 20.24. 1 Thessalo. 2.9. 2 Thess. 3.8. 

EXAMEN.  
Unnecessarily? Boldly spoken: and were I sure that one of my fellows or equals had written it, I should without breach of good manners, pronounce it sauciness little short of blasphemy. Was it not necessary that the Apostles should have a livelihood? And was the procuring of it by labouring with their hands (although I know none but one, after CHRIST'S Ascension, that was put unto it) to avoid the oppression of poor converts, or to prevent scandal among either poor or rich, converted or unconverted, an unnecessary thing? This may be a strain of Policy passable enough among Spiritual Lords of Parliament, but was never known to be good Divinity among such as desire to approve themselves unto GOD.  
I have been taught that Necessarium is put sometimes pro utili & pro congruo & convenienti, as well as pro naturali seu debito, or pro violento sua coacto. And I have learned among the Schoolmen, that there is a necessity not only absolutè & simplicity sic dicta, but also ex suppositione & conditione, when a thing not simply necessary in itself, becomes such in regard either of end, means, circumstances or otherwise. When Saint john (1 Epist. 2.27. tells the Christians, ye need not that any man teach you, was his writing to them to instruct them further, unnecessary? When Saint Paul's abiding in the flesh was more needful in regard of the Philippians, for their furtherance and joy of faith, Philip. 2. Shall any man be so hardy, as to avouch his abode in the flesh to be unnecessary, which yet was not simply necessary in itself, or unto him?  
So, circumstances of time, place, and person, may make that necessary in some places, at some times, and among some persons, which yet of itself is not so. Thus was it in some of those particulars which are called these necessary things, Acts 15.28. yet were it no small presumption for any man to call those things, in reference to that very Text, without some distinction expressed, unnecessary. So it is here.  
When Saint Paul saith, these hands have ministered unto my necessities, Acts 20.34. shall any man say, that ministration was unnecessary? If it be said, it was so, in regard of his right to maintenance; it is true; but, when it is pronounced without such limitation, it is a contradicting and thwarting of the Apostles expression, as if he wanted skill or care to express himself as became him, and a misleading of an uncautious Reader, to swallow down an error inferred from it. For what is hence intended to be inferred, but this; That, as the Apostles did unnecessarily labour with their hands when they might have avoided it: So Bishops may according to that example, vote in Parliament, although the thing be found unnecessary to a Bishop? Now this is a corrupt-inference from ambiguous premises, and the ambiguity lies in the word unnecessarily: for if the word be spoken absolutely and without all limitation, it is absolutely false: if a limitation be intended, it ought to have been expressed, and then any intelligent Reader would soon have been led to consider and compare that act of the Apostle, with the present unnecessariness of Bishop's votes in Parliaments; and thereby have been enabled to discover the weakness and unsufficiency of this unnecessary impertinent Answer, because he would easily have found great and wide differences between those two cases. 1. Working for a livelihood is a matter of necessity, when it cannot otherwise be so well obtained without oppression or scandal, which was the Apostles case: But Bishops voting in Parliament, when no necessity at all, either of maintenance or scandal can be feared, is a work of supererrogation, and an unnecessary sinful neglect of their own Function. 2. The Apostles working with his hands might better consist with the exercise of his Ministerial Office, 
Mat 10.19, 20 joh. 16.13, 14  because he had his furniture thereunto by divine inspiration, 
Gal. 1.11, 12.  whereas all men now must continually and industriously apply themselves to their Books and Meditations, to make them workmen that need not to be ashamed. 
1 Tim. 4.13. 2 Tim. 2.15.  3. The Apostles working with his hands was but for a season while the present necessity lasted, but the Bishops would willingly Vote in Parliament to the end of the world, although there be no necessity of it at all, but great inconvenience and scandal accrueing to the Church thereby, and a Bill transmitted by the honourable House of Commons to the Lords against it, as many ways inconvenient and intolerable.  
It were easy to add more differences, but these may suffice: So also may that which hath been already said, 
1 Thes. 2.9. 2 Thes. 3.8.  for the clearing of those other two Texts that remain.    

4. ANSWER, to the first REASON.  What hindrance can it be to their Calling, that once in three years, when they must necessarily attend the Convocation, they divide some part of that short time to the attendance of Parliament? 

EXAMEN.  
This is not an Answer, but a Question; and such as, if the first Answer be true, little needed. But that which hath been said in examination of that first Answer, may also suffice to satisfy this Interrogation. The hindrance lies not so much in the expense of a short space spent in the Parliament House, as in the long time requisite to fit a Bishop for such multiplicity of weighty businesses as are proper for a Parliament: except he think it enough to vote Bills by rote, according to the impetuousness of his friends, or the loudness of the cries made for or against them.  
Besides, Times and other Circumstances may, and often do so alter the State of the same matters; that, if even the ablest and most vigilant Satesman be not more ware, Bills may be offered, which are perhaps most plausible in present appearance, and might be very profitable too, at some other season, that would prove most pernicious in the issue, if now they were suffered to pass. Now, he that hath not his eyes in his head, or his head not constantly at work (even out of Parliament) to observe and ponder the several changes and wind of affairs and seasons, can never be a judicious Peer in Parliament; but (at his best) an Empiric, who, when his total is cast up, is ever found more hurtful than profitable, yea a very pest to the public; unless, laying all other business aside, he double his industry to make future recompense for his present insufficiency, and by his diligence to supply the defects of his former education, as to this Calling, he having been first intended and moulded for another profession.  
And, if Bishops take this course, 
1 Chro. 12.32  to become like the children of Issachar, men that have understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do, and to enable themselves for Parliaments indeed; it is easy to conclude, what hindrance this not only may be, but cannot but be to their Ministerial Function. For, if the Levite take upon him Issachars' Office, and fall to tampering so high in temporals, 
Gen. 49.14.  he will soon prove an Issachar in Spirituals, and become couchant between his two burdens.  
Again, I hope it will very shortly appear, that it will be fare from being necessary for Bishops once in three years, to attend the Convocation, as the frame of both yet standeth among us. Our Convocation is but a mere shadow, a plain mockery. Synods were ordained for more use and activity, than to patter over a latin Let any upon Wednesdays and Fridays, and to give so many Subsidies as it pleaseth his Grace to propound to the engaged and enthralled Clergy; or to pass a few illegal, seditious, Anti-parliamentary Canons, first cast in the mould of some brain sick Incendiary, that would needs be the Dominus fac totum, and the head of a pragmatical, Papistical, Atheistical Sanction.  
And, if Synods were (as I trust they will be) restored to their pristine course and extent, agreeable to the Word (without which, better we never saw Convocation more; as, I hope, we shall not) there would be so much work to do in them, as would even tyre out the most indefatigable spirits of the ablest men, to consider of errors in doctrine which daily creep in to corrupt the truth; of explanations of Doctrine already established, when perverse men make use of the generality or ambiguity of the terms wherein they be couched, to countenance their fancies and fanaticke opinions; of preparing platform of Discipline agreeable to the will of God, and useful for his people; of censuring such as be too great for lesser Assemblies; and of Appeals from inferior Synods to that higher judicatory.  
Then, would godly and conscientious Bishops find so much to do in Convocations or Synods, as would leave them little leisure for attendance in Parliaments, where the Peers do, or should sit every day (or they have little reason to Vote in those Bills and Causes there agitated, when they have not heard the debates;) and soon let them see, that all the time they could redeem (although they sat every day, and sat out the day) would be much too little maturely to discuss, and deliberately to determine all businesses of Synods. Ergo, it must needs be a very great hindrance to the proper work of their Calling, when, once in three years they must necessarily attend the Convocation (reform, and restored to the truly Primitive nature, and use) if they divide any part of that short time to the attendance of Parliament. Thus fare the Examination of all the Answers, to the first Reason, which being the Principal, I have been the longer in it, aswell for the asserting of the Reason itself, as for examining the strength of the Answers that would, but cannot enervate or abate the vigour of it.     

II. REASON of the House of Commons.  
BEcause they do vow and undertake it at their Ordination, when they enter into holy Orders, that they will give themselves wholly to that Vocation.  

I. ANSWER.  This Vow and undertaking in Minister's Ordination is quite mistaken: The words are in the Bishop's Exhortation, not in the Ministers Answer. 
To this a three fold Answer is given.  

EXAMEN.  
Mistaken, and quite mistaken? Why so? Because the words are in the Bishop's Exhortation, not in the Ministers Answer. But where hath the House of Commons yet said, that the words are in the Ministers Answer? Surely not in their second Reason, against which this Answer is directed. Therefore, this branch of the Answer to that Reason might have well been spared.  
The words are confessed by the Answerer to be used at the Minister's Ordination. This is enough to justify the House of Commons, and their Reason. And, what though it be spoken by the Bishop, not by the Minister at that time? this doth not disprove his Vow. Little children utter no words in Baptism; yet, do they not enter into a Vow, when the Minister declareth upon what terms they be admitted, and the whole action is managed by others?  
The Bishop speaks these words at the Ordination of Ministers; We have a good hope that you have well weighed and pondered these things with yourselves, long before this time, and that you have clearly determined by God's Grace, to give yourselves wholly to this Vocation, whereunto it hath pleased God to call you, so that (as much as lieth in you) you apply yourselves wholly to this one thing, and draw all your cares and studies this way, and to this end.  
All this the Ministers hear when they enter into holy Orders. The Bishop takes it for granted that they have done all this; that they have fully resolved, and decreed it, (as the Latin hath it) long before, and that by invocating of God's Grace for performance; which decree beforehand, with invocation supposed, and consent at present to be admitted into Holy Orders upon this condition, by their silence witnessed, makes it to amount (materially, if not formally, quoad omnia) to a Vow, that is, to such an obligation as engageth them to undertake and make good what in this Reason is affirmed of them. For, I have learned so much out of Calvin, the Civilian, that sometimes Votum ponitur pro consensu. and no man denies silence, in such an action, 
Lexic. Incid.  to be consent. And more than this, the House of Commons say not: for they speak not of a formal Vow vocally pronounced by the Minister, in that action.  
Howbeit, if I may utter my private opinion freely of this point, without prejudice to the House of Commons, and without engaging them further than themselves intended, I humbly conceive, that the Church of England, in her fifth Question propounded by the Bishop in the ordering of Ministers, doth fully intent as much as is contained in those words of the Exhortation before rehearsed: and, to that Question, the Minister positively answereth, I will endeavour myself so to do, the Lord being my helper. Ergo, he formally voweth at his Ordination, what is contained in the Second Reason of the House of Commons.  
To clear this, I shall first set down the words of the Question; Will you be diligent in prayers, and in reading of the holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the Study of the World and the Flesh? To this, the party to be ordained answereth, I Will endeavour myself so to do, the Lord being my helper.  
Next, I must pray the Readers to consider, that the surest exposition of these words must needs be found in that Book from whence the words were taken, and set into the Book of Ordination more briefly than in the Original they be expressed. All the learned know, that Bucer was the chief man, who at the request of Cranmer, censured the first Public Liturgy of Edward 6. whereupon it was reduced to a better form.  
In that first Book, there was no form of Ordination prescribed: but in the 5. 6. Edward 6. it was added. This Exhortation and the Questions and Answers to them, in our present Book of Ordination, were not borrowed (as some suggest) out of the Roman Pontifical, but were Verbatim taken out of that grave and learned Treatise of Bucer entitled, De Ordinat. Legitima Ministrorum Eccles. Cap. ult. extant in his Script. Anglican. Ergo, the full meaning and latitude of this Question must be taken thence.  
Now the Question is there propounded thus; Tempus omne quod vobis a sacris Ministeriis publicis & privatis, ac necessaria & frugali corporis cura superfuerit, id omne precibus & lectione Divinarum Scripturarum, iisque studiis quae cognitionem Scripturarum, & docendi facultatem adjuvant & ornant, rejectis a vobis cunctis mundi & carnis studiis & negotiis, feriis & ludicris, impendetis? The Answer, Impendemus, juvante nos Domino.  
So then, the full latitude of the Question (which is contracted in the book of Ordination) extends to a solemn vow and undertaking on the Minister's part, when he enters into Holy Orders, to bestow all his time, either in the exercise of his Office, or fitting himself further for it; and, to lay aside not only the vanities and pomps of this wicked world (as he vowed to do in Baptism;) but all secular businesses and employments; necessary provision for himself and family (which God himself imposeth upon all) excepted. And all this, in his solemn Answer made to the Bishop at his Ordination, the Minister formally covenanteth and voweth by God's grace to perform. Which being so, there can no scruple remain in any impartial man, but that the second Reason of the House of Commons is true, solid, and concluding against the Bishop's Votes in Parliament, quod erat demonstrandum.    

2. ANS. to the second REASON.  The Bishop hopes they will give themselves wholly to that, and not to any other Trade or Vocation. 

EXAMEN.  
And hope so he cannot, if Bishops may still vote in Parliament. Because they cannot do that, with profit or safety to the Common wealth, without giving their minds not to some one other single trade or vocation only, but to every trade and course of life, so fare as to make them complete Satesmen, as hath been showed before. For, what Trade or Vocation is there to be found, which sometime or other makes not business for the Parliament? And how shall he give a Vote in it with judgement, that hath not a good insight into all the Mysteries of it.  
If it should (as possibly it may) be objected, that by this strict rule, many of the Nobility, should be excluded? I answer, that if they be not throughly qualified and furnished for that work, the more the pity, because the more the Common wealth suffers by their insufficiency. Howbeit the ingenuousness of their nature and education, will make them less forward in speaking, and more diligent in hearing their ancients and men of more gravity and experience. Nor is it fit that for such insufficiencies they should be turned out, but rather remain there as in a School (as we see some of the sons of the Noblemen do) to train them up to do service there to the King and Kingdom, it being an honour to which they were borne; whereas Bishops sit there but Precario, and are out of their Callings all the while.  
But, is that all that the Bishop hopes, namely, that the persons to be ordained will not take another Trade or Vocation upon them? Then belike, if a Minister do not profess the Trade of a Tailor, he may yet spend part of his time in Tayloring. He may sometimes give himself to Brewing, so he set not up a Brewhouse, etc. But surely our Law is so strict in such cases, that it forbids Ministers to have so much as a Brewhouse or Tanhouse, although managed by others, further than for the necessaries of house keeping; nor otherwise, to take to Farm or Lease, any Lands or Tenements, albeit the same be occupied by some other persons, if it be to the Ministers use. 21. Hen. 8 13.  
And why so? Is it because the Laws do envy the wealth of Spiritual persons? That were an uncharitable surmise. The end was, that Ministers might have no occasions of a vocation from their Studies and Ministerial Function, but have more opportunity to bestow themselves wholly thereupon, according to what they promised and undertook at their Ordination, for the more quiet and virtuous increase and maintenance of Divine Service, and preaching and teaching of the Word of God, etc. as the entrance into that Statute doth express it.  
So then, if we consider Bishops, according to what the Common wealth expecteth from them in her Laws, as well as what the Church bindeth them unto in their Ordination, as Ministers of the Church of England, they may not regularly, give themselves not only wholly to any Trade, but not at all to any employment but the Ministry, and to that which is necessarily required to fit them for it, and support them in it.    

3. ANS. to the second REASON.  Wholly in a Moral, and not in a Mathematical sense, that will admit no Latitude: else there might the same exception be taken against their just care of provision for their household affairs. 

EXAMEN.  
If they by their Ordination be bounded Morally; the House of Commons will never, I presume, trouble themselves about the Mathematicality of the Vow. Nor will I be so bold, to say of this distinction, of the words of the Exhortation in question, as the Author of the Holy Table, Name, and Thing, doth of a like subtle interpretation of a Rubric, newly minted by his Antagonist, praying him to remember, 
Page. 54.  that the Rubric was written for the use of the English, not of the Gypsies or Egyptians. Yet this I suppose I may freely and truly say, that neither Learned and Pious Martin Bucer, nor the plain meaning Church of England, which borrowed that Exhortation from Bucer, ever so much as dreamt of the Mathematics, or of that distinction here given, in those words of the Exhortation; but meant honestly and plainly to let all Ministers know, that, without distinctions or tricks, they are to bind themselves wholly and absolutely, Mathematically aswell as Morally, to that Vocation of the Ministry; further than the necessity of livelihood enforceth them to spend some time to supply the wants and necessary occasions of them and theirs. And to this I may, I hope, without offence make bold to add (because I have learned it from the same Author, of the Holy Table, etc. page 52. as he out of Aristotle, Anal. Post. Lib. 1. Cap. 12) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You must not dispute in terms of Geometry; with those that verse not in Geometry; otherwise you will show yourself but a foul and sophistical disputant, as that Author hath it.  
But let the distinction be as it will; thus much is clearly gotten by it, that the Answerer hereby yields, that, Morally Bishops cannot vote in Parliament, without crossing the expectation of, and condition propounded by the Church, in admitting them to Holy Orders; and that they vote there and employ themselves in secular affairs Mathematically only. Surely, if their voting there (for that we know is the thing to be asserted by him in his Answers, because that is it which is opposed in the Reasons of the House of Commons) consist not with the Rules of Morality, it is no great credit for them to retain that honour, nor will it at length bring in much comfort to them, when they must yield up their accounts to God, that they were never forbidden it according to the strict Laws of the Mathematics, although indeed Morally they were bound from it.  
And what, must they needs be debarred from the just care of provision of their household affairs, if denied votes in Parliament, and liberty unto secular employments, to enable them so to vote? Nay, God himself not only allows, but imposeth upon all men a care of their family-businesse and government, Prov. 27.23. and he that is negligent herein, is pronounced worse than an Infidel, 1 Tim. 5.8. God hath not divided this from any Calling, in ordinary course. And what he hath joined, no man may separate. Therefore, both the Church in her Ordination (as appeared by the larger expression thereof before out of Bucer) and the Kingdom, in her Laws (as is also manifest in the Statute before alleged) excepteth this care of provision for their households, when yet both Church and Kingdom bind them to give themselves (in all other particulars) wholly to the Calling, study and exercise of the Ministry, which they have received in the Lord, 
Collos. 4 17  that they may fulfil it.     

III. REAS. of the House of Commons.  
BEcause Counsels and Canons in several ages do forbidden them to meddle with Secular Affairs.  

I. ANSWER. 
To this 3. Reason a five fold Answer is directed.   Counsels and Canons against Bishop's Votes in Parliament, were never in use in this Kingdom, and therefore they are abolished by the Statute, of 25. Hen. 8.  

II. ANSWER.  So are they by the same Statute, because the Lords have declared that the Bishops vote hereby the Laws and Statutes of this Realm; and all Canons that cross with those, are there abolished.  

III. ANSWER.  So are they by the same Statute, as thwarting the King's Prerogative to call Bishops by summons to vote in Parliament.  

iv ANSWER.  So are they by the Vote of the House of Commons. 21. Maii 1641. because they are not confirmed by the Act of Parliament. 

EXAMEN.  
I put all these Answers together, because they will not need distinct Examinations, they being much what coincident, at least in the main scope, which is; to keep this third Reason out of the Court, as being no sufficient evidence in Law, to eject the Defendants out of their holds in Parliament, against some of their desires.  
It is acknowledged, that no Counsels or Canons, not confirmed by Parliament have, here in England, any power to bind the subjects either of the Clergy, or of the Laity; as hath been clearly Resolved upon the Question, this Parliament, in both houses.  
But whether the House of Commons refer to any Canons so confirmed, I may not take upon me to affirm or deny; because they have been pleased to forbear to cite those to which they do refer. Nor can it be, I think, denied, that any Canons were in use within forty years before the Statute of 25. Hen. 8.19. (to which I conceive the Answerer hath relation) against Bishop's votes in Parliament: and so, Bishops be shot free from such Canons, if urged against them in that capacity, as binding Laws.  
But what need the Answerer to have taken all this pains of multiplying of Answers to show that no Counsels or Canons not ratified by Parliaments, be binding to Bishops, in this or any case whatsoever? For, where hath the House of Commons so urged them? Surely, not here. They have not vouched them as Laws to thrust the Bishops out of the House of Peers, as sitting there against the Laws already in being; but, as rational Arguments and prudential Grounds, to induce the Parliament to use their Legislative power to abrogate the Laws (if any be) for their sitting there; seeing that many godly Bishops in former Ages have made divers religious and wholesome Constitutions and Provisions against such exorbitant usurpations of the Clergy. For however those Canons be not formally obligatory here, yet are they really worthy the Consideration of those who have a power to reduce Bishops by a binding Law to that which heretofore so many learned and pious men of their own Coat and Calling, have pronounced and decreed to be just and necessary.  
Further than this the House of Commons be not engaged. And who knows not that the Bishops and their Officers have, and still do urge divers Canons of foreign Counsels and domestic too, that never were confirmed by Parliament) upon both Clergy and Laity, when such Canons make for the Bishops or their Officers. And these must take effect, like the Laws of the Medes and Persians. And yet now, when they see such Canons turned upon themselves, although not as Laws, but as rational arguments only, how witty they be in putting off all by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. which makes nothing at all against the House of Commons, or this Reason produced by them!  
And what offence, or incongruity was it in the House of Commons, to urge Canons and Counsels against the Bishops in this particular, when no Divine that ever complained of such usurpations of the Clergy hath held it incongruous to press the very same against them? I will not trouble myself or others with many instances; that alone shall suffice, which hath been before 
* Exam. of the first Answe to the first Reason.  alleged out of Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury. That Prelate taxing the excessive exorbitances, and scandalous courses of the Clergy, in the reign of Richard 1. was not afraid to give this as the chief (if not the only) reason of all that prodigious breaking out, Quod contra Orthodoxorum Patrum decreta etc. that contrary to the decrees of the Orthodox Fathers, the Clergy did too much intermeddle in worldly businesses.  
If then, so great a Prelate did well in laying this home to the charge of the Clergy, that their not regarding the Decrees and Canons of former Counsels, was the main cause of all the evils committed by them; it cannot unbecome the House of Commons assembled in Parliament, and passing a Bill against Bishop's Votes in Parliament, to produce and use the Canons and Counsels, of Bishops themselves against such courses, held on and maintained by our Bishops against the judgement, and solemn determinations of their own Predecessors, in the Prelacy in all the Churches of Christ.  
As for the Declaration of the Lords, that the Bishop's Vote in Parliament by the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, I meddle not with it, because as I am ignorant of the Laws and Statutes by which they vote, so am I not acquainted with what the Lords have declared thereupon. Only I have heard, that divers Abbots voted as anciently in Parliament as Bishops, yet are taken away. Yea, this Answerer, hath informed me, 
Answer to Reason 7.  that anciently the Bishops were assisted in Parliament; with a double number of Mitred Abbots and Priors. But Sir Edward Cook could find no more in the Parliament Rolls but twenty seven Abbots and two Priors, Commentary on Littleton Institutes Sec. 138. Nor do I know the difference of the Tenors of the one or of the other; or why in regard of original right, Bishops should rather vote in Parliament than Abbots and Priors, so long as those Orders continued in being. That great Master of Law, before named tells us, that both Abbots and Bishops were called to Parliament by the King's Writ, else, they came not there, 
Ibid.  although they held of the King Per Baroniam. Witness the Abbot of the Monastery of Feversham founded by King Stephen, who albeit he held by Barony, yet for that he was not called by Writ he never sat in Parliament. And perhaps, it is not simply a Barony that gives all the Bishops a right to fit there, for I have read somewhere, that all the Bishops of King Henry 8. his foundation have not Baronies annexed to them. Yet they are called by Writ, and vote as Peers in Parliament.  
But, be their right what it will, I hear nothing from the Answerer how fare this right extended. The Lords have, I believe, declared, in this very Parliament, that the Bishops have no votes in causa Sanguinis; and, I think the Bishops have found it to be so. And to my ignorance it is a scruple, whether they had originally any liberty of Votes in Civil and State affairs, and were not restrained merely to matters of Religion.  

Ibid  The reason of my scruple is, because I find in the same Commentaries of Sir Edward Cook (for I confess, I aspire not so high as to look into the roll itself) a transcript of an ancient Record forbidding them to intermeddle, 
Rol. Pat. de An 18. H. 3. 1 16 17.  upon pain of forfeiting their Baronies, with any matters concerning the Crown, the person of the King, his Estate, or the State of his Council: the words are these; Mandatum est omnibus Episcopis qui conventuri sunt apud Gloucestriam die Sabbati in Crastin' Sanctae Katherinae, firmiter inhibendo, quod sicut Baronias suas quas de Rege tenent, 
Vide Pol. Virg. in H. 3. ●  diligunt, nullo modo praesumant Concilium tenere de aliquibus quae Coronam Regis pertinent, vel quae Personam Regis, vel statum suum, vel statum Concilii sui contingunt; scituri pro certo, quod si fecerint, Rex inde se capiet ad Baronias suas. Teste Rege apud Hereford, 23. Novemb. etc. This was in the 8. of Hen. 3. and, in a great Council or Parliament; 
In Hen. 3 ad an. 1234.  not in a private Council of Domestics of his own Court, as Polydore Virgil, and Matthew of Westminster would insinuate.  
Touching the King's Prerogative, it is too sacred to be handled by common or private hands. Fare be it from me to set bounds to it, or to wade fare in it. Only, I believe that the King's Prerogative is for the good of his people: and, if any person unworthy and altogether unfit (and therefore uncapable) should, by the Prerogative Royal, be called to, and employed in any place or office of trust, wherein the whole Kingdom is interressed, this were an abuse of the Prerogative, caused by Him that did misinform the King; and there is no doubt, but a just King who should be so abused, would soon upon better information, recall such a Grant, or Writ. If then the Bishops shall be found to be persons altogether unfit for such high honour and trust (wherein all the Kingdom is so deeply concerned) I only ask (I determine not) what thwarting of the King's Prerogative it could justly be said to be, to pass an Act with the Kings Soit fait, etc. unto it, that no more such Writs shall henceforth issue to any Bishop of the Kingdom.    

5. ANS. to the third REASON.  This Argument was in a manner deserted by Master Perpoint, and confessed to be but an Argumentum ad hominem. 

EXAMEN.  
It is very true, that Noble Gentleman, after he had faithfully and like himself discharged the trust committed to him by the House of Commons in writing, he added a few words, in the close of that Conference with the Lords to this effect; that how ever he was commanded to urge this Reason taken from Counsels and Canons, yet the House did only borrow these Arrows out of the Bishops own Quivers, to use them as weapons against themselves; not with any purpose to bind the House of Commons or other the subjects by them.  
This was not in any sort a desertion of the Argument, but a seasonable explanation of the House of Commons in what sense they used it. And were it but Argumentum ad hominem, yet was it ad illos homines whom it chief and most nearly concerned, to wit the Bishops themselves, and had force enough in my apprehension, to silence them, if they should offer to open their mouths in defence of holding their places and votes in Parliament, any longer. For, if they would but consider what so many famous Bishops and Counsels have said, and decreed against Clergy men's interposing in, and mingling themselves with Civil and Secular affairs (which yet be not of that import and consequence, as these in question be) common ingenuity would make them to lay their hands upon their mouths, and leave the discussion and determination hereof to others who are not interessed in it, and therefore more likely to be less partial in resolving of it.     

iv REASON of the House of Commons.  
BEcause the twenty four Bishops have a dependency upon the Archbishops, and because of their Canonical obedience to them.  

1. ANSWER.  They have no dependency upon the Archbishops, but in points of Appeal, and Visitation only. And own them no obedience, 
To this Reason a two fold Answe is framed.  but in these two points. None at all in Parliament, where they are pares their Equals: And, as Bracton tells us, Par in Parem non habet imperium. What hath Canonical obedience to do with a vote in Parliament, declared in this Bill to be no Ecclesiastical, but a secular affair? 

EXAMEN.  
The Reason consists of two branches, dependency and obedience; both which render Bishops unmeet to vote in Parliament. For, where these two relations meet, make but the Archbishops of a side, and it will be easy to draw the rest the same way. The Answer endeavours to take off both at one pull, because there is neither dependence upon, nor obedience due to the Archbishops but in two points, Appeals, and Visitations, which no way concern Parliaments or the dispose of their votes therein, where they be all Equals, and where the Vote is only a Secular Act.  
To examine the truth of the Answer so fare as it denies all dependency or obedience, but in Appeals, and Visitations, were not altogether impertinent; if it were a time of leisure, because it is with so much confidence denied. Be there no reserved Cases pertaining to the Metropolitan, no Prerogative wills, no Inhibitions that may run, and command in the Diocesans Territories and Jurisdiction, save only in Cases of Appeals, and during the time of Metropolitical Visitations? Doth not the Archbishop command the several Bishops, upon divers occasions, to publish divers things, whether decreed in Synods, or received from supreme Authority?  
Hath the Metropolitan no power to correct and censure the delinquencies of the Bishops of his Province, and to command them, by virtue of their Canonical Obedience, to be more vigilant and diligent, when he finds them slack in their Office; to enjoin them silence and obedience, if they contest and ruffle with his Grace etc. to give other senses and interpretations of Rubrics and other matters contained in the Liturgy, than the Bishop doth, so he expound nothing contrary to the Book; and is not the Bishop to be concluded by it? It were easy to add many more particulars, which cannot be reduced to Appeals or Visitations. Therefore here the Answerer came short in his reckoning.  
But he that desires to look abroad and to see more of this, may consult Lancelott. Perusin. Institut. jur. Can. Lib. 1. Tit. 5. De Episcopis & summo Pontif. Cap. Ad hos. in the addition of Io. Bapt. where it is said, in multiplicibus casibus Archiepiscopus in subditos Episcopos ordinariam habet jurisdictionem, ut in C. pastoralis de offi. ordin. & Sylvest. ponit duodecim. And if these be not enough, he may also see Hostiensis sum. li. 1. de offic. ordin. where there be more cases (even eighteen in number) expressed in certain verses, which are there likewise interpreted by the same Author of those sums Henricus de Segusio.  
Officium varium, forus, appellatio, crimen  
Peccans, non parens, res, consultatio, deses  
Praesul, Canonici tumidi, sententia nequam.  
Visitat, indulget Custos quia Papa dat usus,  
Permutat socijs suspectum cumque remittit.  
Casibus his Primas 
* Subjectos, forsan.  subjectio Prasules arcet.  
I forbear to mention our own Lindwood, and many more. These may suffice to show in how many things Bishops have dependence upon, and may be obnoxious to their Metropolitan, and how many ways the Archbishop can meet with them, if they go not his way in all things that he is set upon.  
And were it true, that there is no dependency upon, nor obedience due to the Archbishop, but in Appeals, and Visitations, as it is a truth that these have in themselves no reference to Votes in Parliament: yet, who knows not what influence an active and pragmatical Archbishop hath into the Votes of all his Suffragans, whom he can pleasure or displease as he listeth, as they Vote with him, or descent from him, after intimation or insinuation of his mind in private to them?  
Indeed, if we could imagine Bishops and Arch-Bishops to be so complete in sincerity and sanctity as their high Calling bespeaks them, there were little strength in this Reason of the House of Commons. But, as the Prelates be men, and not free from that which is humane, so the House of Commons conceived it not undecent or uncharitable to insinuate something more than is plainly expressed to such an Honourable and Intelligent Assembly of Lords: which reason as it is, hath force enough in it to weigh with rational men; however, for the reverence they bore to the Ministerial function, the House held it fit to leave somewhat to be tacitly understood, than to speak all out that is couched under it.    

2. ANSWER to the fourth REASON.  This Argument reacheth not the two Arch-Bishops, discharged in the Rubric from this Oath: and therefore is no reason for the passing of this Bill. 

EXAMEN.  
No Reason? I am sure it reacheth twenty four Bishops home enough although two Arch-Bishops should slip Collar, which one of them cannot, and I think the other shall not. And the Answerer may be pleased to remember that the House of Commons brought up Reasons, Why Bishops ought not to Vote in Parliament.  
It cannot be denied but that in the main body of their Reasons they included Arch-Bishops too. And it is true, this argument reacheth not to them. What then? did the House undertake to strike home even unto Archbishops, in every one of their Reasons? Where doth that appear? It is enough that they have sufficiently done it in all the rest foregoing. If the Answerer think otherwise, he shall be sure to meet with more Arguments against them, in the Reasons following. Here indeed he hath sufficiently confuted this fourth Reason, as to Archbishops; but it was not their good hap to get aught by the bargain, because the House of Commons thought not fit to include them within the compass of the Argument, which is bend directly against Bishops only: and it is the unhappiness of the Answerer, to go without his Trophy, even where he made himself sure of the Victory; for he hath fought with a shadow.     

5. REASON of the House of Commons.  
BEcause they are but for their lives, and therefore are not fit to have Legislative power over the honours, inheritances, persons, and liberties of others.  

I. ANSWER.  Bishops are not for their lives only, 
To this Reason a 5. fold Answer is shaped.  but for their successors also, in the Land and Honour that pertain to their places, as the Earls and Barons also are for their successors, in their own Lands and honours: And, holding their Lands in fee simple, may with as good Reason Vote in the Honours, inheritance, persons, and liberties of others, as others may and do in theirs. 

EXAMEN.  
When the House of Commons saith, that Bishops are but for their lives, I conceive the House to mean, that Bishops have no right to place in Parliament but what dies with them, (as to their heirs,) without hope that their sons shall after succeed them in that dignity by virtue of their birthright, or of the father's sitting in Parliament before them. And that therefore, 
In the fourth of his Reign, Case of Tenors. 35. a.  Bishops being at first but casually mounted to that height and extent of power, by William the Conqueror, the more to endear and oblige them upon all occasions to serve him and his successors in Parliament, they cannot (rationally and according to the principles of Policy and State) be hoped to be so careful and resolute in disposing of their Votes, and in maintaining the privilege, and honour of Parliaments as Temporal Lords may well be presumed and expected to be. For these being by birthright and the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, Lords of Parliament, and one of the Estates of the Kingdom (without whom a Law regularly cannot palse) they will be more active and zealous for the good of their posterity that are sure to succeed them in the same place and Honour, and to share in the benefit of the prudent and faithful dispose of their present suffrage.  
But now the Answerer, denying the Bishops to be for their lives only, and affirming them to be for their successors, also, etc. waives the sense and intention of the House of Commons, and diverts his Reader from the strength of their Argument. For, he tells us, that Bishops are for their successors, as a kind of Corporation in Law. It is true that a Bishop is a Corporation to some uses, but that he is so, in respect of his place and Vote in Parliament, the Answerer hath yet neither made nor offered any proof at all. The Bishop is called thither by Writ to counsel the King, upon presumption of his personal sufficiency and fidelity: but ubi gentium, doth it appear, that by virtue of the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, the Bishops must needs sit there as a Corporation, without which the Lord's House cannot be full? Is it not only from Grace that Bishops were first allowed place there? And if so, they are not  out of their places, and therefore they do not necessarily take up those places for their successors.  
But suppose they sit there for their successors, yet will it be very hard to suppose the next thing too, that Bishops are in the same manner there for their successors, in the Land and Honour that pertain to their places, as the Earls and Barons are for their successors in their own Lands and Honours. For, is there no difference between Successors that usually have not natural legitimate relation to the present Bishops in any degree of consanguinity or affinity; and those of Earls and Barons, which are their proper heirs at Law, and may claim and must enjoy the same Honour which their Ancestors have held before them, if not tainted in blood? No difference between those that can no more be denied place in Parliament (without confusion of all,) than the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and the government thereof can be turned up by the Roots; and those who first crept in by favour, to serve a Conquerors turn, by taking off their dependence upon the Pope and fastening it upon himself, and can derive no higher for sitting (as now they do) in the House of Peers, than an Act of Parliament, if so high: and therefore by another Act of Parliament, may be discharged?  
Now, where the difference of the Title is so great, between a Bishop and an Earl or Temporal Baron, both to their Lands and Honours, and Votes in Parliament; I much fear that the Nobility and Temporal Lords will hardly in their House allow this doctrine, which yet is fit for them to consider of, than for me to confute: and therefore I leave it: only with this; that, if the Lords shall find cause to reject this position as heterodox, and deny the Bishops to be in Parliament for their successors in Lands and Honours in the same manner, or upon as good and  title as the Nobility be for theirs; then, the Reason of the House of Commons doth stand yet good, as to Earls and Barons, and it is no way fit that Bishops should have the same Legislative power over the Honours, inheritances, persons, and liberties of Earls and Barons, as these have, or aught to have, over those of Bishops.  
As for Bishops holding their Lands in Fee simple, I can say little to it, because my skill is very simple in Tenors. Only I have been told that Fee-simple, 
Littleton's Instit. l. 1. c. 1. 5. 1. Cokus in Little. ibid. Sect. 5.  is called in Latin foedum simplex, & idem est quod haereditas legitima vel hareditas pura. So that to speak properly, Every man that hath a lawful estate in Fee-simple hath it either by descent, or purchase: neither of which ways, for aught I know, can the Bishop derive his Title.  
But perhaps in some sense, wherewith I am not acquainted, the Bishops may be said to hold in Fee-simple, as the word may be taken in a larger and less proper acception: Viz. Because he holdeth Lands in fee in right of his Church: but this is not properly Fee-simple, because he holds them not in his own right; and the right he hath in them, dies with him as to his heirs. But I have heard, that ordinarily, he that is seized of any Lands in Fee, in right of his Church, his tenure is either that which the Lawyers call Tenure per divine service, when the Lands are given upon condition that the Donee perform some divine Service certain expressed in the Gift, or the Lands to revert: or else, it is 
* Littl. Institut. li. 2. cap. 6.  en Frank annoigne, when Lands are freely given, without any divine service certain to be performed for them.  
And further; albeit the Bishops are usually said to hold of the King per Baroniam: yet this haply may be meant rather of the Honour affixed to their place, which works it up to a Dignity, than of the Lands pertaining to them, which they also hold in Frank almoigne, as well as the inferior Clergy. 
Sir Henry Spel. Not. in Concil. v rolam. sub Ossa.   
Hereupon it is, that in our Municipal Laws, our Bishops, for that they enjoy their means and maintenance by the bounty and Alms of Kings, are called Barones Regis Eleemosynarij, The King's Lords Almesmen, or Barons of the King's Almoignry, as the Almesmen at WINDSOR are called The King's poor Knights: and the Reason is rendered out of Ranulphus de Glanvill, (that famous judge in Henry the second his time,) quia eorum Baroniae sunt de Eleemosyna Domini Regis & Antecessorum ejus, 
De Legib. Angl. l. 7. ca 1. in Calic.  Because their BARONIES are of the Alms of the KING and his Ancestors.  
Which being so, my conceit is that (what Reason so ever they have on their side, yet) at this time especially, this free and high language, (that they holding their Lands in Fee-simple may with as good Reason Vote in the Honours, inheritance, persons and liberties of others, as others may and do in theirs) might have well been forborn without prejudice to their Cause. For, if Almesmen be admitted to Vote in Parliament, it will be their wisdom, I take it, not to be so much elated as to enter into terms of comparison with the highest; not excepting their Benefactors, or Founders themselves, even in one of the highest points of honour and power.    

2. ANSWER to the fifth REASON.  Many Peers have been created for their lives only, and the Earl of Surrey for the life of his Father, who yet voted in this House. 

EXAMEN.  
But have any (except Bishops) been created Peers for life, or otherwise, that were not men of great estates and inheritance, or at least of extraordinary birth and sufficiency? Of such eminency were the Earls of Surrey. But when you mention an Earl of Surrey, whom do you mean? Is it intended of the Noble Family of the Howards descended from the mowbray's? If of these, you will hardly find any such, that being an honour not so frequently communicated in former times. Indeed I I find it mentioned that john Lord Mowbray (Son of john, Grandchild to Thomas Duke of Norfolk) was, by King Henry the sixth in the life time of his Father, created Earl of Surrey, and was, after his Father's death, Duke of Norfolk: but that he was a Peer of Parliament for, or in the life of his Father, I find not. And I have been told by a Noble branch of that Renowned stem, and now a Peer, that there was no Earl of Surrey, made a Lord of Parliament upon such terms. But whether so or so, it matters not much; this being but one single instance.  
And how ever you may perhaps instance (when you please) in others not so highly descended, who have had the honour to Vote as Peers in Parliament, yet they were such whose interests in the public, and share in posterity must needs weigh down any of those that the House of Commons desire to have removed out of the Lords House. For however, divers of them be well lined with wealth, yet the House of Commons are in Parliament to look upon them, as the Laws do; to wit, as upon Almesmen that are but for their own lives: and surely I believe it will be very hard for the Answerer to give so much as any one instance of an Almsman that hath been allowed to Vote in Parliament. Not, that my purpose is hereby to disparage any of that Order, in reference to their function, or present honours, but only to speak of them as the Law itself doth, merely and only for bolting out of the strength of this branch of the Answer to the Reasons of the House of Commons against the continuance of the Bishop's place and Votes as Peers in Parliament.    

3. ANSWER, to the fifth REASON.  The Knights, Citizens', and Burgesses, are chosen for one Parliament only, and yet use their Legislative power. Nor will their being elected difference their Cause; for the Lords use that power in a greater eminence, who are not elected. 

EXAMEN.  
The Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, sit not there as single men, but as the representative body of all the Commons of England; each of them give their Votes with reference to all those from whom they are sent. Besides, they are by the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom to be there, qua tales, however the Election of the particular persons be arbitrary and contingent. And although those very persons may never (perhaps) serve again, yet the right and inheritance of the Commons of England (whence every member of that House deriveth) never dies, so long as the Kingdom lives. Therefore who ever, for the time hath the honour to be a Member of that society, Voteth in right of the Kingdom, not of a particular man.  
As for the LORDS, although they neither be elected, nor do Vote for any but for themselves and their own posterity, yet they have this privilege from an higher Original, than the Bishops can prove themselves to be descended from; namely (as we said before) not precario from Grace and favour, but from the fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom. Besides, their blood, breeding, interest in the public, and care for their posterity borne to so high places, must needs assure us more of their wise, careful and zealous managing of their Votes in Parliament, than can, by any prudential or moral grounds, be hoped from the Prelates.    

4. ANSWER to the fifth REASON.  A Burgess, that hath a Freehold, but for term of life only, may Vote and assent to a Law in Parliament. 

EXAMEN.  

Cokus in Litt●. Instit. Sect. 133.  The Free hold of a Burgess, is not by the tenure of Frank almoigne, (of which the present debate is) for no Layman can hold any Land in that tenure. He is therefore in that regard somewhat more capable.  
But however this may be, yet that which was but a little before said to the next precedent Answer, will serve here also. A Burgess doth not Vote in the House of Commons as a Free-Holder (although haply none but Freeholders' or Freemen be eligible) but as a person chosen by and for a Burrow which hath right to send Burgesses to Parliament; and being there, he Votes by the fundamental Laws of the Realm. Therefore it is not material whether his  be for life, or for longer time. When Bishops show the like warrant and Commission, or the like fundamental constitutions of the Kingdom for their Voting in Parliament; then, this Answer may be welcome to the House of Commons.    

5. ANS. to the fifth REASON.  No such exception was ever heard of in the Diets of Germany, the Corteses of Spain, or the three Estates of France, where the Prelate's Vote in all these points with the Nobility and the Commons. 

EXAMEN.  
What exception hath been taken to Bishops in other Kingdoms, is unknown to me, and perhaps to the Answerer also: Unless he have seen all the Records and Journals of all those Kingdoms. Nor do I believe that the House of Commons had any Reference to other Nations, nor do intent to be presidented by them. As if, because Bishops have this privilege elsewhere, therefore this must be a Reason sufficient for the continuing their possession of it here. Nay, every Nation hath its proper Laws and Customs, and though it be no shame to borrow any thing that is better than our own, for the public Weal; yet it is no Answer to a Reason drawn from experienced inconveniency at home, to say that this Reason was never heard of in foreign States.  
But yet I think, if the matter were throughly examined, it will appear that in those Kingdoms, Bishops have a kind of Sovereignty over their several Territories, and are Temporal Governors as well as spiritual Pastors. And, by the fundamental Constitutions of those several Empires or Kingdoms, those Bishops do make one of the Estates of the Kingdom without which a Law cannot pass: Sure I am, it is so in Germany, and I believe so or the rest, although with some difference: for they may make a third Estate, and yet not be secular or sovereign Governors over their several Ditions.  
Now, all know that it is fare otherwise with the Bishops of England: and therefore this plea will not be of any force to break the strength of this Reason of the House of Commons, till the Prelates can translate our Laws and Government into that of those Kingdoms from whence these precedents are impertinently borrowed.     

6. REASON of the House of Commons.  
BEcause of Bishop's dependency and expectance of Translations to places of greater profit.  

I. ANSWER.  This Argument supposeth all Kings, and all Bishops to be very faulty, if they take the tune of their Votes in Parliament, from these dependencies and expectances. 

EXAMEN.  
This Argument taxeth not Kings, but medles only with Bishops. It is true, Kings bring them in, and can be wise enough to serve themselves, if they meet with men that will put themselves to sale for preferment. And to speak plainly, the receding from the ancient way of Electing Bishops by the Church is no small occasion and means to bias them, and to engage them still to go that way, which they perceive him that hath the power of electing, and of advancing them higher, to be inclined, so that, if a King should desire to draw them into a wrong course, they scarce know how to deny him, nor would many of them stick much at it; for they being men, and sometimes none of the best, are not only subject to like temptations and failings that others be, but more ready and officious to serve turns than many times Princes do require.  
And although the House of Commons do not always take the tune of Bishop's Votes in every Parliament from these dependences and expectances; yet, when they see how much Bishops, that have but mean Bishoprics, do continually labour to obtain greater, and to get up higher; and then compare these ambitious practices with the tunes of their Votes in most things which concern the more perfect Reformation of Religion and the Clergy, and the promoting of the power of Godliness, etc. they cannot but find to their grief that Bishop's Votes in Parliament, and their ambitious practices elsewhere, do too often consort and come too near a perfect harmony; and that therefore, there is little cause to pronounce them faultless.  
But wherein lies the pith of this Answer, or, how takes it off the strength of the Reason? Must the Reason needs be false because it supposeth that, not which is impossible, but which in Civility is not fit to be spoken out in plain language? The Answerer himself doth not deny the thing to be possible: therefore he doth not Answer or overthrow the Reason, but only elude it by starting up a Captious supposition which he thinks none will dare to own. The Reason than is never the worse for this evasion. Let us try his next.    

2. ANSWER to the fixth REASON.  This may be said of all the Kings great Officers, of all the Noble Members of both Houses, who may be conceived, as well as Bishops, to have their expectances, and consequently to be deprived by this Reason of Voting in Parliament. 

EXAMEN.  
Yet this answereth not the Argument, but only endeavours to render it odious to those that were to be judges of it, and so to do what may be to bring a prejudice upon it. It is not, I confess, impossible that the Nobility should be liable to the same temptation: 
Laudabilis enim vena suam servit originem, & fideliter posteris tradit quae in se gloriosae transmissione promenuit. Cassiodor.  yet it is not probable they should so soon be borne down before it. For, first, their Estates, generally are better, and so they have not that need to snatch at such beggar's baits.  
Next, their blood and Honour mounteth their minds higher and fixeth their eyes on more Noble prize, not without disdain to stoop at flies. Lastly, their large share in the Public, and the strong desire they have to lay a foundation for future glory to themselves, and happiness to their posterity, will make them scorn such poor and base mercinarinesse, unworthy of men borne to honour and striving to purchase more by generous ways, not by the sale of Nobleness and conscience. Nobiles praemium, haud pradam petunt.    

3. ANSWER to the sixth REASON.  This Argument reacheth not at the two Archbishops, and so falls short of the Votes, which are to be taken away by this Bill. 

EXAMEN.  
If it had appeared that this particular Reason was intended against the Arch-Bishops, The Answer had been pertinent. But seeing the House had no meaning, to reach so fare at every blow, but contented itself that only some of the Reasons came home to both of them also, that which was said before in examining the last Answer to the fourth Reason, is abundantly sufficient to hold up the reputation of this Argument against the aspersion cast upon it by this elusory Answer. And yet it doth reach one of the Arch-Bishops, by the Answerers good favour. An Archbishop of York would perhaps do somewhat, in hope of a Translation to Canterbury.     

7. REASON of the House of Commons.  
THe several Bishops have of late much encroached upon the Consciences and properties of the Subject. And they and their successors will be much encouraged still to encroach, and the Subject will be much discouraged from complaining against such encroachments, if twenty six of that Order be to be judges upon these complaints. The same Reason extends to their Legislative power, in any Bill to pass for the reformation of their power upon any emergent inconvenience by it.  

ANSWER.  This Argument fights not against Bishop's Votes in Parliament, but against their Votes in Convocation, where (if any where) they have encroached upon the Consciences and properties of the Subject: Nor yet at the Vote of such Bishops there, as are not guilty of this offence. Nor need the subject to be discouraged in complaining against the like grievances, though 26. of that Order continue judges. For they shall not Vote as judges when they are legally charged. And if they should Vote, what were that to the purpose when the lay Peers are still four to one? The Bishops (assisted with a double number of Mitred Abbots and Priors) could not hinder the Laws made against the Court of Rome, the Alien Cardinals and Prelates, the Provisors, the Suitors to the Pope's Consistories under Edw. 3. Rich. 2. and Hen. 4. Much more may those emergent exorbitances of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction be soon kerbed and redressed in this inequality of Votes between the Temporal and Spiritual Lords. So as this Argument doth not so much hurt the Votes, as it quells the courage of the Bishops, who may justly fear by this and the next Argument, that the taking away of their Votes is but a kind of forerunner to the abolishing of their jurisdiction. 

EXAMEN.  
I know not the Reason, but so it is, that the Answerer hath here thrust together all he had to say, into one Answer; although the particulars whereof it consisteth be many, and of various kinds: whereas before he was pleased to branch out one Answer into many, when yet most of the branches were coincident. Not troubling myself to find out the Mystery, I shall make bold a little to change my Method also to follow him, or rather to distribute his Answers for him, and then to take a distinct view of the several limbs thereof a part.    

ANSWER.  This Argument fights not against Bishop's Votes in Parliament, but against their Votes in Convocation, where (if any where) they have encroached upon the consciences and liberties of the Subjects. 

EXAMEN.  
If this Argument fights not against Bishop's Votes in Parliament, why then is it said, in the end of this Answer, that Bishops may justly fear, by this and the next Argument that the taking away of their votes is but a kind of forerunner to the abolishing of their jurisdiction? For, what Votes are here meant, but those in Parliament? and what need any fear of that here, when it is confessed, that this Argument fights not against Votes in Parliament?  
But, I p sse this, because contradictions in such a cause, and in an Answer of so much length, dropping out of some men's pens, need be no matter of any admiration, or of much stay upon it.  
But what will it avail the Bishops that this Argument meets not with them in the Parliament House, so long as by his own confession (although a modest [if] would a little modify it) it finds them out so palpably in Convocation. There, indeed, their guilt is of a double dye, for which they are now (upon examination and resolution of both Houses of Parliament) condemned as having voted and determined many matters contrary to the King's Prerogative, 
Ex Archi. Parl.  to the fundamental Laws and Statutes of the Realm, to the right of Parliaments, to the property and liberty of the Subjects, and matters tending to sedition and of dangerous consequence; And as for encroaching upon and invading the conscience, let that absurd, amphibolous, injurious, excerable Oath enjoined in the sixth Canon of their late Holy Synod stand for a monument, to the eternal infamy of the Composers of it, and factors, in it.  
Now, the Bishops do or aught 
Nulli sacerdoti liceat Canones ignorare dist. 38 cap. Nulli.  to know that if a judge be once taken tardy and guilty of corruption and wicked judgement, he is for ever presumed to be corrupt, and therefore unmeet to be trusted in another Court any more.  
For, it is in Maxim both in the Civil, and Canon Laws, which holds in all Laws, 
Reg. juris. 8.  Semel malus semper praesumitur esse malus. And this presumption is not only praesumptio hominis, or praesumptio facti, but praesumptio juris too, quia jus sic praesumit ex facto, saith the Gloss upon that rule. So that, if Bishops have thus encroached upon the consciences and properties of the Subject, in Convocation, as 'tis now declared they have, they are unmeet and unworthy to be trusted any more with Votes in Parliament, where they may do as much again, or more, if opportunity be offered: and therefore this Reason of the House of Commons is invincible.  
But have they not done as much in Parliament also? What meant the Statute of 2. H. 4.15. against the Lollards procured by Thomas Arondel Archbishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the Prelates against divers of the Nobility; for, they are not at all mentioned in that Act? What meant their struggling for the six Articles in 31. H. 8. 14. first concluded in their Holy Synod in spite of CRANMERS' teeth? What meant their Conspiracy to pull down Religion in 1. Mar. after it had happily in great part been reform in King Edward the sixth his time? What need we any further proof? Habemus confitentem, this Answerer himself hath confessed as much in the close of his Answer to the next Reason following, where he roundly acknowledgeth the opposition of all the Bishops to the Reformation of Religion in 1. Eliz. But I must on to the rest of the Answer.    

ANSWER.  
Nor yet at the Votes of such Bishops there, as are not guilty of that offence. That is, of passing such Canons in Convocation.  

EXAMEN.  
This Exception may save the Credits of those men who were present, and protested legally against such illegal and wicked proceed; so as, they may have peace within, and without too, if after by post-fact they contracted not the guilt of Accessories, by administering those Canons: But yet, in the account of Law, and in the estimate of Lawmakers, before whom such lewd Canons be arraigned, the Bishops do know that it is another Maxim and Rule in Law, Refertur ad universos quod publice fit per majorem partem, That is justly imputed to all that was publicly done by the Major part. If they who dissented not, did not protest, in due form of Law, or absented themselves because they disliked the business, but had not the courage and fidelity to oppose it as became their duty; they are justly involved within the number of the guilty, at least so far, as to be held unworthy to be any further trusted to Vote either in that place, or in an higher much more, because through negligence, incogitancy, cowardice, and the like, they did not their utmost to help the Lord against the mighty, and to oppose those wicked Canons with all their might. I pass on to the next branch of the Answer.    

ANSWER.  Nor need the Subject to be discouraged in complaiing against the like grievances, though twenty six of that Order continue judges. For they shall not Vote as judges in their own Cause, when they are legally charged. 

EXAMEN.  
What encouragement shall one, or some few private subjects hope to find, when the whole House of Commons, by the labouring of some Prelates (less in number than twenty six,) cannot get passage for a necessary Bill grounded upon so many solid and weighty Reasons, against the Votes of Bishops in Parliament? And who can be assured that hereafter they shall not vote as judges in their own Cause, when even now de facto, they have already done it?  
Perhaps there is a secret in that clause [When they are legally charged] which I cannot discover. But surely, I think the meaning of it to be, that the Bill came not home to a legal charge that might exclude them from votcing in it, because the House of Commons would needs be so civil towards the present Bishops, as not to name them in the Bill; whereby, not their persons, but their Order only was charged. And if this were the error upon which the first Bill miscarried, the House of Commons are wise enough to make use of this close wipe of the Answerer, and to find out a way to avoid the like fault in the next. The Answerer goes on.    

ANSWER.  And if they should vote, what were that to the purpose, when the Lay-Peeres are still four to one? 

EXAMEN.  
If the Lay-Peeres (as he termeth them) were ten to one, yet if but a few of those twenty six Bishops have a mind to be active (which, in their own cause, is not unlikely) they know ways enough how to draw over to their party Noble and ingenuous natures apt to be more taken with reverence of their function and gravity, than willing to suspect their ends or to dispute their grounds, how often so ever themselves or their Ancestors have been circumvented and misguided by them.  
But he will give you instances to the contrary, which may put all out of fear.    

ANSWER.  The Bishops (assisted with a double number of Mitred Abbots and Priors) could not hinder the Laws made 'gainst the Count t of Rome, the Alien Cardinals, and Prelates, the Prov sors, the Suitors to the Pope's Consistory under Edw. 3. Ric. 2. and Hen. 4. much more may those emergent exorbitancies of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction be soon kerbed & redressed in this inequality of votes between the Temporal and Spiritual Lords. 

EXAMEN.  
The Bishops (so assisted) could not hinder? Nay rather they could not hinder the Laws made against the Pope, & Strangers. For, the more the Pope encroached, the more our Bishops smarted under those Usurpations, and groaned under the many & continual heavy taxes whereby all the Clergy of England were impoverished in their Estates, and the Bishops much kerbed in their jurisdictions. He should show himself an egregious Ignaro to the Stories of those times, that should require Instances hereof, there being so many, much elder than Edward the third: Matthew Paris and sundry other Historians abound herein. Therefore I will content myself with only one instance in the reign of Hen 3.  
In his time the exactions & pollings of the Clergy and Kingdom were found to be yearly 60000 
Antiq Britan. ex Mat. Paris. in Bonifac.  Marks, which, at that time, exceeded the Kings own Revenues. No benefice, or dignity belonging to the Nobility, Clergy, or Gentry, not many pertaining to the King himself could be void, but the Pope's Provisors were ready to seize on it instantly for some of his Creatures, Italians and other foreigners. The Bishops fretted, but durst not complain. When the King saw their timorousness, and the whole Kingdom heightened up to such a degree of discontent, that they threatened to cast off their obedience to the King, if he took not order to case them; 
The letters Articles are set down at large in Math. Paris. in Hen. 3. pag 927. etc. edit. Lond. Anno. 1571.  a Parliament was called; the King, the Nobility, Prelates, Commons, all complained of the unsupportableness of the burden; drew up their greivances into seven several Articles; four letters were conceived and sent with these greivances to the Pope; one from the Bishops, a second from the Abbots, a third from the Nobility and Commons, and the fourth from the King himself; but, to little purpose. The Pope still went on, although sometimes more favourably, and other times more violently, as the times would suffer.  
No marvel then, if Bishops and Abbots in Parliament were so willing to be over-borne by the votes of the temporal Lords in passing the Statute of Provisors of benefices, in 25. Edw. 3. and against suitors to the Pope's Consistory, and receiving of Citations from Rome in 38. Ed. 3 And against the farming of any Benefices enjoyed by Aliens by the Pope's Collation, or conveing of money to them. 3. Ric. 2, 3. And against Going out of the Realm to procure a Benefice in this Realm in 12, Ric. 2.15. And for confirmation of the Statute de provisoribus among the Statutes called Other Statutes made at Westminster. in 13. Ric. 2. ca 2. The like may be said of the Statute of Provision in 2. Hen, 4.4 of first fruits to Rome more than usual. 6 H. 4.1 Of moneys carried to Rome, and confirmation of all Statutes against Provisors etc. 9 Hen. 4 8. To say nothing of that famous Statute in 26. Hen. 8.21. which gave the Pope a deeper wound than all the Acts that had been before.  
Now, alas poor Bishops that they were so over-voted that they could not hinder such Laws as those, made in their favour, and for the rescuing of them from the Italian horseleeches! No doubt the Bishops laboured stoutly to withstand these Acts: and therefore no marvel that they be so carefully instanced in, or pointed unto by the Answerer, to show how easily Bishops may be over-voted in Parliament and how soon emergent exorbitancies of their jurisdiction may be there kerbed & redressed. Or rather indeed to show how unable Bishops be to withstand the passing of a bill which they desire with all their hearts may be enacted, or which they know the King will have to be enacted. But otherwise, I cannot understand his reason in vouching of them: unless he meant to make his Readers some mirth. See now how he winds up this long Answer.    

ANSWER.  So as this Argument doth not so much hurt the votes, as it quells the courage of the Bishops, who may justly fear, by this and the next Argument that the taking away of their Votes is but a kind of forerunner to the abolishing of their jurisdiction. 

EXAMEN.  
Indeed, if we take the scantling of the hurt done to their Votes, by the instances produced in this Answer, the hurt is so little, that the adventure will not be great, if they meet with other Bills in Parliament of like nature, wherein the Temporal Lords shall happen to over-vote them. In those Statutes before mentioned, I do not find the Clergy so much as named. It is probable, they durst not appear for those Acts, for fear of the Pope; but rather suffered them to pass, by the Temporal votes, that they might the better excuse it at Rome, and enjoy the benefit with more security at home, when the Temporalty alone were so ready to do it to their hands.  
Just so it was in Henry the thirds time, when the Pope had compelled the Bishops to ratify all the Grants of payments to Rome made by K. john, whereby the Bishops were so cast between the millstones, as to be ready to be ground to powder, yet durst not appear against their oppressor, they (Good men) were forced by the King and Parliament much against their wills (Si placet) to be rescued out of his hands without any labour of their own; when, first the King professed se contra infirmos illos et timidos Episcopos pro Regni libertate staturum, 
Antiq. Britan. in Bonif.  nec censum deinceps ullum Romanae curiae praestiturum. And afterward, when the whole Parliament ordered the Bishops and Abbots to write to his Holiness that which with all their hearts they would, if they durst, have done of themselves, for obtaining ease of the burdens that lay upon them, as hath been touched before.  
So that now, this Argument doth little quell their courage, if they meet with no greater discouragements than by the answerer hath been set forth. Rather the Answer teacheth them the way how to prevail by being overcome, and to bring about their own ends and yet sit still, or seem to be the greatest opposers of that which in secret they most desire, and underhand do most labour for.  
But truly, it is to me no less than a riddle, that there should be any just cause of fear (unless unto them who are apt to fear where no fear is) that there is any thing in this Argument tending to the Abolishing of Episcopal jurisdiction; when the Reason expressly supposeth no more, but a Bill to pass for the Regulation of their power upon any emergent inconvenience by it. Verily there is more cause of fear on the other side, that if the mention of a bill for regulating the power of Bishops shall be interpreted a plot to ruin their jurisdiction, which now is so exorbitant, their Case comes very near to that of old Rome, 
Liv. Hist Dec. 1.  which (as Livy observes) could no longer stand under the vices committed in it, nor endure the remedies applied to it.     

8. REASON of the House of Commons.  
Because the whole number of them is interessed to maintain the jurisdiction of Bishops; which hath been found so grievous to the three Kingdoms, that Scotland hath utterly abolished it, & multitudes in England and Ireland have petitioned against it.  

ANSWER.  This Argument is not against the Votes of Bishops, but against Episcopacy itself, which must be removed, because Scotland hath done so, and some in England and Ireland would have it so; And yet peradventure ten times as great a some as these desire the contrary. 
Against this a 2 fold Answer is offered.  

EXAMEN.  
This Argument is expressly against their votes for maintaining their jurisdiction, (to which by their Order they are all bound, as all other societies be, to maintain their Privileges;) and it is not bend against Episcopacy itself. And yet this suggestion is a witty invention, both to wind out of the strength of this Reason, and to cast a blur upon it at the farewell.  
The House of Commons could not but see even an impossibility of reforming by bill the excesses and intolerable exorbitancies of the present tyranny of many Bishops (who dishonestly call it by the honest name of jurisdiction,) so long as the Bishops be suffered to vote in Parliament. For the Bishops be themselves the greatest Offenders therein, either acting in it, or else (as Galba) wittingly permitting those to usurp whom they ought to bridle, or willingly ignorant of what they ought to know. Therefore it was desired that their Votes in Parliament might be taken away, to make passage for another Bill that might regulate their jurisdiction, as in the former Reason was plainly intimated. But the Answerer was willing to slide over that which was the life of the present Reason, (viz. the engagement of Bishops to maintain their jurisdiction, id est, as now it standeth) and Lapwing like to carry his Readers from the nest, to gaize upon the destruction of Episcopacy itself, which on my conscience was not then intended by the House of Commons, had that first Bill been quietly yielded by the Bishops in the House of Peers.  
Nor did the House of Commons, I presume, by the instance of Scotland, and of those in England and Ireland intent, in this Reason, a purpose of Abolition of the Calling, but only made use of it as an Argument a majore ad minus: to this effect: That, if the jurisdiction of Bishops (as now they term it) be found so grievous, that, in Scotland they would endure Episcopacy itself no longer; and, many in England, and Ireland have petitioned for the abolishing of it in these other Kingdoms; it cannot be thought unreasonable and immodest for the House of Commons to pass a Bill for a lesser matter, to wit, for taking away the Votes of Bishops in Parliament; without which there is little or no hope that the Bishops will ever suffer an other Bill to be enacted for the thorough Reformation and regulating of their jurisdiction, so as to give ease of the many Greivances that still lie upon the subjects of both Kingdoms of England, and Ireland, and to satisfy the Petitioners with Reason worthy of such a Parliament, at such a time of general discontent, chiefly caused by the usurpations of sundry Bishops and of their domineering party.  
What is in the Answer (with show of modesty) said, that peradventure ten times as many desire the continuance of Episcopacy, as there be Petitioners against it, It might peradventure be so, before the Bishops procured that first bill grounded upon these Reasons, to be rejected above; and before the world was made acquainted with that Abstract of the Answers given to them. But I dare say, that now, without all peradventure, (if we may judge of men's desires by their expressions) there is, scarce one of ten, who before were for Episcopacy reform, but are now against it: the reason is, because they see there is no hope, that ever the Bishops will cheerfully yield to a perfect Reformation of themselves and their Order, and that if hereafter the Prelates should happen (against their will) to be over ruled in it, such a forced Reformation will never do good, nor secure the Kingdom against the Evils too long sustained under them, if the Calling itself be continued.  
And verily, no one thing hath more alienated & exasperated the hearts of all sorts, than the apprehended insufficiencies of these printed Answers to the Reasons of the House of Commons. So that, if Episcopacy happen to miscarry, I am persuaded, the Bishops will find Cause to ascribe the opening of so speedy a way to their destruction, not to any thing so much as to the unhappy Answers given to these Reasons of the House of Commons; if those Answers offered to the House of Lords were no other, or better than they are presented to public view in that more unhappy Abstract most unhappily printed.    

2. ANSWER to the eighth REASON.  There will be found Peers enough in the Upper House to reform any thing amiss in the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, although the 26. Prelate's should be so wicked as to oppose it: As there were found Peers enough in that Noble House to curb the Court of Rome, and the Revenues of the Cardinals under Edw. 3. To meet with the Provisors under Rich. 2. To put all the Clergy into a Praemunire under Hen. 8. And to reform the Religion 1 Eliz. notwithstanding the opposition of all the Bishops. 

EXAMEN.  
Mark here his Plea in Bar against the Bill, There were Peers enough to curb the Court of Rome, in Edw. 3. and Rich. 2. when none were more glad of the curbing of that Court, than our Bishops themselves. Ergo there will ever be found Peers enough to reform the Bishop's jurisdiction. I will not say of this putting our Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the Court of Rome so near together, Pares cum parihas facillime congregantur. But it will perhaps make sport to some to find them in this Abstract so close one by another: yet can it not secure wise men, that because the Peers kerbed the Pope, Ergo there will ever be enough to curb our Bishops; unless the Bishops will yield themselves to hold of the Pope, or to be of the same stamp, and resolve to rise and fall with him.  
As for those Coleworts in Edw. 3. and Rich. 2. now a second time heated, I refer the Reader who desires a fresh taste of them, to the Examination of the former Answer. In the case of Praemunire, in Hen. 8. who knows not that (if any such had passed in Parliament) the Clergy were not so much overborne by the Nobility, as overawed by that stern and stout King, with whom the proudest Prelate durst not to contest? But when will it be proved that this passed in Parliament? Surely Holinshed & others tell me that the Bishops were called into the King's Bench about it, but before their day of appearance, there was a Convocation, wherein it was concluded that the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury should offer 100000. pound for composition, which was accepted, and a pardon promised to pass in Parliament to free them of the Praemunire. So in 7. Hen. 8. the Convocation incurred a Praemunire for citing one Standish to appear before the Convocation, when they had not jurisdiction: which yet was compounded and no Act of Parliament passed on it: Nor needed there an Act for it, for the Bishops themselves confessed the thing and so it could not come to a contest in the Parliament. This is all that I know of this matter. And if the case be thus this instance is not to the purpose. But the last is of all other the most impertinent, and scandalous.  
Impertinent, because all the world knows that the Reformation of Religion was the design of the Queen whom the Prelates might not cross; such as did thwart were duly rewarded for their pains, as hath been formerly touched. Therefore until it can be found that the Bishops were over Voted in a Cause wherein the PRINCE went with them, or expected their assistance, to Vote for him, the force of the Reason is not abated.  
Next, what a scandal to Bishops is it, that even since the Reformation begun in Edward the sixth his time, the Bishops, all the Bishops should oppose the restauration thereof in the beginning of Queen ELIZABETH, after an interruption of scarce five years and an half! Surely, if Bishops can so fare degenerate in so short a time, they are hardly to be trusted with Voting in Parliament for any long continuance, especially in an age of such a postatising of the most, and warping of the best.     

IX. REASON of the House of Commons.  
BEcause Bishop's being Lords of Parliament, it setteth too great a distance between them and the rest of their Brethren in the Ministry, which occasioneth pride in them, discontent in others, and disquiet in the Church.  

ANSWER.  This is an Argument from Moral Philosophy, which affords no Demonstrations. All are not proud that Vote in Parliament, nor discontented which are not so employed. This Argument fights only against their Title of being LORDS, which is not the Question at this time. And were those Brethren so wise and well affected as they might be, they would rejoice rather that some of their own profession are advanced to those places wherein they may be capable, upon all occasions, of doing good offices to them, and to this whole Church. 

EXAMEN.  
The first note is but a piece of mirth, which is but little Demonstration of any great Morality, in a Cause so serious. If all be not proud that vote in Parliament, they have the more cause to be thankful to God that keeps them humble in so great a temptation. Yet, usually, all be not humble who say they are not proud. Proud men of all others will be least known of Pride. The Reason doth not say, that all are proud who Vote, but only that such high dignity (not meet for them) occasioneth pride, and I hope it will not be denied by a Bishop to be a rule of Divinity as well as of Moral Philosophy, that apparent and experienced occasions of sin must be avoided as well as the sin itself.  
Besides, this Answerer takes no notice of the main basis of the Argument, which is, that this setteth too great a distance between the Bishops and the rest of their Brethren. And to say truth, there was no great Reason why he should, considering the Principles of Prelates, which will never suffer them to subscribe to the truth of such a Proposition. They never think the distance to be too great, between themselves, and the inferior Clergy. And the nearer to parity, the nearer to Heresy. Yet, because this is an opinion not very fit to be spoken out, it was good policy to pass over this branch in silence: and, it were superfluous, to labour in the asserting of that which the Answer doth not gainsay.  
And though, all be not discontented, that are not so employed: for some of them are Chaplains, Dependants, Expectors, Pretenders to the like places, and so cannot but rejoice to see them on Cockhorse, who will, they hope, one day give them the hand to lift them up behind them. Yet there be many more who have more cause of just discontent at the infinite clation, intolerable pride, and boundless passions of some of the Bishops, who looking up to their own Lordly Titles, do take it for a part of their honour to look down upon their poor brethren with so much superciliousness, as if they were not brethren but servants, yea slaves, ad servitutem natos, 
Tiberius, Tacit  as He said of his subjugated fellow Senators of Rome.  
Before this Lording in Parliament came up, the old Rule among Bishops was, 
Con. Carthag. 4. ca 34.  Episcopus in quolibet loco sedens stare Presbyterum non patiatur. But that Canon is now 1240. years old, and so may well be forgotten. Now, it is well if he may after long atttendance be admitted into the presence of a Bishop, where he must stand bare headed, while the Bishop sits, or perhaps lies along in State. And whereas before, they were not ashamed to call and honour them as Brethren, now they have other names for them, Dunce, Ass, Fool, jack, Rogue, Scotish spirited rascal, any thing that a tongue set on fire of Hell can belch out.  
Lo here the goodly fruit of Episcopacy advanced to the height of Peerage in Parliament! and well were it for many of them and their poor Clergy, if this were the worst and greatest cause of grief and discontent administered by the Bishops to many grave, Godly, painful, peaceable Ministers, whose heavy burdens are presented in multitudes of Petitions to the present Parliament, and therefore I forbear to relate them.  
But where it is said that this Argument of the House of Commons fights only against their Title of Lords: the Answer misreports it: For it marcheth (not fighteth) against them as Lords of Parliament: now, if to be a Lord in Parliament, and to Vote as Peers there be not the same thing, the Answer is worthy of Consideration: otherwise, it can expect no entertainment, but neglect. The House of Commons did purposely use this phrase here, because the very Reason itself is grounded, partly upon the Title, yet so, as that they consider a Bishop as a Peer admitted to Vote in Parliament. These two are convertible and equipollent expressions; He is a Lord of Parliament, Ergo, he Votes. He Votes in Parliament, Ergo, a Lord of Parliament. And this Lordship in Parliament is that which lifts him up so high above his brethren, as makes him to be, and they to far the worse all days of his life.  
Wherefore, to conclude all; such is my folly that I know not what wisdom, or good affection it were, for those Brethren to rejoice much, to see any of their own Profession to be exposed to so great temptations, by being advanced to that place, which is so fare from rendering them capable or apt to do good offices to either Church or State, as that it makes them more unapt unto, and uncapable of doing any good at all, either in Parliament, Pulpit, or Consistory. For it puts them out of their Calling, unapts them for the proper work of it, and is, not seldom, secretly followed, by the just judgement of GOD, with a spirit of coldness and benumdnesse of those excellent parts wherewith many of them before abounded, with a spirit of giddiness in point of judgement, with a spirit of contempt of those Ordinances which formerly they prized, in point of affection, with a spirit of pride over their brethren in point of behaviour, with a spirit of persecution of the power of godliness in point of jurisdiction, and with a spirit of opposition to the perfect Reformation of this whole Church, 
See the close of last precedent Answer.  in point of Legislative power in Parliament.  
ERGO, Bishops ought not to Vote in Parliament.     
FINIS.   

Pag. 2. l. 28. after acceptat, there should be a short line, thus;— as implying some words omitted which in the Author be interposed p. 4. l. 7. r. indicare, p. 26. l. 5. r. avocation, p. 34. l. ult. r. 18. ibid. in Mar. deal 1317. & r. M. 17. p. 63. l. 14. r. could, p. 75. l. 25. r. nati.