portrait of Edward Dering   

A Collection of Speeches MADE BY Sir EDWARD DERING KNIGHT and BARONET, in matter of RELIGION. Some formerly printed, and divers more now added: All of them revised, For the VINDICATION Of His NAME, From weak and wilful calumny: And by the same Sir EDWARD DERING now subjected to public VIEW and CENSURE, Upon the urgent importunity of many, both Gentlemen and Divines.  Ovid. 
Dat veniam Corvis, vexat censura Columbas.  Aristoph. in Avib. 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
LONDON, Printed by E. G. for F. Eglesfield, and Jo. Stafford. 1642.   

To the Reader.  
LET them who are in a fault ransom themselves with excusatory defences. I have no such work in hand. A short Narration will be my just Vindication.  
Apologies are ever read with jealousy: and they are indeed but after-games at Reputation. These sheets do not wear that livery: I have no need to apologise.  
Nothing in myself hath moved me to open these Papers abroad; and what need I regard the empty opinion of such as do either weakly or wilfully traduce? But they do traduce! it is said that I do {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} yet none can justly say, where, when, to whom, or what, I ever said that I do since recede from.  
Reader, if thou either be a scholar or a Gentleman read and censure freely, I fear no blot from thy hand: if thou be neither, cast what dirt thou wilt, none will stick on me. And indeed I had rather (if thou be such) bear the scourge of thy tongue, then have the kisses of thy lips: The latter would make me suspect myself; the former would beget a hope of some merit in me.  
A welfare to my Reader if, he be, either of birth or breeding: A farewell to the rest.  
Edward Dering.   

Section I.  
WHy am I thus unhappily, and thus publicly engaged? If my head and my heart have always gone even pace together, if my conscience and my tongue have ever kept one tune, how is it that I hear myself changed? If any thing I have said or done be contrariant, nay if dissonant or retardant to a most severe Reformation, (the utmost of my constant wish and profession) nay if upon any occasion I have therein been remiss and tepid, if upon all occasions I have not given my active and my hearty endeavours thereunto, some good friend be a true glass unto me, and reflect that by-past error to my sight again. I will own the fault (if it be mine) and thank him.  
But if some passengers (in I know not what Ship) sail by, until their own heads be giddy, they may as well say, that the hills and Trees upon the shore, as that I am moved. Whilst they are floating, I stand steady, wondering to what coast they are bound.  
The question is, whether ever I professed myself for Root and Branch: that is the Shibboleth whereby some try whether you are for ruin or for Reforming. Every one is not catechised in plain terms as I was, 
Iosh. 5. 13 Mr. F.  Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? So said one of the usual black walkers in Westminster Hall. 
T. C.  Another of our Parliament-pressing Ministers, after I had delivered my sense upon Episcopacy in the House, came to me and told me plainly, That my conscience was not so good as in the beginning of the Parliament. Yet I may (and do) challenge him, or any man, to instance where, when, and what I have said to deserve this opinion of change.  
I press not this, as fondly glorying in a pertinacy. No, I profess myself ready and willing, at any time to embrace a corrected understanding, let any of them (who hath temper, discretion and charity) come and try me. I have no end, no aim to lead me, but fair truth, I have no bias but a conscience warmed with zeal, and therefore when I change, (if I change) it shall be the conquest and victory of truth upon me. And I than shall never be ashamed of being won, but will glory in the change.  
But I delivered in the Bill for abolition of Episcopacy. 
S A. H.  True, my friend (then next me) urged me with importunacy that I would receive it, and plainly said it should go in how ever: and so (I am assured) it had, but not with so faint commendations as I bestowed on it, which (I dare say) gave no weight unto the work. The Bill was then less than two sheets of Paper, and by subjoyning two more might have given us the old original Episcopacy, even with the same hand that abrogated the present. Beside, the chief end than was to expedite the progress of another Bill against the secular jurisdiction of the Bishops (at that very time) labouring in the House of Lords. So that this Bill did in my sense iniquum Petere, ut aequum ferret.  
Little did I (or any man there) imagine, that those two sheets should be multiplied with addition of above forty more, and yet unfinished.  
The only colour, or rather shadow whereupon some thought me as fierce for ruin as themselves, was my fortune or misfortune, to strike first, (and shortly after, secondly) at the tallest Cedar on the Churches Lebanon. 'tis true I did so, and am nothing sorry for the blow. His crimes were many: the complaints were fresh with me, and myself (entrusted by that County where his Diocese is seated) as fit as any to strike that stroke.  
This was at that time received and applauded as an act of justice, but by the same men of late traduced, as relishing of personal malignity. Non sic didici Christum. I thank God, my heart hath never yet known the swelling of a personal malice. And for the Bishop, I profess, I did (and do) bear a good degree of personal love unto him, a love unto some parts and qualities, which I think him master of.  
His intent of public uniformity was a good purpose, though in the way of his pursuit there of he was extremely faulty.  
His book lately set forth (especially for the latter half thereof) hath muzzled the Jesuit, and shall strike the Papists under the fifth rib when he is dead and gone. And being dead, wheresoever his grave shall be, Paul's will be his perpetual monument, and his own book his lasting Epitaph.  
It is true, the roughness of his uncourtly nature sent most men discontented from him: yet would he often (of himself) find ways and means to sweeten many of them again, when they least looked for it.  
Lastly, he was always one and the same man, begin with him at Oxford, and so go on to Canterbury, he is unmoved, unchanged: he never complied with the times, but kept his own stand, until the times came up to him.  
He is not now in a condition to be flattered, nor was I ever so low, to use it. I did not accuse him for these. I struck another string, and that of so right a tune to them that are stung with the Tarantula, that I was instantly voiced, more as they would have me, than I was. For (the truth is) I did not dream, at that time of extirpation and abolition of any more than his Archiepiscopacy: our professed rooters themselves (many of them) at that hour had I persuade myself, more moderate hopes than since are entertained. A severe reformation was a sweet song then. I am and ever was for that, and for no more.  
It is objected that I go counter to what I have publicly asserted in the House: 
Dr. W.  have patience, and take a copy of what I have spoken in matter of Religion.   

Section II.  
Novemb. 10. 1640.  

Mr. Speaker,  
YEsterday the great affairs of this House did borrow all the time allotted to the great Committee for Religion. I am sorry that having but half a day in a whole week, we have lost that.  
Mr. Speaker, It hath pleased God to put into the heart of his Majesty (for the King's heart is in the hand of the Lord) once more to asseble us into a Senate, to consult upon the unhappy distractions, the sad dangers, and the much feared ruins of this late flourishing Church and kingdom. God be praised both for his goodness, and for his severity whereby he hath impelled this meeting; and humble thanks unto his Majesty, whose parental care of us his Subjects, is willing to relieve us.  
The sufferances that we have undergone are reducible to two heads. The first concerning the Church: the second belonging to the commonwealth. The first of these must have the first fruits of this Parliament, as being the first in weight and worth, and more immediate to the honour of God and his glory, every dram whereof is worth the whole weight of a kingdom.  
The commonwealth (it is true) is full of apparent dangers. The sword is come home unto us, and the two twin-Nations united together under one royal head, brethren together in the bowels and the bosom of the same Island, and which is above all, imbanded together with the same Religion (I say the same Religion) by a devilish machination, like to be fatally imbrued in each others blood, ready to dig each others' grave, Quantillum ab●uit!  
For other grievances also, the poor disheartened subject, sadly groans, not able to distinguish betwixt Power and Law. And with a weeping heart (no question) hath prayed for this hour, in hope to be relieved, and to know hereafter, whether any thing he hath, besides his poor part and portion of the Common air he breathes, may be truly called his own.  
These (Mr. Speaker) and many other do deserve and must shortly have our deep regard, but Suo gradu, not in the first place: There is a unum necessarium above all our worldly sufferances and dangers, Religion, the immediate service due unto the honour of Almighty God. And herein let us all be confident, that all our consultations will prove unprosperous, if we put any determination before that of Religion.  
For my part, Let the Sword reach from the North to the South, and a general perdition of all our remaining right and safety, threaten us in open view, it shall be so far from making me to decline the first settling of Religion, that I shall ever argue, and rather conclude it thus. The more great, the more imminent our perils of this world are, the stronger and quicker ought our care to be for the glory of God and the pure Law of our souls.  
If then (M. Speaker) it may pass with full allowance, that all our cares may give way unto the treaty of Religion, I will reduce that also to be considered under two heads: first of ecclesiastic persons, then of ecclesiastic causes. Let no man start or be affrighted at the imagined length of this consultation, it will not, it cannot take up so much time as it is worth.— This, it is God and the King; this, is God and the Kingdom, nay, this, is God and the two kingdom's cause.  
And therefore (M. Speaker) my humble motion is, that we may all of us seriously, speedily, and heartily enter upon this, the best, the greatest, the most important cause we can treat of.  
Now (M. Speaker) in pursuit of my own motion, and to make a little entrance into this great affair, I will present unto you the petition of a poor oppressed Minister in the County of Kent: A man Orthodox in his doctrine, conformable in his life, laborious in the ministry as any we have, or I do know.  
He is now a sufferer (as all good men are) under the general obloquy of a Puritan; (as with other things was excellently delivered by that silver trumpet at the bar.) 
Sir Ben. Rudyer.  The pursuivant watches his door, and divides him and his Cure asunder, to both their griefs: For it is not with him as (perhaps) with some that set the pursuivant at work, gladded of an excuse to be out of their pulpit, It is his delight to Preach.  
About a week since I went over to Lambeth, to move that great Bishop (too great indeed) to take this danger off from this Minister, and to recall the pursuivant. And withal I did undertake for Master Wilson (for so your Petitioner is called) that he should answer his accusers in any of the King's Courts at Westminster.  
The Bishop made me answer (as near as I can remember) in haec verba, I am sure that he will not be absent from his Cure a twelvemonth together, and then (I doubt not) but once in a year we shall have him.  
This was all I could obtain, but I hope, (by the help of this house) before this year of threats run round, His Grace will either have more Grace, or no Grace at all. For our manifold griefs do fill a mighty and a vast circumference, yet so that from every part our lines of sorrow, do lead unto him, and point at him the centre, from whence our miseries in this Church, and many of them in the commonwealth do flow.  
Let the Petition be read, and let us enter upon the work.   
WHat is here for Root and Branch? I can not find a line that I can wish unsaid: nor do I read a letter, that I would go less in. It is replied, that the petitioner M. Wilson, is a man for Root and Branch; if he be, that was no part of his petition; nor indeed any part of my knowledge then: I am no more obliged to answer herein, than I am bound to own and defend M. Wilson, if he should hereafter cast aside the common prayer, what were that to me, or to what I then did say? sure I am, that I was well assured, that he did not allow of separation then: and that he had been a powerful persuader of others, not to withdraw from our public Service. And I think so well of his goodness, temper and conscience, that he will not easily be led away to these mistaking excesses.   

Section III.  
THE next is that which I spoke in the grand Committee of the whole House for Religion, M. White holding that chair: whereof this is a copy.  

23. Novem. 1640. M. White,  
YOu have many private Petitions, give me leave (by word of mouth) to interpose one more general, which thus you may receive.  
God's true Religion is violently invaded by two seeming enemies: but indeed they are (like Herod and Pilate) fast friends for the destruction of truth. I mean the Papists for one party, and our Prelating faction for the other. Between these two in their several progress, I observe the concurrence of some few Parallels, fit (as I conceive) to be represented to this Honourable House.  
First with the Papists, there is a severe Inquisition: and with us (as it is used) there is a bitter high Commission; both these (contra fas & jus) are Judges in their own cause: yet herein their Inquisitors are better than our High Commissioners— They (for aught I ever heard) do not saevire in suos) punish for delinquents and offenders, such as profess and practice, according to the Religion established by the laws of the Land where they live.  
But with us how many poor distressed Ministers? nay how many scores of them, in a few years past, have been suspended, degraded, deprived, excommunicated, not guilty of the breach of any our established laws. The petitions of many are here with us, more are coming: all their prayers are in Heaven for redress.  
Secondly, with the Papists, there is a Mysterious artifice, I mean their Index expurgatorius whereby they clip the tongues of such witnesses, whose evidence they do not like.— To this I parallel our late Imprimatur's: Licences for the press: so handled that Truth is suppressed, and popish pamphlets fly abroad cum privilegio: witness the audacious and Libelling Pamphlets against true Religion, written by Pocklington, Heylin, Dow, Cosins, Shelford, Swan, Reeves, Yates, Hausted, Studley, sparrow, Brown, Roberts.— Many more: I name no Bishops, but I add, &c.  
Nay they are already grown so bold in this new trade, that the most learned labours of our ancient and best Divines, must be now corrected and defaced with a Deleatur by the supercilious pen of my Lord's young Chaplain; (fit perhaps) for the technical arts, but unfit to hold the chair for Divinity.  
But herein the Roman Index is better than are our English Licences: They thereby do preserve the current of their own established doctrine: a point of wisdom. But with us our Innovators by this artifice do alter our settled Doctrines; Nay they do subinduce points repugnant and contrariant. And this I dare assume upon myself to prove.  
One Parallel more I have, and that is this. Among the Papists, there is one acknowledged supreme Pope, supreme in honour, in order, and in power: from whose judgement there is no appeal.— I confess (M. Speaker) I cannot altogether match a Pope with a Pope: (yet one of the ancient titles of our English Primate was Alterius orbis Papa.) But thus far I can go, Ex ore suo. It is in Print,— He pleads fair for a Patriarchate: And for such an one, whose judgement, he (Beforehand) professeth aught to be final: and then (I am sure) it ought to be unerring.  
Put these together, and you shall find that the final determination of a Patriarch will want very little of a Pope,— and then we may say 
— Mutato nomine de te  
Fabula narratur—   
He pleads Popeship under the name of a Patriarch. And I much fear lest the end and top of his patriarchal plea may be as that of Cardinal Pole (his predecessor) who would have two heads, one Caput Regale, another Caput Sacerdotale: a proud parallel, to set up the mitre as high as the Crown.  
But herein I shall be free and clear, if one there must be (be it a Pope, be it a Patriarch; this I resolve upon for my own choice (Procul a Jove procul a fulnime.) I had rather serve one as far off as Tiber, then to have him come so near me as the Thames. A Pope at Rome will do me less hurt than a Patriarch may do at Lambeth.  
I have done, and for this third Parallel I submit it to the wisdom and consideration of this grand Committee for Religion, in the mean time I do ground my motion, upon the former two, and it is this in brief.  
That you would please to select a subcommittee of a few, and to empower them for the discovery of the numbers of oppress Ministers under the Bishop's tyranny for these ten years' last past. We have the complaint of some, but more are silent: some are patient and will not complain, others are fearful and dare not, many are beyond Sea and cannot complain.  
And in the second place, that the sub-Committee may examine the Printers what books by bad Licences have been corruptly issued forth: and what good books have been (like good Ministers) silenced, clipped or cropped.  
The work I conceive will not be difficult, but will quickly return into your hand full of weight.  
And this is my motion.   
What is here for Root and Branch? But I must search farther, although for that, which (I am sure) cannot be found.   

Section IV.  
I Come now the likeliest trial wherein to find myself guilty. A petition was brought unto me out of Kent in terminis terminantibus, as that from many Citizens of London) which is in print. 
My L. G. D.  This indeed if it were not the spawn of the London petition, yet finding it a parrot taught to speak the syllables of that, and by roate calling for Root and Branch, I dealt with the presenters thereof, and with other parties thereunto, until (with their consents) I reduced it to less than a quarter of it former length, and taught it a new and more modest language. Upon delivery of this petition thus I prefaced.  

January 13. 1640. M. Speaker,  
YEsterday we did regulate the most important business before us, and gave them motion, so that our weighty affairs, are now on their feet in their progress, journeying on towards their several periods, where some I hope will shortly find their latest home.  
Yet among all these I observe one, a very main one, to sleep sine die: give me leave to awaken it; It is a business of an immense weight, and worth; such as deserves our best care, and most severe circumspection. I mean the Grand Petition long since given in by many thousand Citizens against the domineering of the clergy.  
Wherein (for my part) although I cannot approve of all that is presented unto you, yet I do clearly profess, that a great part of it, nay the greatest part thereof, is so well grounded, that my heart goes cheerfully along therewith.  
It seems that my Country (for which I have the honour to serve) is of the same mind, and least that you should think that all faults are included within the walls of Troy, they will show you Iliacos intra muros peccatur & extra.  
The same grievances which the City groans under, are provincial unto us, and I much fear they are national among us all.  
The Pride, the Avarice, the Ambition and oppression, by our ill ruling Clergy is epidemical, it hath infected them all. There is not any, or scarce any of them, who is not practical in their own great cause in hand, which they impiously do miscall, the piety of the times, but in truth, so wrong a Piety that I am bold to say, In facinus jurasse putes.—  
Here in this Petition is the Disease represented, here is the Cure entreated.  
The number of your Petitioners is considerable, being above five and twenty hundred names, and would have been four times as many, if that were thought material.  
The matter in the Petition is of high import: but your Petitioners themselves are all of them quiet and silent at their own houses, humbly expecting and praying the resolution of this great Senate, upon these their earnest and their hearty desires.  
Here is no noise, no numbers at your door: they will be neither your trouble nor your jealousy; for I do not know of any one of them this day in the Town: So much they do affy in the goodness of their petition, and in the justice of this House.  
If now you want any of them here, to make avowance of their Petition, I am their servant. I do appear for them and for myself, and am ready to avow this petition, in their names, and in my own.  
Nothing doubting, but fully confident, that I may justly say of the present usage of the Hierarchy in the Church of England, as once the Pope (Pope Adrian as I remember) said of the Clergy in his time: A vertice capitis ad plantam pedis, nihil est sanum in toto ordine ecclesiastico.  
I beseech you read the Petition, regard us, and relieve us.   
The petition itself speaks thus:  

To the Honourable the Commons House of Parliament.  
The humble Petition of many the Inhabitants within His majesty's County of Kent,  
MOst humbly showing, That by sad experience we do daily find the government in the Church of England, by Archbishops, Lord-bishops, Deans, & Archdeacons, with their Courts, Jurisdictions, and Administrations, by them and their inferior Officers, to be very dangerous, both to Church and commonwealth, and to be the occasion of manifold grievances unto his majesty's Subjects, in their consciences, liberties, and estates, And likely to be fatal unto us in the continuance thereof. The dangerous effects of which Lordly power in them, have appeared in these particulars following  
1. They do with a hard hand overrule all other Ministers, subjecting them to their cruel authority.  
2. They do suspend, punish, and deprive many godly, religious, and painful Ministers, upon slight and upon no grounds: whilst in the mean time, few of them do preach the Word of God themselves, and that but seldom. But they do restrain the painful preaching of others, both for Lectures, and for afternoon Sermons on the Sabbath day.  
3. They do countenance and have of late encouraged Papists, Priests, and Arminian both books and persons.  
4. They hinder good and godly books to be printed: yet they do licence to be published, many popish, Arminian, and other dangerous tenants.  
5. They have deformed our Churches, with popish pictures, and suited them with Romish Altars.  
6. They have of late extolled and commended much the Church of Rome, denying the Pope to be Antichrist: affirming the Church of Rome to be a true Church in fundamentals.  
7. They have practised and enforced antiquated and obsolete ceremonies, as standing at the hymns at Gloria patri, and turning to the East at several parts of the Divine Service, bowing to the Altar, which they term the place of God's residence upon earth: the reading of a second service at the Altar, and denying the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to such as have not come up to a new set rail before the Altar.  
8. They have made and contrived illegal Canons and Constitutions, and framed a most pernicious and desperate oath: an oath of covenant and confederacy for their own hierarchical greatness beside many other dangerous and pernicious passages in the said Canons.  
9 They do dispense with plurality of Benefices: they do both prohibit and grant marriages, neither of them by the rule of Law or conscience, but do prohibit that they may grant, and grant that they may have money.  
10. They have procured a licentious liberty for the Lord's day, but have pressed the strict observation of Saints holidays, and do punish, suspend, degrade, deprive godly Ministers for not publishing a Book for liberty of sports on the Sabbath day.  
11. They do generally abuse the great ordinance of excommunication, making sometimes a gain of it, to the great discomfort of many poor souls, who for want of money can get no absolution.  
12. They claim their Office and jurisdiction to be jure divino, and do exercise the same (contrary to law) in their own names, and under their own seals.  
13. They receive and take upon them temporal honours, dignities, places, and offices in the commonwealth, as if it were lawful for them to use both Swords.  
14. They take cognisance in their Courts and elsewhere of matters determinable at the Common law.  
15. They put Ministers upon Parishes, without the patron, and without the people's consent.  
16. They do yearly impose oaths upon Churchwardens, to the most apparent danger of filling the Land with perjury.  
17. They do exercise oaths ex officio in the nature of an Inquisition even into the thoughts of men.  
18. They have apprehended men by pursuivants, without citation or missives first sent: they break up men's houses and studies taking away what they please.  
19 They do awe the judges of the Land with their greatness, to the inhibiting of prohibitions, and hindering of habeas Corpus when it is due.  
20. They are strongly suspected to be confederate with the Roman party in this Land, and with them to be authors, contrivers or consenters to the present commotions in the North, & the rather because of a contribution by the Clergy, and by the Papists in the last year, 1639. and because of an ill named benevolence of six Subsidies granted or intended to be granted this present year 1640. thereby and with these moneys to engage (as much as in them lay) the two Nations into blood.  
It is therefore humbly and earnestly prayed, that this hierarchical power may be totally abrogated, if the wisdom of this Honourable House, shall find that it cannot be maintained by God's Word, and to his glory.  
And we your Petitioners shall ever pray, &c.    

Section V.  
Upon occasion of what I said of the late Canons, I might easily have pressed the abolition of the founders, and of the whole order of prelacy: And surely, if it had been my wish, I would (as others) have so expressed myself. Here follows my argument against these Canons, and that chiefly aimed against the founders of them: yet nothing of Root and Branch therein.  

14. Decemb. 1640. M. Speaker,  
THat the late Canons are invalidous, it will easily appear, and that they are so originally in the foundation, or rather in the founders of them, I will assume upon myself to demonstrate, having first intimated my sense by way of preparative.  
The Pope (as they say) hath a triple Crown, answerable thereunto, and to support that, he pretends to have a threefold Law. The first is, jus divinum, Episcopacy by divine right; and this he would have you think to be the Coronet next his head, that which doth circle and secure his power. Our Bishops have (in an unlucky time) entered their plea and pretended title to this Crown, Episcopacy by Divine right.  
The second is Jus huntanum, Constantins donation, the gift of indulgent Princes; temporal power. This Law belongs to his second, or his middle Crown; already also pleaded for by our Prelates in print.  
These two Crowns being obtained, he (the Pope) doth frame and make his third crown himself, and sets that upmost, upon the top— This Crown also hath its Law, and that is Jus canonicum, the Canon law, of more use unto his Popeship then both the other— Just so our Prelates from the pretended divinity of their Episcopacy, and from the temporal power granted by our Princes they would now obtrude a new Canon Law upon us.  
They have charged their Canons at us to the full, and never fearing that ever they would recoil back into a Parliament they have rammed a prodigious ungodly oath into them.  
The illegality and invalidity of these Canons (as I conceive) is easily discoverable by one short question, viz. what do you call the meeting wherein they were made? give it a name to know it by: who can frame his argument aright, unless he can first tell against what he is to argue? would you confute the Convocation? they were a holy Synod: would you argue against the Synod? why they were Commissioners: would you dispute the Commission? they will mingle all powers together, and answer that they were some fourth thing, that we neither know nor imagine.  
Quo teneam nodo mutantem Protea? unless they will unriddle themselves, and own what they were, we may prosecute, but hardly with concludent arguments. Yet I venture.  
I have conferred with some of the founders of these new Canons, but I profess clearly, that I could never yet meet with any one of that assembly, who could (in behalf of their meeting) well answer me the first question in the catechism, what is your name? Alas, they are parted before they know what they were when they were together.  
The sum of the several answers, that I have received, doth amount to this. They were a convocational— synodical— Assembly of Commissioners, indeed a threefold Chimaera, a monster to our laws, a Cerberus to our Religion.  
A strange Commission wherein no one Commissioners name is to be found. A strange Convocation that lived when the Parliament was dead: A strange Holy Synod where one part never saw, never conferred with the other.— But indeed what use or need of conference, if that be true of these Canons, which I read of the former ones, 
Parker Polit.  Notum est canon's formari Lambethae, priusquàm in Synodo ventilentur.  
Thus far preparatory; I proceed to my argument, whereby to manifest the invalidity of these Canons, not borrowing but avoiding what hath formerly been instanded by others.  
I will neither inveigh upon them as unnamed Commissioners, nor infirm them as the work of a dead Convocation; But will take them in the capacity of their own affected title of a Synod. Such they bragged themselves to be whilst they sat: such they style themselves in the Title-page of these (never to be canonised) Canons— The words are— Canons treated upon in Convocation— agreed upon in Synod.  
This treating in one capacity and agreeing in another; is a new mould to cast Canons in, never used before. Canons bred in a Convocation, born in a Synod. Thus although we find not one good father, here are yet two mothers to one ill-favoured child; never known before, nor imagined but of Bacchus, whom the Poets calls among other attributes — Solúmque bimatrem.  
I proceed: if their meeting be a Synod, either it is so by Donation, by Election, or only by usurpation.  
Donation from the King: is this title and authority, indulged to them by his Majesty? Look through all his highness' Letters Patent, and they are not once saluted with the ambitious title of a Synod. Yet in the Canons they have assumed it seventeen times, it is their own pride, their own presumption.  
The King hath not done it, (pardon me) no Prince ever did it or can do it; no power regal, imperial, or papal did ever attempt it, to ordain that William, and Richard, Matthew and John, &c. and I know not who more, being met and assembled upon other summons shall by a Commission be on a sudden translated from what they were, into an unthought-of national Synod, without voice or choice of any man to be concerned: this never was done, this never can be well done.  
As for due election for such meetings, this indeed is or aught to be of the true esse to a Legitimate Synod. But due election made up by voices is so much a stranger to this Synod, that their fatherhoods will confess that they were never trusted to this Synod, as a Synod by any, either of the clergy or of the Laity.  
Concerning the choice of a few of them, and but a few (about 50. as I guess) chosen to the Convocation house, that choice will never render them a lawful Synod, until they can prove metamorphosis and Transubstantiation.— For the votes of all their choosers upon expiration of the Convocation house returned back home to every man's bosom from whence they breathed. So that if you will en-live the same men to be now synodal, who were before but convocational, you must renew the old Pythagorean Transmigration, for they want the breath and life of an election. A new one you have not, and the old one is not to be had but by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
Besides I do affirm and shall approve, that the electors to a Convocation and to a Synod are not all one. The Clergy only do, and of right only aught to choose unto the Convocation house. The reason; we of the Laity (so they will call us) have our House of Commons where our trusties by virtue of our voices do sit at the same time. But in the choice unto a Synod; we who must be bound by the determinations of the Synod, ought also to be interested in the parties determining. This is clear enough in reason, and will be better oleared presently.  
Of Synods I find five several sorts, first a general or universal Synod; secondly, patriarchical; thirdly, national; fourthly, provincial; fiftly, a Diocesan Synod. I pass by the two first and last, as not pertinent to this time and affair. Concerning provincial and national Synods a word or two; if I know which to call their late meeting. They run on riddles: and I want an Oedipus at every turn.  
These Canons, were they forged in one Synod national, or in two provincial? were they two provincial Synods? how then come their Acts and Canons to be embodied together? how comes it to pass that all the Canons speak in the singular number? The Synod; The holy Synod; The sacred Synod. Sacred will now be hardly granted, unless as the Poet doth,— Auri sacra fames.  
Was it then but one? was it a national Synod? why the Provinces (we all know) never did convene, they never met together. Look on the representative body of the Commons of this whole Land: every one within the same walls hearing every one's argument, and thereupon mending, altering, and (as occasion is) correcting his own judgement, and afterwards ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) joining in unanimous consent. And if the able members of the North beyond Trent were divided from the rest, there would be quickly found a want of their worth and weight, nor could their sitting at the same time at York, make the rest a House of Commons here, for the whole kingdom must be represented entire.  
But as we have done the Title Synod, so let us give them the attribute national, a national Synod, and yet see how inconsistent and invalidous they are!  
The very esse of every Synod doth subsist in a double foundation. Fundamentum materiale and fundamentum formale.— The due materials of a Synod are the interior qualities and endowments of the persons whereof the Synod consisteth, not their external dignities and promotions. And therefore every man thus qualified is as capable to be of the Synod, as any Dean or Archdeacon of them all.  
The fundamentum formale, is Delegatio ab ecclesia & debita electio. A due choice to be made by all that are or shall be concerned in the determinations of the Synod: and this trust of choice may fall upon another man, as well and as soon as upon Dean or Archdeacon.  
I will not quarrel the want of able parts in any members of that late doubtful dangerous meeting: I grant them the materials of a true Synod, but will insist only upon the second, want of form, want of due election: which if they want, the most virtual and most obliging tie, and the most binding part is wanting.  
That they had no such election, we need not go forth to prove; No one man in the Kingdom can say that he gave a voice to the election of any one Dean or Archdeacon to sit for him in that Synod, nor were the Clarks chosen by all who were to be bound. So then there remaineth only to be proved this: That such election of persons, by all persons to be concerned in the Decrees, and Canons, is necessary to the constituting of a lawful Synod; which is all one as to say, that the elections to a Synod ought to be, both by the Clergy and the Laity.  
M. Speaker, I will trouble you but with one reason, and a very few instances, all briefly.  
The Acts and Canons of every lawful national council or Synod, aught to bind the whole Nation, both Laity and Clergy: But this cannot be reasonable and just, if the Laity be excluded both from consultation and from choice of consulters. The reason is plain. It is a ground in nature, and so confessed upon this very case by D. Feild, who hath it out of Occam— quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet. And this is so clear a maxim, that in this very sense also; for the Laity to be present at counsels, this very aphorism is used by the Pope in his own gloss upon the Canonist Gratian. Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet. Surely our Clergy are much too high, if herein they would outgo the very Canons of the papal Synods, and conclude that which shall bind all, where all are not admitted to treat, neither by themselves nor by proxy.  
Now the benefit of this Law of nature and of reason (as Dr. Feild calleth it) we claim. The present Canons do concern us. I may be a churchwarden, my son may be a Master of Art; then must I present upon their yet unborn articles, and he must swear their oath of Covenant— well, they were never trusted by us unto a Synod; & therefore ought not to tie us up unheard, it is against Nature and Reason.  
To second this Argument by instance in proof of practice, I shall produce a few, and but a few of many examples and authorities: the originals I cannot now command, but must be content to name a few extracts, which by way of transcript do walk along with my vade mecum.  
The point that I would establish is this, that in Synods and counsels where Lay men are concerned in the Decrees, there the Laity may be present to consult, if not also to decide the conclusions. I will but point, I will not enlarge to the vouching every place verbatim; Dr. Feild, Dr. Fulke, Goulartius, are clear and positive in this point.  
Our Statutes for correcting and gathering together the former Canons into a new body, do clearly evidence this unto us; in all which there is an equal proportion mixed, sixteen of the clergy, and as many of the Laity.  
The author of the History of Trent is frequent in this point, adding this for a reason, that in a general council, the universal Church cannot be represented, if the Laity be excluded. So by the rule a paribus, The reason holdeth the same, a national council cannot represent a Nation, if but one degree of men, men of one quality and capacity be only present, and the rest altogether excluded.  
Gratian, the Canonist, doth allow the Laity to be present, especially in such counsels as do treat of faith, and for proof doth vouch Pope Nicholas.  
I will omit many proofs of many Emperors being personally present and precedent in many counsels, by themselves and sometimes by their Vicegerents, as Marcellinus, Candidianus, Martianus, &c. yet even this is argumentative for us, and a preservative of our right, for the Laity to be present.  
The Greek Historians are so plentiful, that I will only name them.  

Theodoret.— l. 5. c. 9  
Eusebius de vita Constantin.— l. 3. c. 9 & 10.  
Sozomen.— l. 1. c. 16. & 17.  
Niceph. Callistus.— l. 8. c. 15.  
Socrates.— l. 1. c. 5. & l. 6. c. 2.  
Euagrius scholast..— l. 2. c. 4. c. 27.   
Among the Latin Fathers Cyprian is very plentiful.  
As for counsels, look,  
Nice. 1. vouched by Eusebius de vita Constantini— 4. conc. Carthag. cited by Gratian.— The council of Eliberis in Spain. Council of Constantinople in Theodoret.— council of Constance; And the second of Nice.— where it is said of the imperial Lady the famous Pulcheria Augusta, that ipsa per semetipsam in sancta quarta Synodo sedit: which fourth Synod was with Martianus the Emperor.  
To these I add the very Ordo celebrandi concilia written by Isidor, and like unto the Modus tenendi Parliamentum.  
Thus much for human testimony. I have done with my hasty notes, only I add this, and I beseech you to intend it.  
Whilst we of the Laity had our power and voices to choose our own Ministers, and our own Bishops, (which was our ancient right, constantly allowed and practised in the best Primitive times, whereof the proofs are yet evident enough) so long (I say) we might trust them in a Synod, whom we first had trusted to direct and guide our souls in all the ministerial function.— But to conclude us up now, and shut us our contrary to the Law of Nature and Reason, contrary to ancient usages: not to admit us to determination, nay to exclude us from consultation, and after all to take from us all assent both in choice and in refusal of Pastors to be set over us, and yet to bind us by decrees so made, may prove (I fear) no less than soul-tyranny. I do not press the deserved right of our choice of Pastors: but one thing more, lend me patience to add as a supreme Coronis to all that I have said for right of Laity in Synods.  
Look I beseech you in the first Synod that ever was held in the Christian Church, and that for so great and singular a cause, as never was occasion for the like in the world before or since: you have it in the first of the Acts of the holy Apostles, and it is for the choice of a new Apostle. There were in this Synod and of this Synod, the eleven Apostles, Act. 1. 13. With the brethren of the Lord, vers. 14. There were the Disciples, there was Turba {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a multitude, of about a 120 names, vers. 15. Saint Peter tells them that out of that number one must be ordained to be a witness of the resurrection of our Saviour; thereupon what doth the multitude of Disciples there present? {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} vers. 23. they place or set two before the Apostles: And the same men viz. all the Disciples vers. 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} they give forth their lots, and thereupon, the lot falling upon Mathias, he was numbered (saith our translation) with the eleven Apostles; but the original is more, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} communibus calculis annumeratus est, he was by common assent or by common voices reckoned with the eleven. Now who were these common voices? who were these 120. men? Evangelists, Bishops, Deacons, and Presbyters or Elders, as yet there was not one in all the world, the Apostles were but eleven, perhaps not numbered in this 120. The Disciples if you will say, that they were there, yet they were but 70. So that here is no evasion: the Laity were present, and not passive only, they were active in this original, so weighty a Synod.  
My second instance in this kind, is out of the second council that ever we read was held, and this is Acts 6. where the Apostles call a council for the choice of seven Deacons. Then the twelve called the multitude of the Disciples to them, Vers. 2. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. They being assembled do not say, we have decreed, we have ordered and ordained, and enjoined, but their language is Vers. 3. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, brethren look ye out, the word is the same as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, both from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to oversee, do you oversee among you, seven men of honest report. And the saying (as it is verse 5.) pleased {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the whole multitude, there is a consent of theirs; more plain in {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} they the multitude chose seven, Steven and Philip, &c. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, whom they (still the multitude {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) vers. 6. did set or place before the Apostles.  
The third and the last shall be the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the great and general council held by the Apostles upon the dissension of the Church in point of Circumcision (and that is Acts 15.) there you shall again find present, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Verse 12. All the multitude: but you will say and object that the next word is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the multitude kept silence. True, ergo what? Therefore they speak not at all in this council? nothing less. But ergo they had spoken before: for it is plain by the word, than, than all the multitude kept silence. If they had nothing there to do but to be always silent, this particle of time, Then, might well have been spared. This may perhaps be objected, and therefore ought to be prevented, for the further clearing whereof, observe (I pray) the next vers. 13. where in like manner, it is said of Paul and Barnabas {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. And after they held their peace, Ergo they had spoken. And therefore the friar who collected together a body of counsels (Peter Crabbe the German) doth even from this place infer a consent of the people saying, Tacuit omnis multitudo Consentiens Petro.  
But if you would have this more clearly evidenced beyond all exceptions, I pray take notice of the resolution of this Synod, vers. 22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church. With the whole Church, what is that? The blessed Apostles and their fellow-labourers did not engross, and (as our churchmen affect to do) usurp and monopolise the word Church, as proper only to churchmen.— No you shall find it even in the Epigraphe of the Canons and Decrees of this true, holy, and facted Synod, that the despised Laity are in these Canons conjoined with the blessed Apostles, although Pope and Patriarch, Primate and Metropolitan, Archbishop and Bishops, yea even down to Dean and Archdeacon, (I have heard it) do despise the thought of admitting the Laity: I do not say to decision, but even to Consultation, nay to the very choice of consulters in Religion: nay lower even so much as to have a negative power, when a man of inability, and of ill life is obtruded upon them; I proceed, for I would not orare, but probare, look vers. 23. They that were present had voice, they who voiced the Canons, joined in the decree, and sending the decree unto Antioch. The words are thus, The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren send greeting to the Brethren which are in Antioch, &c. Here the Brethren at Jerusalem are (with the Apostles and the Elders) actors in, and authors of the Canons in this council agreed. There is no evasion, no elusion to be had, unless you can prove that all the Brethren in Antioch to whom these Brethren in Jerusalem did write, were only Clergymen.  
Which if you should affirm, our Clergy will hardly be pleased with you, for they must then be of the multitude (not a special lot) for Barnabas and Paul did deliver this Epistle (being the decree of this Synod) to the multitude {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as it is found in the 30 verse. And when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the Epistle.  
Thus much in way of pursuit for this one argument, that no Canons can bind the Laity where we have no voice of our own, nor choice of the Clergy persons who do found them, nor assent in the susception of them after they are framed. Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet.  
M. Speaker, It remains as a wish, that every member of that meeting, who voted these exorbitant Canons, should come severally to the Bar of the Parliament House, with a Canon book in his hand, and there unless he can answer his catechism (as I called it) & show what is the name of their meeting, and (Unless he can manifest that the Laity are no part of the Church) Conceptis verbis in such express terms as that House should think fit, to abjure his own ill-begotten issue, or else be commanded to give fire to his own Canons.    

Section VI.  
UPon my motion November 23. it pleased the grand Committee for Religion, to appoint a Subcommittee, to receive complaints from oppressed Ministers, which Subcommittee was shortly after made a Committee by order of the House. It pleased the Gentlemen of this Committee to put the honour and the burden of the chair upon me: from hence several Reports have been delivered in, I shall only trouble the Reader with the first of them.  

18 Decemb. 1640. Mr. White,  
This grand Committee for Religion did authorise a Sub-committee (among other things) to take into consideration, the unjust sufferings of good Ministers oppressed by the cruel-used authority of hierarchical Rulers.  
In this (and in other points) we have entered upon many particulars, we have matured and perfected but one. If we had less work, you should (before this time) have had more: but complaints crowd in so fast upon us, that the very plenty of them retards their issue.  
The present Report which I am to make unto you is concerning M. Wilkinson, a bachelor in Divinity, and a man in whose character do concur, Learning, Piety, Industry, Modesty.  
Two hardships have been put upon him: one at the time when he presented himself to receive Orders: and that was thus.  
The Bishop of Oxford's chaplain (M Fulham) being the examiner (for Bishops now do scorn to do Bishops work: 
B. Bancroft.  it belongs to himself) he propoundeth four questions to M. Wilkinson, not taken out of the depth of Divinity, but fitly chosen to discover how affections do stand to be novellized by the mutability of the present times.  

The questions were these.  
1. Whether hath the Church authority in matters of faith?  
2. May the King's book of sports, (so some impious Bishops have abused our pious King, to call their contrivance His majesty's book) may this be read in the Church without offence?  
3. Is bowing to or before the Altar lawful?  
4. Is bowing at the Name of Jesus lawful?   
The doctrine of the first affirmed, will bring a dangerous influence upon our belief by subjecting our faith to human resolutions. The other three are disciplinarian in the present way of novelism.  
As soon as M. Wilkinson heard these questions, Lupum auribus, he had a wolf by the ears. And because unto these captious interrogatories, he could not make a peremptory answer, M. Fulham would not present your petitioner to the Bishop for ordination.  
Thus you see (Mr. White) a new way of Simony: Imposition of hands is to be sold, if not for money, yet to make a side, a party, a faction. They will not confer Orders, but upon such as will come in and make party with them in their new practices, as is evident by these questions. Take this, in this kind, as a leading case, a first complaint, more are coming: and M. Wilkinson shall have the poor common comfort Solamen miseris socios habuisse.—  
I proceed to his second sufferance, which was by the vicechancellor of Oxford, for a Sermon preached in his course at S. Marys in Oxford. Short to make, he preached better, than they were willing to hear: the Sermon fell into the ears of a captious auditor. For this Sermon, he stands now suspended by the vicechancellor from all the spiritual promotion that he had, which was only the reading of a Divinity lecture in Magdalen-hall.  
The Committee required the vicechancellor to send unto us the Sermon with his exceptions in writing. They were brought, and being received, they are three in number: great, and weighty in the accusation: none at all in proof. Nay (M. White) there is nothing presented unto us, wherein to find a colour or a shadow, whereby to make the accusation semblable, and consequently the suspension just. Ecquis innocens erit, si accusare suffecerit?  
The particulars insisted upon, picked and chosen out of that Sermon by the vicechancellor are three: every one a heinous charge, and the first sounding little less than treason. Give me leave to read them, as Mr. Vicechancellor hath sent them in writing.  

1. Our religious sovereign, and his pious government, is seditiously defamed, as if his Majesty were little better than the old pagan persecutors or then Queen Mary.  
2. The government of the Church and university is unjustly traduced.  
3. Men of learning and piety, conformable to the public government, are uncharitably slandered.   
The least of these being duly proved, will make him worthy of suspension: but if M. Wilkinson be guilty of the first, he is not worthy to live. The truth is, the vicechancellor hath learned audacter criminare: and failing in proof; hath only fouled himself. Your Subcommittee, upon due consideration of the cause and circumstance, have hereupon unanimously voted, that M. Wilkinson is free from all and every of these exceptions, made against his Sermon by the vicechancellor. We are all of opinion that there is nothing therein, that deserves Notam censoris, nedum lituram judicis.  
If (M. White) there be in a Sermon (as there ought to be) aliquid mordacis veritatis, shall the Preacher be for this suspended? His mouth shut up for preaching truth boldly? It is contrary to their commission, for (Sir) they have a great charter to speak freely: it is warranted unto them Jure divino. Saint Paul doth own it, in his instruction of Timothy. 
2 Tim. 4. 1, 2, 3.  The words are, I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, preach the word, be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort— For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine. Here is our case exactly. Here was reproof; here was exhortation: here was preaching out of season, to unwilling or to unprepared hearers: and yet in season, the theme was necessary and fitted to their want of zeal: But the only fault was, that the time is come when sound doctrine will not be endured.  
Thus the Committee found it: thus have I faithfully, but imperfectly, reported it, and do now subjoin the opinion and request of your trusties, to this grand Committee.  
Mr. Wilkinson is innocent and free from this accusation. He had just cause to petition. The vicechancellor hath been without cause, nay against cause rigid and oppressive. The Sermon deserved thanks. The preacher received injuries. His suspension to be taken of: The retracting and dissolving whereof ought to be as public as was the inflicting thereof.  
One word more I ask leave to add, and I hope I shall not therein err from the sense of the Committee, though indeed I received it not in command to be joined to the Report. This business (M. White) is spread into a wide and ample notice. Two great primates have appeared in it, and that with different, perhaps contrariant senses, senses as distant as Lambeth and Armagh. The vicechancellor saith, that the Preacher was censured by the most Reverend Lord Primate of Ireland, who heard him, to be a bold or rash fellow for it. Hereupon I attended that learned, pious, and painful Primate, and did read these words of the vicechancellor unto him. His answer was, that he takes it as an Aspersion upon him. He remembers the Sermon, and commends it.  
This is an additional to the Report, and with this I leave M. vicechancellor, and the Bishop's chaplain (Fulham) to the wisdom and consideration of this grand Committee.    

Section VII.  
MY next walk was in a hazardous way: and although it was not so lodged in my memory, as that in due season I could make use of it (as I intended) publicly in the House; yet being since gone forth without my appointment into print, I do now own it for my sense, until I be better instructed, 
Mr. D. of C.  as I was promised long since, by a cathedral friend of mine, but do now despair to see performed.  
The theme is, that secular jurisdiction ought not to be held by such as are of the Clergy function. 
Hos. 8. 4.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. They reigned to themselves (saith the Lord) and not by me: they have been Princes, and I knew it not.  
The words of that short passage were these:  
OUR Lord and Saviour (blessed for ever being indeed a King, Pilate (his Judge) seemeth to start, and be in fear at that great title: Although our Saviour had told him saying, 
a Ioh. 18. 36.  My kingdom is not of this world: Pilate (still in fear) 
b Joh. 19 12.  sought to release him, but more in fear of Caesar (the King at that time of this world) he adjudged the Lord of life to death, yet honourably writeth his Title, 
c Mat. 27. 37.  This is Jesus the King of the Jews. This title he then was crowned withal, when life and death divided his soul and body asunder; that in a manner it may be said, he never was King indeed, until he was out of this world.  
If he who was our 
a Joh. 13. 13.  Lord and Master, had not this world's royalty, whence cometh that the Pope is Crowned? and his Cardinals in Purple? whence have our Bishops their Lordships? and as themselves call it 
b B. Hall. Episcop. part 2. p. 106.  Jura regalia, their royalty and rites of Baronage?  
It may prove a disquisition deep and dangerous, yet I desire (without envy to their pomp or persons) to wade so far as may satisfy a mind that loves truth, and desires to be led by it: and this with all possible brevity. There hath been a happy and blessed reformation of our Church, God send a better, and a more severe reformation of our churchmen, or else our Church is now in danger to be deformed again.  
The state of this inquiry may be this, viz. whether the Ministers of Christ's kingdom may receive worldly titles, and execute worldly Offices and powers? or more generally thus: Whether a clergyman may semel & simul, be both a clergyman and a layman, in power, office and authority over other men in both kinds?  
Go we to the fountain head, 
c Luk. 22 24.  There was a strife among them (the Apostles) which of them should be accounted the greatest; which of the twelve soever began this emulation of power. Certain it is, that the two sons of Zebedee, 
a Mat. 20 20.  James and John with their mother, first presumed to come and ask the highest places of honour (next to the very Throne) in the kingdom of Christ; which kingdom was conceited by them shortly after to be raised in the splendour of this world: This is genuinely gathered from this very story, generally confessed, and clearly confirmed in the History of the Acts, where the Apostles do ask our Saviour, even after his resurrection, saying, 
b Act. 1. 6  Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Therefore to these two brethren and their mother, so much mistaken in the nature of his kingdom he maketh answer, 
c Mat. 20 22.  Ye know not what you ask. He presently showeth the entertainment of his kingdom, A cup to drink of, that many were like to pray might pass from them; but they answer they are able to drink thereof. This their answer as it proved true in all the twelve Apostles, so by the providence of God, one of these two brothers, 
d Act. 12. 2.  James was the first of the rest (as some do gather) who drank the cup of martyrdom, and as some think, John was the last of the Apostles.  
Equals look awry on the ambition of their fellows. These two were vain in their high request, and the other ten murmured at their presumption, 
a Mat. 20. 24.  They were moved with indignation, saith Saint Matthew. 
b Mar. 10 41.  They began to be much displeased, saith Saint Mark. But by this happy error of these two Apostles, our Saviour takes occasion to instruct them, and the other ten, and in them all other Ministers belonging unto him, how far different the pastoral care of his Church, is from the power which governeth in commonwealths.  
Hereupon the son of God calleth unto him all the twelve Apostles, saying, 
c Mat. 20 25.  Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion, &c. 
d Mar. 10. 24.  Yet know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise Lordships, &c. 
e Luke 22 25.  The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordships, &c. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. But it shall not be so among you. This is a statute not to be repealed. This is spoken authoritative & definitivè, it is the determinate Law of a just authority. A Canon ordained and irrevocably fixed by the wisdom of God. Confirmed by an example above all argument. 
f Mat. 20 28. Mark 10 45.  For the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to Minister. 
g Luke 22. 22.  I am among you as he that serveth. And before this he had taught them, that the 
h Mark 10. 24.  Disciple is not above his Master. 
i Joh. 13. 15, 16.  I have given you an example, that you shall do as I have done to you, verily, verily, the servant is not greater than the Lord.  
This ministry being thus performed in humility, and without worldly titles, The Ministers shall be then exalted. Our blessed Saviour in express words following, saith unto them, 
a Luc. 22 29.  I appoint unto you a kingdom (but addeth) as my Father hath appointed me. Now his own kingdom is spiritual, or as himself said unto Pilate, not of this world. Let them then renounce temporal, and they shall have spiritual honour. But some of the Clergy would (it seems) confound both kingdoms, being ambitious to inherit Glory in the kingdom of Grace. I fear that there are some Bishops do not know how sublime a virtue Christian humility is; how full of Honour.  
Every {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} must be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 
b Luc. 22. 26.  Let the greatest be as the youngest, that is the way to be a right Elder, he must be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 
c Luc. 22. 27.  as he that serveth, that is the way to be ministered unto. He must be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
d Mat. 20 27. Mark. 10 44.  a servant, that he may be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a prime or chief. He must be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
e Mat. 20 26.  a Minister, that he may be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a great one. These antitheses our Saviour hath placed in the text upon the former occasion.  
From hence, may well be argued as a Corollary, to these undoubted premises, that no Minister of the gospel can lawfully assume, hold, or exercise that power which by the Lord of the gospel is inhibited to his Ministers. But our Saviour Jesus Christ (Lord and only head of his Church) hath inhibited all temporal Lordship, Magistracy and Dominion unto his servants, in the lot of his Clergy. Therefore no Minister of this gospel may hold or exercise temporal Lordship or Dominion.  
These words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. It shall not be so among you, do so straighten the Bishop's mitres, that they sit uneasy on their heads: to soften and as it were to line them for their ease; the Bishops that are and would be all the papal, and some of the Protestant do quilt a gentler sense into these words than can bear analogy with the text. They search the original and pretend to find another sense in our saviour's sentence.  
The Text says that the Lords of the Gentiles are called gracious Lords and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} (not tyrants but) benefactors, a title fit for the best Princes. And yet this Text (say they) forbids not unto Clergy men, the use and exercise of worldly titles, power, offices, dignities, Commands, dominion Lordships, &c. but the abuse of them: domineering & tyrannising with them, not exercising and holding. This they pretend to make firm out of the Greek word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; which they would have taken in the worst sense of exorbitant power, even for tyrannising. So then, they would teach us, that, Lord it they may, and Lord it they may not: Lord it they may with all pomp, state, power; Lord it they may not, with pride, vanity, and oppression. But I shall easily prove this interpretation to be inconstant with the scope and analogy of the Context.  
Will they frame their argument from the verb {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be a Lord, or to rule? or from the preposition {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, added and united thereunto? neither will serve. And if the pomp of our Prelates cannot avoid the power of this text, they are down for ever. Let me therefore scan it to the full.  
First, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be a Lord, or to have rule or Lordship, is never properly taken in that ill sense which they would here create, as having unjust, and oppressive power. It is derived from the usual and most frequent title of our Lord and Saviour, whom the holy Scripture so often saluteth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Lord. Here is no shadow for Tyranny.  
The true sense of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is authoritatem habens one that hath authority: being derived from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} authority which is known to be approved and ordained by God himself from whom all lawful authority is derived. Mark how well this word is sensed through all authors: Demosthenes calleth the heads and chief of the City {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. A law in force and principal authority is called by Aeschines {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Galen calleth the chief and principal members of a man's body {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} yet one member doth not tyrannize over another. 
Gal. de usu partium.  Aristotle hath 
a Ethi. l. 6  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} propria virtus, (that is) a virtue properly or principally so called. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is one that is Lord or master of himself, not one that domineers over himself. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
b Apoc. 1. 10.  The Lord's day. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Lord's Supper. 
c 1 Cor. 11. 21.  Saint Paul saith that 
d Ro. 1. 7  The law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth, he doth not mean that the Law is a Tyrant, yet the word is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
e Rom. 14. 9  Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might 
e Rom. 14. 9  be Lord both of the living and the dead: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. From {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Lord, cometh {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Lordship, four times mentioned by the holy Apostles, but never taxed as a power tending to Tyranny, but to be obeyed in them who duly are therewith invested, as may be seen. (Eph. 1. 21. Coloss. 1. 16. 2 Pet. 2. 10. and Jude 8.) clearly then in {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} there is no print of usurpation or of oppressive and tyrannical power. If there be, we are then well warned to beware of our Bishops, who not only own the title {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, but expressly plead for it, as the 
f Part 2. p. 104.  Bishop of Exeter in his late Episcopacy.  
Secondly, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the very word (used by Saint Matthew and Saint mark, in these before alleged Texts) whereby our Saviour forbiddeth his Apostles, to exercise Dominion or Lordship is a compounded word of two, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. That is, to rule as one that hath authority. I may render it to be, or to behave one's self ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} juxta, Secundum) according as one that hath authority.  
This preposition in words compounded hath sometimes a signification of his own, sometimes none at all, as in {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. clearly it hath no special signification in this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, much less a force so exegetical as to draw the lawful power of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} into the exorbitancy of a Tyranny. That it hath no force here, is by this apparent, for that the speech of our Saviour recorded by the holy Ghost in S. Matthew and S. Mark by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} are rendered by the same spirit in Saint Luke, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} So that plainly you must not pretend tyrannising to be meant in the sense of one place, except you can find it also in both, unless you will come to this, that he forbiddeth tyranny in one place, and worldly power in the other, which if you do, you grant the question.  
This is enough alone: yet for a further interpretation of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, look in Genesis 1. 28. where God giveth unto man in the time of man's innocency, the rule and dominion over all his creatures, even whilst they all were 
a Gen. 1. 31.  very good. The name and word of power in that great Charter granted is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Now the time of this power granted, the person to whom it is granted, the creatures all good on whom it was to be exercised, and above all the goodness of Amighty God who granted it, do exclude all imagination of a tyrannical power, and admit only of a fatherly mastership over the new creatures of God.  
The same word is used again (Psalm. 110. 2.) and there applied to our blessed Saviour {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Aquila hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Invalesce, prevail over thine enemies. Symmachus, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, do thou correct or instruct thine enemies.  
If then the frequent and constant sense of both {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, be only to have power and authority, civil, temporal, and ordinary dominion, and that all such authority is forbidden them, how poor and weak is that evasion for our Bishops, who would have this speech of our Saviour taken in a forced sense different from all these other places? and would forge a new meaning, as if our Saviour did not here forbid {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but only {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, not a commanding lordliness, but a Tyrannous use of it; when as it is hereby evident, that Christ having ordained the Aristocracy of twelve, did therein and in his reprehension here take away those several benches of honour, and that proud imparity of temporal power which our Bishops do swell withal.  
That the former speeches of our Saviour, do destroy the lordliness of our Prelates, let us confirm it with a farther consideration, which is thus. Our Saviour Christ being 
a 1 Cor. 1. 24.  the wisdom of God, must be thought to fit and suit his answer to the question and request made unto him by the two Apostles. But what Bishop in defence of his usurped power, dares affirm that two such admirable 
a Gal. 2. 9  Pillars, as James and John, should ask of such a Master iniquam dominationem, a cruel dominion over their fellows, as if the meaning of their request were thus. Master, give us two leave to tyrannize over the other ten! He had taught them before, 
b Mat. 5. 5.  Blessed are the meek, and 
c Mat. 11. 29.  learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart: Can it then be thought that the beloved Disciple and his brother, shall ask of the master of all humility, a tyrannical power to oppress their partners? No man hath such a heart of Lead to think, yet there have not wanted foreheads of brass to affirm so: Certainly, in that kingdom of Christ, by them as then supposed to be temporal, they desired the honour to shine in civil dignity, and eminency of power and authority, which (no question) they intended to have exercised with all brotherly moderation, yet are they (and I wish our Bishops also were) answered with his reprehension, first 
d Mat. 20 22.  Ye know not what ye ask, next with his absolute denial and forbiddance, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. It shall not be so among you.  
Will the practice of Saint Paul, and the counsel of S. Peter serve for comment to this text? Saint Paul saith {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 
a 2 Cor. 1. 2, 4.  We Lord it not. S. Peter himself an Elder to other Elders, exhorteth them to feed the flock, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} overseeing it: and that not by constraint, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 
b 1 Pet. 5.  nor as being Lords.  
Therefore my resolution stands clear upon this vote; That it may be declared that true and right Episcopacy is incompatible and inconstant with the authority of a secular jurisdiction.  
They who give in their names to be labourers in God's Vineyard must not go out of the door, and think to return at pleasure: their whole time they have vowed to the great Master of the Vineyard, and I find no wages promised but to them who enter and continue there to the last hour. 
c Luke 9 62.  No man putting his hand to the plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.  
Let therefore this inhibitory Statute against Bishops holding the secular jurisdiction of temporal Lordships, stand (as it must stand, irrepealeable {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. It shall not be so among you.  
Thus by vouching a divine Statute that Bishops should not be Lords, I do plainly involve myself in this conclusion, that Bishops are and aught to be. Such is, such ever was my sense, so far am I from the Rooters.  
God forbid that we should destroy the function of Episcopacy, but God grant we may (with his majesty's leave) unlord them from a domineering power: 
P. 347.  For to my sense, Synesius doth very well deliver himself, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. To conjoin the principality with the Priesthood, is to close together things inconsistent. 
Ep. 57  And again, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Why do you endeavour to join those things that are separated by God?  
In this opinion I may receive as little thanks from the Prelates, as I find full satisfaction in my own bosom.   

Section VIII.  
UPon thursday May 21. I subjected myself to the obloquy I suffer. The Bill for Abolition of our present Episcopacy was pressed into my hand by S. A. H. (being then brought unto him by S. H. V. and O. C.)  
He told me he was resolved that it should go in, but was earnestly urgent that I would present it. The Bill did hardly stay in my hand so long as to make a hasty perusal. Whilst I was overviewing it, Sir Edward Aiscough delivered in a Petition out of Lincolnshire, which was seconded by M. Strode in such a sort as that I had a fair invitement to issue forth the Bill then in my hand. Hereupon I stood up and said this, which immediately after I reduced into writing.  

Mr. Speaker,  
THe Gentleman that spoke last taking notice of the multitude of complaints and complainants against the present government of the Church, doth somewhat seem to wonder that we have no more pursuit ready against the persons offending. Sir, the time is present, and the work is ready, perhaps beyond his expectation.  
Sir, I am now the instrument, to present unto you, a very short (but a very sharp) Bill: such as these times and their sad necessities have brought forth. It speaks a free language, and makes a bold request. It is a purging Bill.  
I give it you, as I take physic, not for delight, but for a cure. A cure now, the last and only cure, if (as I hope) all other remedies have first been tried. Then— Immedicabile vulnus, &c. But Cuncta prius tentanda—  
I never was for ruin, so long as I could hold any hope of Reforming. My hopes that way, are even almost withered.  
This Bill is entitled: An Act for the utter abolishing and taking away of all Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-deacons, Prebendaries, Chanters, and canons, and all other their under-Officers.  
Sir, you see, their demerits have exposed them Publici odii piaculares victimas. I am sorry they are so ill, I am more sorry that they will not be content to be bettered, which I did hope would have been effected by our last Bill.  
When this Bill is perfected, I shall give a sad I unto it. And at the delivery in thereof, I do now profess before hand, that if my former hopes of a full Reformation may yet revive and prosper; I will again divide my sense upon this Bill, and yield my shoulders to underprop the primitive, lawful, and just Episcopacy: yet so, as that I will never be wanting with my utmost pains and prayers to root out all the undue adjuncts to it, and superstructures on it.  
I beseech you read the Bill, and weigh well the work.   
This is the nearest Act that ever I have done for Abolition: and if I suffer for this, it is 〈◊〉 altogether undeservedly: 〈◊〉 my profession here is to Root out all undue adjuncts and superstructures, but to underprop the Primitive Episcopacy. And (as before I said) a little addition to this Bill might have given us a good Reformation: Take away the present Dioceses, but state forth the future, in the same Bill. The heads of which form shall anon be presented to you.   

Section ix..  
THe next passage of this nature was upon the same Bill, whilst it stood (as yet it stands) in Commitment to the whole House, Mr. Hide excellent well discharging that chair. And this was the first which was distasted abroad. Many have importuned me for copies, but I have yet issued none out of my hand, though it were spoken above seven months' since.  

21. Jun. 1641. M. Hide,  
YOu have here a Bill, but such a one as is likely to be short-lived and not to grow into a perfect Act, unless you please to add thereunto some very important, very significant provisoes, such wherein we may have, or whereby we may be assured in another Bill to have, a future government, in room of this that goes out. I am confident the Lords will otherwise debate and dispute your bill quite out of doors.  
Sir, we are all bound unto the goodness of his sacred Majesty (God preserve him and his for it) none of all our bills, none of our petitions (this Parliament) have miscarried in his royal hand, but have been all completed with the royal assent.  
But the Ambition of some of our Prelates, will not let them see how incompatible two several contradistinguished functions are in one & the same person: And therefore there is left you neither Root nor Branch of that so good, so necessary a Bill, which lately we did send up; and consequently no hope of such a Reformation, as we all do aim at.  
What spark of hope can we then have, that this Bill, which strikes at Root and Branch, both of their Seats of Justice there, and of their episcopal chairs in the Church will pass (as it is, and without tender of some other government in lieu of this) since the voices are still the same, which outed your former Bill.  
Truly (I profess) my hopes are sad in this: never had one Parliament so many great affairs, never had any Parliament any affair so great as this which we call the Bill of Episcopacy. certain (Sir,) it is the great Hope, or the exceeding fear of every man here, and of all men abroad.  
Many a time this Parliament I have heard (and not unjustly) that the business then in hand was of as great consequence as any had been agitated within these walls.  
But in truth, (Sir,) to my apprehension, neither Star-Chamber, nor High Commission, nor Shipmoney, nor Straffords death, nor Canterbury's life, are (with me) equivalent, to the settling or unsettling of the whole national Church of this kingdom.  
We cannot answer to God or man, if we do not use our best and most vigorous endeavours for the peace of the Church we live in.  
I should think this a happy day, if we could so temper this Bill, that it might walk fairly on through the house of Lords unto the King.  
To this end, (and that we may not lose all, by asking more than all,) I will be bold to offer to your consideration, a provisional addition or two. Such as (I hope) may both satisfy us and secure our Bill, by fit amendments.  
Here was a little interception, and then a long additional to the Bill presented in writing, for putting all Church-government into the hands of Commissioners in every diocese. I proceeded.  
Sir, 
This was so at first, though afterward it was resolved that no Clergy man but only Lay men should be Commissioners.  there is now offered unto you, a large addition to your Bill, longer (indeed) by far, than the Bill itself. It seems to desire, that a proportional number of Clergy and Laity, may be commissionated together, for all ecclesiastic jurisdiction, until a future government be resolved on.  
I must confess, I am not satisfied with this way of Commissioners; it would joy me much, and satisfy me more, if as one government goes out, I could see another come in, and that without an Inter-regnum of Commissioners.  
We are resolved that the present way of government is unsufferable, let it go, but let us have another. This I conceive to be feasible, and that in fewer lines, fewer words, than this additional increment now offered to your Bill; which in truth will make me like your Bill worse than I did before.  
To this purpose, I do lay this ground: A Church government we must have. This is (within these walls for aught I hear) on all hands agreed upon: and then (by unavoidable necessity) this government must be distributed into parts, into certain limits, circuits and divisions of places, wherein it is to be exercised.  
Unto this being granted, I do subjoin three propositions, and they are these:  
First, our present Dioceses are (for the most part) much too large, too vast; I desire therefore, that the circuit for future Church government, may be reduced to the common boundaries and limits of our several shires. The disproportion from thence objected shall be easily answered.  
2. Next, in every of these divisions, I desire that some choice, able, grave Divines (twelve or more in a shire) may be by the Parliament appointed, to be in the nature of an old primitive constant Presbytery among us.  
Thirdly, and lastly, because all meetings of many must be disorderly, and the rule of many cannot be without confusion, unless there be one to guide and to direct the rest. I shall desire that in every shire, over every Presbytery, we may establish one precedent.  
A precedent (I say) more to satisfy others then myself. The name of Bishop disturbs not me; let him be a Bishop, or an overseer, or a precedent, or a Moderator, or a superintendent, or a Ruling-elder; call him what you will, so as you provide me one in every shire, over every Presbytery, to guide and to direct the rest.  
The different sense (to be easily observed) and I hope not past our strength to be reconciled, in this House, concerning our present Church-government is twofold. One is for ruin thereof, the other for Reforming: both are nearer together in heart (I persuade myself) than we are yet aware of. The nearer the better, and more easy composure both of our own selves here, and of the church's peace throughout the Land abroad. God send that we may find the way to peace.  
If the right form of primitive Episcopacy were truly stated forth unto us, it would (Questionless) take and lead our judgements along therewith.  
This Bishop was not so much a Lord as a Father over his charge, ruling with love and tender bowels: whosoever did institute this Episcopacy, sure I am this Bishop hath and ever had, a precedency before, and a presidency over others of his own order.  
He was one man chosen out among the rest, and by the rest put into a several degree (not into a distinct superior Order) above the rest: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ad Episcopandum to oversee the rest: and this only in matters spiritual, nothing at all in affairs temporal, or secular employments.  
If this Bishop were not of apostolical institution yet it is undeniable that he was of apostolical permission. For, of and in the apostolical times all stories, all Fathers, all ages have a greed, that such Bishops there were.  
His rule indeed was with consent of his Senate, his Presbytery: Direction was his, Coercion was still their own.  
He had {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, yea and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, both the first place of sitting, and the chiefest part of power: I say the chiefest part, I do not say, the greatest part of power. The power, it was more eminent in him, but it was virtually residing and domesticant in the plurality of his Assessors.  
These Assessors were the Presbyters, the Elders of the Church, of whom holy Ignatius (a Father so primitive, that he was Disciple to Saint John the Apostle, and by some thought to be that very child (whilst he was a child) whom our blessed Saviour took and set before his disciples, whereof you read in three of the Evangelists. 
Mat. 18. 2.  This Ignatius (I say) in his Epistle to the Trallians doth call these Elders, 
Mar. 9 26  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 
Luk. 9 27  The Counsellors and coassessors of the Bishop.  
Here was in this age (and yet this father died a Bishop and a martyr before the last Apostle went to Heaven) here was a fellowship, 
If Simon zealots were the last as some affirm.  yet such a fellowship as destroyed not presidency: and in another Epistle (that to the Magnesians) you have such a presidency as doth admit also of a fellowship. The words are, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. The Bishop being President (the very name and office there) as in the place of God, and the Presbyters as a Senate of Apostles.  
I forbear to dilate upon this Episcopacy. But I will be bold Ponere ab oculos to set him before your eyes. I will give him you, even by way of demonstration.  
M. Hide, yourself are now in this great Committee, M. Speaker is in the house, The Bishop of our Congregation.  
You are in yourselves but fellow-members of the same house with us, returned hither (as we also are) to sit on these benches with us: until by our election and by common suffrage you are Incathedrated: than you have (and it is fit and necessary that you should have) a precedency before us, and a Presidency over us.  
Notwithstanding this, you are not diversified into a several distinct order from us (you must not swell with that conceit) you are still the same member of the same house you were, though raised to a painful and a careful degree among us, and above us.  
This Bishop had (as yourself have here) potestatem directivam, but not Correctivam. Correction in our house doth dwell in the general Vote.  
You know the power you have is limited, and circumscribed by them who gave it; you are no Dictator to prescribe us our laws; but must gather our Votes: and then your pronouncing doth fix our (not your own single) Orders.  
Neither you here, (nor Mr. Speaker in the House) can Degrade any one of us from these seats, nor can you silence us in the due liberty of our Speech.  
Truly (Sir) as yet advised, I do heartily wish we had in every Shire of England, a Bishop such and so regulated for Church-government within that sphere, as Mr. Speaker is bounded in and limited, by the rules and cancels of this House.  
That were (indeed) a well tempered and a blessed Reformation, whereby our times might be approximant, and conformant to the apostolical and pure primitive Church.  
But this (I fear) is magis optandum quàm sperandum: yet it being the cause of God, who can then despair?  
This happiness (I mean living under episcopal Presidency, not under a domineering Prelacy) this is too high above our reach, yet strong prayers, and hearty endeavours may pull the blessing down upon us: In the mean time woe is our church's portion, for our Bishop President is lost, and grown a stranger to us, and in his room is crept in and stepped up a Lordly Prelate made proud with pomp and ease, who neglecting the best part of his office in God's Vineyard, instead of supporting the weak, and binding up the broken, forageth the Vines, and drives away other labourers. The Vines indeed have both Grapes and Leaves, and Religious acts both substance and circumstance, but the Gardener is much too blame, who gives more charge to the workmen of the leaves then of the fruit.  
This rough enforcement (of late) to that which is not the better part: is an Episcopacy that turns all our melody into a Threnody: This makes many poor, pious, Christian souls to sing the songs of Zion in a strange Land. 
Ps. 137. 3. & 4. ●   
This Bishop will have no Assessors (or if any, so formally admitted, and so awed, as good have none) no Senate, no Consultation, no Presbytery or common Suffrage: but elates himself up into usurped titles, and incompatible power, and sublimes ti self by assuming a soleship both in Orders and in Censures.  
Religion and reason, and Primitive example are all loud against this Episcopacy.  
This too elate subliming of one can not stand without a too mean demission (I may say debasing) of many other of the same order. Nay this Bishop not content with ecclesiastic pride alone, will swell also, with ambition and Offices secular.  
Truly (Sir) you have done exceeding well to Vote away this Bishop; for of this Bishop (and of this alone) I must understand the Vote you have passed, until I be better instructed: for your Vote is against the present Episcopacy, and for the present: you can hardly find any other Episcopacy but this: an authority how ever by some of them better exercised, yet too solely entrusted to them all.  
Away then with this Lordly domineerer who plays the Monarch (perhaps the Tyrant) in a diocese: of him it is of whom I read, Episcopalis dignitas papalem fastum redolet. This kind of Episcopacy it smells rank of the Papacy: nor shall you ever be able, utterly and absolutely to extirpate Popery, unless you root out this soleship of Episcopacy.  
To conclude in short and plain English, I am for abolishing of our present Episcopacy. Both dioceses and Diocesan as now they are. But I am withal (at the same time) for restauration of the pure Primitive episcopal Presidency. Cut off the usurped adjuncts of our present Episcopacy, reduce the ancient Episcopacy, such as it was, in puris spiritualibus. Both may be done with the same hand, and I think in a shorter Bill than is offered now by way of addition.  
Down then with our prelatical Hierarchy, or hierarchical Prelacy (such as now we have) most of it consisting in temporal adjuncts only; the Diana and the idol of proud and lazy churchmen. This do, but eâ lege, on this condition, that with the same hand, in the same Bill, we do gently raise again (even from under the ruins of that Babel) such an Episcopacy, such a Presidency, as is venerable in its antiquity and purity, and most behooveful for the peace of our Christendom.  
This is the way of Reforming: and thus by yielding to the present storm, and throwing that overboard which is adventitious, borrowed, and undue; Peace may be brought home unto our Church again, the best of that building and the truth of ancient Episcopacy may be preserved: otherwise we hazard all.  
This would be glorious for us and for our Religion: and the glory thereof will be the greater, because it redounds unto the God of glory.  
My motion is, that those sheets last presented to you, may be laid by, and that we may proceed to reduce again the old original Episcopacy.   
This being thus delivered, and upon report being mis-resented abroad, a stranger came to me the next day, and with much show of love and sorrow, told me, that I had lost (by this speech) the prayers of thousands in the City. Very many others have since been with me to try my temper, but I have found in them all (all that are absolutely anti-episcopal) so much more of entreaty then of argument, that indeed they have proved themselves as Bishops unto me, for I have received Confirmation from them.   

Section X.  
SInce the late recess, some endeavours of mine have been reported more distastive than before: insomuch as that, a lying generation gave it forth, some that I was expelled the house, others that I was in the Tower, for what I had spoken.  
The first passage was next morning after our meeting, upon occasion then offered by way of complaint, for not obeying the late Order of the 8 of September. The complaint came from some Parishioners of Cripplegate. And thus I did on the sudden then deliver myself, which presently I reduced into writing.  

21 Octob. 1641. M. Speaker,  
It is very true (as is instanced unto you) that your late order and declaration of the 8 and 9 of September, are much debated and disputed abroad: perhaps it may be a good occasion for us to redispute them here.  
The intent of your Order, to me, seems doubtful, and therefore I am bold, for my own instruction, humbly to propound two quaeres.  
1. How far an Order of this House is binding?  
2. Whether this particular Order be continuant or expired?  
Your Orders (I am out of doubt) are powerful, if they be grounded upon the laws of the Land. Upon that warranty, we may by an Order, enforce any thing that is undoubtedly so grounded: and by the same rule we may abrogate whatsoever is introduced contrary to the undoubted foundation of our laws.  
But Sir, this Order is of another nature, another temper: especially in one part of it. Of which (in particular) at some other time.  
Sir, There want not some abroad, men of birth, quality, and Fortunes; such as know the strength of our Votes here as well as some of us (I speak my own infirmities) men of the best worth, and of good affiance in us, and no way obnoxious to us: They know they sent us hither as their trusties, to make and unmake laws. They know they did not send us hither to rule and govern them by arbitrary, revocable and disputable Orders: especially in Religion: No time is fit for that: and this time as unfit as any. I desire to be instructed herein.  
M. Speaker, in the second place, there is a question whether this Order (whereupon your present complaint is grounded) be permanent and binding, or else expired, and by ourselves deserted.  
I observe, that your Order being made 8. September, in hope then of concurrence therein by the Lords; that failing, you did issue forth your last resolution by way of declaration9. September, wherein thus you express yourself. — That it may well be hoped, when both Houses shall meet again, that the good propositions and preparations in the House of Commons, for preventing the like grievances, and reforming the disorders and abuses in matter of Religion, may be brought to perfection: wherefore you do expect that the commons of this realm do in the mean time— (what? obey and perform your Order made the day before? no such thing: but in the mean time) — quietly attend the Reformation intended.  
These are your words, and this my doubt upon them: whether by these words you have not superseded your own Order. Sure I am, the words do bear this sense, and good men may think and hope it was your meaning.  
My humble motion therefore is this: I beseech you to declare, that upon this our reconvention, your order of the eighth of September is out of date: And that the Commons of England must (as you say) quietly attend the Reformation intended, which certainly is intended to be perfected up into Acts of Parliament. And in the mean time that they must patiently endure the present laws, until you can make new, or mend the old.    

Section XI.  
THe promise made (in my last) hath not been performed in the House, nor is now like to be. The reason is, there is now no probability that we shall debate the validity of our order of the eighth of September. A day indeed (Saturday the sixth of November) was by order fixed for that theme, but other affairs diverted it. To discharge my promise aforesaid, I was then ready with freedom to have unbosom myself, as in this following discourse: but that order being expired and not revived, though moved for; I ask pardon if I do interpose here that which was prepared for that day. Excuse me Reader if I be willing fully to expose myself to the utmost: The truth of my heart desires some friendly help to set me right, if I be in any error. I am sorry that I am prevented of publishing this in the house.  

Master Speaker.  
ME thinks I am now going to walk upon the ridge of a house, a dangerous precipice on either hand. On the one side I must take heed that I speak neither more nor less than the inward dictate of my own conscience: on the other hand I shall be afraid to presume above your better judgements. My path is narrow: I must look to my footing: Dixi custodiam vias meas, 
Psa. 38. 1.  &c. I said I will look to my ways that I offend not in my tongue. Thus I preface, because I foreknow that I shall speak to the dislike of some worthy members of this honourable House.  
Sir: Two questions are before us: First in general, how far an order of this House is binding deforis, not upon our own members here, but upon the people, the King's subject abroad. Secondly, the validity and invalidity of your particular order of the eighth, and declaration of the ninth of September last.  
For the first I am clear in this opinion, that we may enforce any thing that is undoubtedly grounded upon the law of the land: show me that foundation, and I will concur with you in any resolution. We may also declare against any thing that is introduced contrary to our laws. Farther than this I know no way, unless it be by Bill: and then I know no limitation, no bound. Thus in brief for the general, I come now to your particular order.  
Master Speaker, I shall be afraid to arraign your orders: I have already been controlled, (not for doing so, but as if I had done so) yet (Sir) I have often heard it in this House, that we are masters of our own orders: and then (I think) we may in this place arraign them, that is, question them, try them, approve, alter, reject, or condemn them. Was not our Protestation more sacred than an Order? yet that was revised, and (to stop some objections) new sensed by us. And I take it lawful in this place to arraign (if that be the word) even an act of Parliament, and then (a fortiori) an order of this House.  
Surely (Sir) I shall speak reverently of all your Orders when I am abroad: I have done so of this. I am resolved that my obedience shall therein be found good, although my particular reason be rebellant to your conclusions. This is my duty abroad: but here in this House, within these walls, freedom is my inheritance, and give me leave (I pray) at this time to use a part of my birthright.  
The seasonableness, and the equity of your order, both are controverted. You all know this is a dangerous time to make any determinations in matter of Religion: whether it be in the doctrinal, or in the practical part of God's worship. Men are (now a days) many of them more wise, and some of them more wilful than in former times. The use and caution is this: Let us take care that what we do, we do with due and full authority, I would have nothing new (in this kind) but by authority of the three Estates: and even then let us be wary that we suit the times with applications proper and seasonable.  
Hear me with patience, and refute me with reason. Your command is, that all corporal bowing at the Name Jesus— be henceforth forborn.  
I have often wished that we might decline these dogmatic resolutions in Divinity: I say it again and again, that we are not Idonei & competentes judices in doctrinal determinations: The theme we are now upon is a sad point, I pray consider severely on it.  
You know there is 
a Acts 4. 12.  no other Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. You know that this is 
b Phil. 2. 9  a Name above every name. 
c Cantic. 1. 3  Oleum effusum nomen ejus, it is the carol of his own Spouse. This Name is by a Father styled Mel in ore, melos in aure, jubilum in corde. This, it is the sweetest and the fullest of comfort of all the Names and Attributes of God, God my Saviour. If Christ were not our JESUS, Heaven were then our envy, which is now our blessed hope.  
And must I Sir, hereafter do no exterior reverence, none at all, to God my Saviour, at the mention of his saving Name Jesus? why Sir, not to do it, to omit it, and to leave it undone, it is questionable; it is controvertible: it is at least a moote point in divinity. But to deny it, to forbid it to be done: take heed (sir) God will never own you, if you forbid his honour. Truly (Sir) it horrors me to think of this.  
For my part, I do humbly ask pardon of this House, and thereupon I take leave and liberty to give you my resolute resolution. I may, I must, I will do bodily reverence unto my Saviour, and that upon occasion taken at the mention of his saving Name Jesus. And if I should do it also as oft as the Name of God, or Jehovah, or Christ is named in our solemn devotions, I do not know any argument in Divinity to control me.  
M. Speaker, I shall never be frighted from this, with that fond, shallow argument: Oh you make an idol of a Name. I beseech you Sir, paint me a voice, make a sound visible if you can: when you have taught mine ears to see, and mine eyes to hear, I may then perhaps understand this subtle argument. In the mean time reduce this dainty species of new Idolatry, under its proper head, (the second commandment) if you can. And if I find it there, I will fly from it ultra Sauromatas any whither with you.  
The words are there, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing (ullius rei) that is in Heaven— or in Earth— Can you here find the Name of God in this description of idolising? Surely sir, my Saviour is neither {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nor {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of any thing there forbidden, nor {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} neither Sculptile, nor Simulachrum, nor Idolum. All these are here, and none but these, and every of these doth signify Spectrum aliquod some visible object. And must do so, for to speak properly, an idol invisible, is but imaginary Non sense. When you can bring the object of one sense, to fall under the notion and dishinguishment of another sense; so that the eye may as well see a Name, or sound, as the ear can hear it: then a name may be the object of Idolatry: till then this argument will be too sublime for my understanding.  
God was neither in the strong and mighty Wind, 
1 Kin. 19 12.  nor in the Earthquake: yet these hardly (if possibly) can be figured, but a still small voice, this certainly is beyond the curious Art of man to express, and consequently free from all possible peril of Idolatry. And therefore thus in Deuteronomy God doth character himself. 
Deut. 4. 12.  ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude, only ye heard a voice. As if he should say, I know you prone unto Idolatry: but now commit Idolatry to a voice, to a sound, to a name if you can.  
I am grieved to see that wretched, unlearned, and ungodly Pamphlet ascribed to Master Burton, with that daring impious title Jesu-worship confuted: where by way of a scornful sarcasm, he is not afraid (as with a nickname) to call Christians Jesu-worshippers.  
I return (M. Speaker) this (as I said) is a sad point in Divinity, to forbid exterior worship unto God. Was it ever heard before, that any men of any Religion, in any age, did ever cut short and abridge any worship, upon any occasion to their God? Take heed sir, and let us all take heed whither we are going. If Christ be JESUS, if JESUS be God, all reverence (exterior as well as interior) is too little for him. I hope we are not going up the back-stairs to Socinianism.  
In a word, certainly sir, I shall never obey your Order, so long as I have a hand to lift up to Heaven, so long as I have an eye to lift up to Heaven. For these are corporal bowings, and my Saviour shall have them at his Name JESUS.  
Yet sir, before I end, give me leave (I beseech you) to take off that, which, by mistake may else stick still upon me. I never liked the Bishoply injuctions in the late novel practices, nor the severe Inquisition upon the bare omission of this posture. The Bishops did rigorously exact it: upon their own heads the crime of that enforcement lies. But (I beseech you) let not us be guilty in the other extreme. Truly to my sense it will savour less of Piety, and more of Tyranny.  
In the last place, consider (I pray) that it is a point dogmatic, not yet fully resolved by Divines; let us then be wary in it. And let this (with many other points) be referred to a National Synod. For one we must have, or else we shall break our Religion into a thousand pieces.  
For this present, my motion is (as formerly) that this Order be superseded, by declaring to the Commons (as your words in the Order are) that they do quietly attend the Reformation intended, and that in the mean time they do (as they ought) obey the laws that are.    

Section XII.  
ON Friday the 22 Octob. some debate there was upon a new short Bill for taking away the Bishops Votes in Parliament. It was languaged that they ought not to intromit themselves into secular jurisdictions; which I received willingly. For if it be found inexpedient, certainly they ought not: if it be made unlawful de futuro, they ought not: if it be inconsistent with their Function, still they ought not; as was then argued by a worthy member of the House. 
M. S. S.   
But when it was presently urged by a Gentleman my neighbour there, that unto the words ought not, should be subjoined, and that it is inconsistent with their function, which was pressed and urged by a general voucher of Scripture, Fathers, and counsels: Yet I know that Gentleman will not in matter of opinion, scarce in an historical point, allow me proof of what I can prove out of the two latter. Occasionally then, I thus expressed myself.  

M. Speaker,  
HOwever I am resolved in my private opinion of the inexpediency and unlawfulness for Clergy men to hold secular jurisdiction (Duo gladii non sunt in unum conflandi & conferruminandi) yet sir, my inward resolution doth not presently make me a Judge in a dogmatic point, nor do I know that this place doth enable me with that capacity: if it be my private opinion, yet I desire not to bind the judgement of the Land herein by an act of Parliament, although determining to my own sense.  
Certainly sir, this point of inconsistency will lead this house (much more that of the Lords, where the Bishops are) into a debate which may more safely and more prudently be avoided. I have formerly, and again I pray you, that we may not engage ourselves into the determination of doctrinal points in Divinity, perhaps it is not proper for us; and for my part, I do think we are not herein Idonei & compet●ntes judices.  
Was it ever heard or seen, that a set of laymen, Gentlemen, soldiers, Lawyers, Merchants; all professions admitted, but the profession of professions for this work, Divines alone excluded, that we should determine upon doctrinal points in Divinity? Theology is not so low, so facile a trade. Let us maintain the doctrines that are established; to declare new, is not fit for our assembly. And for my part, I do think I have found daily cause to wish these resolutions recommended unto other resolvers.  
M. Speaker, Divines are herein (in dogmatic resolutions of Religion) concerned as much, as well as we: They are a considerable party, and ought not to be bound up unheard. It was a prevailing argument with me against the late Canons, that they could not bind us of the Laity, being a distinct several body, no way involved in their Votes. Our plea was that we neither had a decisive voice to determine with them; not a deliberative voice to consult with them: nor an elective voice, in choice of their persons, to make them our trusties to determine for us. Nor lastly, (as at least we should have) a susceptive voice, in a body of our own to receive their resolutions, and of ourselves to submit unto them. These things are of a nature fit to be discussed by grave Divines, in a free Synod of Divines, to be chosen by Divines. In the mean time, let not us be guilty of the same which we have condemned in them: we ought not to pay injury with wrong. They cannot be bound where they are no way parties: For it is a rule in Nature, Reason, and Religion, Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet. I am so good a friend to your Bill, that for the better expediting thereof, I desire the word inconsistent may not stand therein.    

Section XIII.  
HAvind before professed that we are incompetent resolvers of doubtful points in doctrine; and finding how much of our precious time, every motion, petition, and occasional passage in Religion did take up, I thought it not inconvenient, next day to renew my motion for a Synod.  

Saturday 23 October. Mr. Speaker.  
YOu have entered an Order, that nothing be treated of but affairs of general concernment: I will present you one as general, as universal as any can be.  
The sad miseries of our distracted Church, and consequently the hazard of God's true Religion with us, doth even cut my very heart with grief and fear.  
If we let forth the government into a loose liberty for all religions, we shall have none. libertinism will beget atheism. And truly (Sir) at present between Papism on the one hand, and Brownism on the other, Narrow is the way, and few there be do find it, to right good Protestantism.  
Many mournful sad complaints I have of late received from Ministers the ablest, and every way the worthiest that I know. I could willingly name you two, 
Mr. Reading.  one at Dover, the other at Cranebroke in Kent: 
Mr. Abbot:  Men upon whose merit, let my credit stand or fall in this house. He that hath preached least of these, hath preached several thousands of excellent Sermons to his people.  
These are in no better condition than many other deserving men, who do generally complain with grief of hearts, to see their now infected sheep, after long pastoral vigilancy, and faithful ministry, to run and straggle from them more in these last ten months, then in twenty years before.  
Give us (I beseech you, give us) a remedy, a speedy remedy to this growing evil: or else our scholars are like to turn Papist, Arminian, or Socinian: and all the ignorant party will either turn Atheist, or else (which is the next degree) make to themselves a Religion of their own, as themselves best please.  
Sir: we may sit here (for aught I see) and debate ourselves, and the world abroad into more and more distances of opinion: we are not likely to work ourselves (much less others) into unity.  
What is then to be thought on? (Sir) the usual, ancient, the best, and (I think) the only way of cure is by a council. A free, learned, grave, religious Synod.  
There is in some hand of this House (and long hath been) a Bill for a national Synod ready drawn. 
S. R. H.  With it we are curable; without it, I look for no peace.  
My humble motion is this in a word. If you love the peace of our Jerusalem; command forth that Bill to be forthwith read: or if that Bill be not to be had, appoint a Committee to draw up another.  
This is my motion, and it is founded in a hope of piety and peace.    

Section XIV.  
UPon occasion of a Remonstrance 19 Novemb. wherein divers passages than were, concerning Religion and the Church-government, and some in particular (as I conceived) very aspersive to our Religion in the solemn practice of it by our public Liturgy: 
This charge (upon this occasion) was afterward expunged the Declaration.  charging it (in hypothesi) with vain repetition, and with savour of Superstition: I did humbly move, that some of that Committee who framed up that Remonstrance for us, would please to assign what those vain Repetitions are in our Liturgy, and what passages of Superstition.  
Nothing was at all said (as I remember) to that point of Superstition. But at length a Gentleman did adventure, to name that which he seemed to think to be vain Repetition.  
He said that the Lord's Prayer is eight, nine or ten times repeated. I did (with leave of the House) reply that such repetition toties quoties, how oft soever was (if heart and words did go together) far from vain. That (in my book) the Lord's Prayer was but twice in the whole morning Service, unless the additionals of baptism, Churching, Communion, burial, &c. did occur. That then in every several act of Divine Service it was once, and but once repeated, as the high compleature of all devout expressions: That this repetition in itself was warrantable, as by our saviour's example, who (although he had not the Spirit by measure) yet in the Garden he prayed three times using the same words. 
Jo. 3. 34.  The further debate of this was ofted to the next day, 
Mat. 26. 44.  and then it did grow toward a question, whether all exceptions against the Liturgy should be totally laid by, or further debated. I did not hold ourselves the proper determinators of this point. I did think that from hence occasion might again be taken inductive to renew my motion for a free national Synod; which I desired to enforce the best I could: especially there being now obtained a general promise of a Synod in this very part of that Declaration or Remonstrance.  
Hereupon thus I adventured. A copy whereof being stolen from me issued lately forth, both unknown to me and misprinted also: which hath been entertained abroad both with Applause and Exception.  

Saturday. Novemb. 20. M. Speaker,  
THe question is whether these clauses, concerning some pretended erroneous passages in our Liturgy shall be laid by or not. I am of opinion to decline them here: but not to bury them in a perpetual silence.  
In this very period you give us (in general terms) a promise of a national Synod: I do still wish the presency thereof: it being (to my understanding) the only proper cure and remedy for all our Church-distractions: and may be proved (if proof be needful) to have been practised in the book of God. 
Acts 1.   
This promised Synod is too far off: 
Acts 6.  let me have better assurance than a promise, 
Acts 15.  which that I may obtain, I will be bold to give you some reasons to induce that assembly, and to speed it also.  
M. Speaker, Much hath been said, and something attempted to be done to regulate the exterior part of our Religion: but Sir, we bleed inwardly. Much endeavour hath been to amend the deformed forms we were in, and to new govern the government.  
Yet Sir, this is but the Leaves of good Religion, fit (I confess) notwithstanding, to be taken care of, for beauty and for ornament. Nay some Leaves are fit and necessary to be preserved for shadow and for shelter to the blossoms and the fruit.  
The fruit of all is good life: which you must never expect to see, unless the blossoms be pure and good, that is, unless your doctrines be sound and true.  
Sir, sir, I speak it with full grief of heart, whilst we are thus long pruning and composing of the leaves, or rather whilst some would pluck all leaves away, our blossoms are blasted. And whilst we sit here in cure of government and ceremonials, we are poisoned in our doctrinals. And at whose door will the guilt and sin of all this lie?  Qui non vetat peccare, 
Seneca.  cùm potest, jubet. 
It is true, that this mischief grows not by our consent: and yet I know not by what unhappy fate, there is at present, such an all-daring liberty, such a lewd licentiousness, for all men's venting their several senses (Senseless senses) in matter of Religion, as never was in any age, in any Nation, until this Parliament was met together.  
Sir, It belongs to us, to take heed that our countenance (the countenance of this honourable House) be not prostituted to sinister ends by bold offenders. If it be in our power to give a remedy, a timely and a seasonable remedy to these great and growing evils, and that we (being also put in mind) shall neglect to do it, we then do pluck then sins upon our own heads, Alienum qui fert scelus, 
Sen.  facit suum.  
Shall I be bold to give you a very few instances? one for a hundred, wherewith our Pulpits, and our Presses do groan?  
M. Speaker, There is a certain, newborn, unseen, ignorant, dangerous, desperate way of Independency; Are we Sir, for this independent way? Nay (Sir) are we for the elder brother of it, the presbyterial form? I have not yet heard any one Gentleman within these walls stand up and assert his thoughts here for either of these ways: and yet (Sir) we are made the Patrons, and Protectors of these so different, so repugnant Innovations: witness the several dedications to us.  
Nay both these ways, together with the episcopal, come all rushing in upon us, every one pretending a forehead of Divinity.  
1. Episcopacy says it is by divine right; and certainly Sir, it comes much nearer to its claim then any other.  
2. Presbytery, that says it is by Divine right.  
3. Nay, this illegitimate thing: this newborn Independency, that dares to say it is by Divine right also.  
Thus the Church of England (not long since the glory of the Reformed Religion) is miserably torn and distracted. You can hardly now say, which is the Church of England. Whither shall we turn for cure?  
Another instance. If I would deal with a Papist, to reduce him; He answers (I have been answered so already) To what Religion would you persuade me? what is the Religion you profess? Your nine and thirty Articles they are contested against: your public solemn Liturgy that is detested: 
Protestation protested denies the Church of England to have the 3. marks of a true Church.  And which is more than both these, the three essential, proper, and only marks of a true Church, they are protested against: what Religion would you persuade me to? where may I find, and know, and see, and read the Religion you profess? I beseech you (Sir) help me an answer to the Papist.  
Nay Sir, the Papist herein hath assistance even among ourselves, & doth get the tongue of some men whose hearts are far from him. For at one of your Committées, I heard it publicly asserted, by one of that Committée, that some of our Articles, do contain some things contrary to holy Scripture.  
M. Speaker, Sunday is a Sabbath: Sunday is no Sabbath: Both true, both untrue, in several acceptation, and the knot (I think) too hard for our Teeth. Shall I give you an easier instance?  
Some say it is lawful to kneel at receiving the Elements of our holy Communion: others plead it as expedient: Some do press it as necessary: and there want not others who abhor it as Idolatrous. And Sir, I am confident you cannot so state this easy question to pass among us, but that there will be many contradicentes.  
The second Epistle of S. Peter is now newly denied to be the Apostles. Our Creed, the holy Apostles Creed, is now disputed, denied, inverted and exploded, 
The Ministers in their Remonstrance do complain that the Creed is often rehearsed; but they blotted out (what they had put in) that it is over-short, and (in one place) dangerously obscure.  by some who would be thought the best Christian among us. I started with wonder, and with anger to hear a bold Mechanike tell me that my Creed is not my Creed. He wondered at my wonder and said, I hope, your worship is too wise to believe that which you call your Creed.  
O Deus bone in quae tempora reservasti nos! 
Polycar.  Thus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. 
Arist.  One absurdity leads in a thousand, and when you are down the Hill of error, there is no bottom, but in Hell, and that is bottomless too.  
Shall I be bold to give you one (and but one) instance more? much clamour now there is against our public Liturgy, though hallowed with the blood of some of the first composers thereof. And surely Sir, some parts of it may be very well corrected. But the clamours now go very high. Impudence or ignorance is now grown so frontless, that it is loudly expected by many that you should utterly abrogate all forms of public worship; 
a As for them who admit a form to be lawful, yet do declaim against authority for commanding and imposing the use of it, it is to me a wonder and absurdity, that a just authority may not bind that to be done by a law, which is (as they confess) lawful in itself both to have and use.  and at least if you have a short form, yet not to impose the use of it. Extirpation of Episcopacy, that hope is already swallowed, and now the same men are as greedy for abolition of the Liturgy: that so the Church of England in her public prayers, 
b In the false copy abroad, instead of may hereafter, the silly Transcriber put in Nay, h●r offerture, which hath been some displeasure to me.  may hereafter turn a babbler at all adventure. A brainless, stupid, and an ignorant conceit of some.  
M. Speaker, The wisdom of this House will (I am confident) never sink so low: never fall into such a deliquium of judgement and of piety. When you do, I shall humbly submit myself:— unto the stake and faggot (I mean) for certainly (Sir) I shall then be a Parliament heretic.  
Thus much, for a taste of that, whereof there is too much abroad, 
Judg. 5. 15.  For the divisions of Reuben, there are great thoughts of heart abroad.  
(Sir) Thus are we engaged into sad points of Divinity, and with the favour of that Gentleman, who did last time disgust it, I must again propound my doubtful quaere, to be resolved by the wisdom of this House: whether we be Idonei & competentes judices in doctrinal resolutions?  
In my opinion we are not. Let us maintain the Doctrine established in the Church of England, it will be neither safety nor wisdom, for us to determine new.  
(Sir) I do again repeat and avow my former words: And do confidently affirm, that it was never seen, nor known in any age, in any Nation throughout the whole world, that a set of Laymen, Gentlemen, soldiers, Lawyers of both gowns, physicians, Merchants, Citizens, all professions admitted, or at least admittable, but the professors of Religion alone excluded, that we should determine upon doctrines in Divinity.  
Shall the Clergy hold different doctrines from us? or shall our determinations bind them also? They are a considerable body in this kingdom; they are (herein surely) concerned as much as we: and ought not to be bound up unheard, and unpartied.  
Farther (Sir) if Clergy men, among us be thought fit for no other then for spiritual employment; How shall we answer it to God and to a good conscience, if we shut them out from that which we ourselves pretend to be their only and their proper work?  
Mr. Speaker, We cannot brag of an unerring spirit: infallibility is no more tied to your chair, than it is unto the Popes. And if I may speak Truth, as I love truth with clearness, and with plainness, I do here ingenuously profess unto you, that I shall not acquiesce, and sit down upon the doctrinal resolutions of this House: unless it be where my own Genius doth lead and prompt me to the same conclusions.  
Mr. Speaker, We are here convened by his majesty's Writ to treat Super arduis negotiis regni & Ecclesiae, I beseech you let us not turn negotia Ecclesiae into dogmata fidei. There is a great difference in objecto between the Agends and the Credends of a Christian. Let us so take care to settle the government, that we do not unsettle the doctrines.  
The Short close of all with a motion is but this: we are poisoned in many points of doctrine: And I know no Antidote, no Recipe for cure but one: a well chosen and well tempered national Synod, and God's blessing thereon: this may cure us: without this (in my poor opinion) England is like to turn itself into a great Amsterdam. And unless this council be very speedy, the disease will be above the cure.  
Therefore, that we may have a full fruition of what is here but promised: I do humbly move that you will command forth the Bill for a national Synod, to be read the next morning. I saw the Bill above five months since in the hand of a worthy member of this House. If that Bill be not to be had, than my humble motion is (as formerly) that you would name a Committee to draw up another.  
This being once resolved, I would then desire that all motions of Religion, (this about the Liturgy especially) may be transferred thither, and you will find it to be the way of peace and unity among us here.   
I might have added in due place above, a mention of (1) frequent schismatical conventicles. (2) That tailors, shoemakers, Braziers, Feltmakers, do climb our public Pulpits. (3) That several odd irregular fasts have been held, for partial venting of private flatteries of some; slanders of other members of this House. (4) That the distinction of Clergy and Laity is popish and Antichristian, and ought no longer to remain. (5) That the Lord's Prayer was not taught us to be used. (6) That no national Church can be a true Church of God. (7) That the visible Church of Antichrist did make the King Head of the Church. (8) That supreme power in Church affairs, is in every several Congregation. (9) That a Presbytery without a Bishop was in the world before it was at Geneva. (10) That it is a heinous sin to be present when prayers are read out of a book. (11) That to communicate in presence of a profane person, is to partake of his profaneness. (12) That Christ's kingdom hath been a Candle under a bushel, whilst Antichrist hath out-raigned him for 1600 years together.  
Many, many more instances at little leisure I can gather, which together have begotten a general increase of open libertinism, secret atheism, bold Arminianism, desperate Socinianism, stupid Anabaptism, and with these the new chiliasts, and the wilfulness of Papists strangely and strongly confirmed by these distractions.  
Good God look down and direct our consultations. The best issue whereof (I think) would be to debate the whole debate of religion out of our doors: by putting it into a free Synod, whereupon I doubt not but we should grow unanimous in all our other works.   

Section XV.  
THe Remonstrance or great Declaration went out of the House much better than it came in. When it was engrossed and presented to the last vote with us, I gave in my exceptions thus.  

22 Novemb. 1641. Mr. Speaker,  
THis Remonstrance is now in progress upon its last foot in this House: I must give a vote unto it, one way or other: my conscience bids me not to dare to be affirmative: So sings the bird in my breast, and I do cheerfully believe the tune to be good.  
This Remonstrance whensoever it passeth, will make such an impression and leave such a character behind, both of his Majesty, the People, the Parliament, and of this present Church and State, as no Time shall ever eat it out, whilst Histories are written, and men have eyes to read them.— How curious then ought we to be, both in the matter and the form? Herein is a severe point of conscience to be tried: Let us be sure that every particular substance be a Truth: and let us clothe that Truth with a free language, yet a modest and a sober language.  
Mr. Speaker, This Remonstrance is in some kind greater and more extensive than an act of Parliament: that reacheth only to England and Wales; but in this the three kingdoms will be your immediate supervisors: and the greatest part of Christendom will quickly borrow the glass to see our deformities therein. They will scan this work at leisure, which (I hope) we shall not shut up in haste.  
Some pieces here are of excellent use and worth: but what is that to me, if I may not have them, without other parts that are both doubtful and dangerous.  
The matter, form, and final end of this Remonstrance, all of them do argue with me, not to remonstrate thus.  
The end: to what end do we decline thus to them that look not for it? Wherefore is this descension from a Parliament to a People? they look not up for this so extraordinary courtesy? The better sort think best of us: And why are we told that the people are expectant for a Declaration?  
I did never look for it of my predecessors in this place, nor shall do from my successors. I do here profess that I do not know any one soul in all that Country (for which I have the honour to serve) who looks for this at your hands. They do humbly and heartily thank you for many good laws and statutes already enacted, and pray for more. That is the language best understood of them, and most welcome to them. They do not expect to hear any other stories of what you have done, much less promises of what you will do.  
Mr. Speaker. When I first heard of a Remonstrance, I presently imagined that like faithful Counsellors, we should hold up a glass unto his Majesty: I thought to represent unto the King the wicked counsels of pernicious Counsellors: The restless turbulency of practical Papists. The treachery of false Judges: The bold innovations and some superstition brought in by some pragmatical BB: and the rotten part of the Clergy.  
I did not dream that we should remonstrate downward, tell stories to the people, and talk of the King as of a third person.  
The use and end of such Remonstrance I understand not: at least, I hope, I do not.  
Mr. Speaker, In the form of this Remonstrance, if it were presented to you from a full Committee, yet I am bold to make this Quaere, whether that Committee have presented to us any heads in this Remonstrance which were not first agitated here, and recommended to them from this House: if they have, there wanteth then (for so much) the formal power that should actuate and enlive the work so brought unto us: as may be well observed by perusing the order (now above a twelvemonth old) for constituting that Committee. 
10 Novemb. 1640.   
In the matter of this Remonstrance I except against several particulars, but upon the transient reading of it, (not having any view thereof) I will gather up two instances only, very obvious, very easy to be observed.  
First, 
Lo. Viscount Falkland  (as was also observed by a learned Noble Lord who spoke last) here is a charge of a high crime against all the BB. in the land, and that above all proof that yet I have heard.  
Your words are. Idolatry introduced by command of the BB.  
What? plain, flat, formal Idolatry? name the species of this idolatry, that is introduced by the BB. that is (for indefinite propositions are aequipollent to universal) by all the BB. and by a command of theirs.  
Certainly Sir, Idolatry (in the practice of it) is a very visible sin; and the command of the Bishops was either legible or audible. Who hath read this command? who hath heard this command? who hath seen this all-commanded Idolatry? and can assign wherein it is?  
Some superstition in doctrines, and in practices, by some Bishops; this is not the question: But the odious apostasy of Idolatry. Give me leave to say.  
No man in this House can charge and prove all the Bishops, no nor half of them, I dare say, not any three among them: perhaps (and truly I think so) not one among them all, to have issued forth any one command for Idolatry. If any man can, let him speak and convince me, I love to be reformed. In the mean time I desire to offer you some particulars in bar, and by way of opposal to this charge.  
The learned, 
D. Morton.  pious, and painful B. of Durham hath fought in front against Roman superstition and Idolatry.  
The B. of Lincoln was the first of note, 
D. Williams.  that gave check unto our papal misleaders and Altarian innovators. He stood in gap of that inundation, and was a sufferer for us.  
The B. 
D. Hall,  of Exeter (however mistaken in the Divinity of Episcopacy) hath ever had the repute both of a good man, and a good Bishop. He hath not only held and maintained his station, but advanced also, and made good impression upon the Idolaters of Rome.  
M. Speaker, This hath been a very accusative age: yet have I not heard any superstition (much less Idolatry) charged (much less proved) upon the several Bishops of London, 
D. Juxton.  Winchester, 
D. curl.  Chester, Carlisle, Chichester.  Parcite paucorum crimen diffundere in omnes. 
D. Bridgman.  
Not for love unto the persons of these Bishops, 
D. Potter.  but for honour to our Religion, 
D. Duppa  although the times of late have been somewhat darkened; yet, let not us make the day blacker in report than it is in truth.  
In the last place I observe a promise in general words, that Learning shall be rather advanced then discouraged: Sed quid verba audio, cum facta videam?  
Great rewards do beget great endeavours: and certainly (Sir) when the great basin and Ewer are taken out of the Lottery, you shall have few adventurers for small Plate and Spoons only.  
If any man could cut the Moon out all into little Stars: although we might still have the same Moon or as much in small pieces; yet we shall want both light and influence.  
To hold out the Golden ball of Honour and of profit, is both policy and honesty; and will be operative upon the best natures, and the most pious minds.  
But (M. Speaker) if I observe aright, learning (I mean Religious learning) in this Remonstrance is for one half thereof utterly unthought on. And because I hear often speech of one half, but seldom mention of the other, give me leave (I beseech you) in this theme a little to enlarge myself: if your Remonstrance once pass, it will be too late (I fear) to enter this plea.  
It is I dare say, the unanimous wish, the concurrent sense, of this whole House, to go such away, as may best settle and secure an able, learned, and fully sufficient ministry among us. This ability, this sufficiency must be of two several sorts.  
It is one thing to be able to preach and to fill the Pulpit well; it is another ability to confute the perverse adversaries of Truth, and to stand in that breach. The first of these, gives you the wholesome food of sound Doctrine; 
Tit. 1. 9  the other maintains it for you, and defends it from such harpies as would devour or else pollute it. Both of these are supremely necessary for us, and for our Religion.  
Both are of divine institution. The holy Apostle requireth both. Both {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. First to preach, 
1 Tit. 9 10.  That he be able with sound Doctrine to exhort: 
Vers. 11.  and then, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and to convince the gainsayers. For (saith he) there are many deceivers whose mouths must be stopped.  
Now Sir, to my purpose: these double abilities, these several sufficiencies, may perhaps sometime meet together in one and the same man. but seldom, very seldom, so seldom that you scarce can find a very few among thousands rightly qualified in both.  
Nor is this so much the infelicity of our, or any times, as it is generally the incapacity of man, who can not easily raise himself up to double excellencies.  
Knowledge in Religion doth extend itself into so large, so vast a Sphere, that many (for haste) do cut cross the diameter, and find weight enough in half their work: very few do or can travel the whole circle round.  
Some one in an age (perhaps) may be found, who as Sir Francis dark about the terrestrial Globe, may have traveled the celestial orb of theological learning, both for controversial, and for instructive Divinity.  
The incomparable Primate of Ireland deserves first to be named. Bishop Morton (whom I mentioned before) is another reverend worthy, and hath highly deserved of our Church in both capacities. Jewel (of pious memory) another Bishop never to be forgotten. 
As Mr. Reading.  Some few others I could name, able and active both for pulpit and the Pen. 
M. Abbot  But Sir, these be Raraeaves, there are very few of them.  
The reason is evident. For whilst one man doth chiefly intend the Pulpit exercises, he is thereby disabled for polemic discourses: and whilst another indulgeth to himself the faculty of his Pen, he thereby renders himself the weaker for the Pulpit. Some men aiming at eminency in both have proved but mean proficients in either. For it is a rule and a sure one, Pluribus intentus minor est ad singula—  
Now Sir, such a way, such a temper of Church-government and of Church-revenue, I must wish, as may best secure unto us both: both for preaching to us at home, and for convincing such as are abroad.  
Let me be always sure of some Champions in our Israel, such as may be ready and able to fight the Lord's battle against the Philistines of Rome, the Socinians of the North, the Arminians and Semipelagians of the West: and generally against heretics and Atheists everywhere . God increase the number of his labourers within his Vineyard: such as may plentifully and powerfully preach faith and good life among us. But never let us want some of these watchmen also about our Israel, such as may from the everlasting hills (so the Scriptures are called) watch for us, and descry the common enemy, which way soever he shall approach. Let us maintain both Pen and Pulpit. 
1 Sam. 2.  Let no Ammonite persuade the Gileadite, to fool out his right eye, unless we be willing to make a league with destruction; and to wink at ruin whilst it comes upon us.  
Learning (Sir) it is invaluable: the loss of learning, it is not in one age recoverable. You may have observed, that there hath been a continual spring, a perpetual growth of learning ever since it pleased God, first to light Luther's Candle: I might have said Wycliff's, and justly so I do: for even from that time unto this day, and night and hour, this light hath increased: and all this while our better cause hath gained by this light: which doth convince our Miso-musists, and doth evict that Learning and Religion, by their mutual support, are like Hippocrates twins, they laugh and mourn together.  
But Sir, notwithstanding all this so long increase 〈◊〉 learning, there is a Terra incognita, a great Land of learning not yet discovered: our adversaries are daily trading, and we must not sit down and give over, but must encourage and maintain, and increase the number of our painful adventurers for the Golden fleece: and except the fleece be of Gold, you shall have no adventurers.  
Sir, we all do look that our cause should be defended: if the fee be poor, the plea will be but faint. Our cause is good, our defence is just: let us take care that it be strong; which for my part, I do clearly and ingenuously profess, I cannot expect should be performed by the Parish Minister, no not so well as hitherto it hath been. For from whom the more you do now expect of the Pulpit, the less (I am sure) you must look for of the Pen.  
How shall he with one hundred pound, (perhaps two hundred pound) per annum, with a family, and with constant preaching, be able, either in purse for charge, or in leisure for time, or in Art for skill, to this so chargeable, so different, so difficult a work? I speak it (M. Speaker) and pardon my want of modesty if I say, I speak it not unknowingly: Six hundred pound is but a mean expense in books, and will advance but a moderate Library. Pains and learning must have a reward of Ho●●● and Profit proportional: and so long as our adversaries will contend, we must maintain the charge, or else lay down the cause.  
In conclusion, I do beseech you all with the fervour of an earnest heart; a heart almost divided between hopes and fears: never to suffer diversion or diminution of the rents we have for Learning and Religion: but beside the Pulpit, let us be sure to maintain {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} an universal Militia of Theology, whereby we may be always ready and able (even by strength of our own, within our own happy Island at home) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to stop the mouth of all errors and heresies that can arise.  
Never Sir, never let it be said that sacred Learning (for such is that I plead for) shall in one essential half thereof, be quite unprovided for in England. Sir, I have reason to be earnest in this, I see, I know great designs drawing another way: and my fears are increased, not cured by this declaration.  
Thus I have done: and because I shall want champions for true Religion. Because I neither look for cure of our complaints from the common people, nor do desire to be cured by them. Because this house (as under favour I conceive) hath not recommended all the heads of this Remonstrance to the Committee which brought it in: Because it is not true that the Bishops have commanded Idolatry. Because I do not know any necessary good end & use of this declaration, but do fear a bad one. And because we pass his Majesty and do Remonstrate to the People. I do here discharge my Vote with a clear conscience and must say NO to this strange Remonstrance.    

Section XVI.  
THus far I go clear the same man unchanged: and that I may fully expose myself unto a right Character, and a true esteem, beside the laying open how I have already expressed myself in matter of Religion, I shall now be bold to give you a composure fitted and framed for the House, on the same subject, and ready to have been presented above half a year since.  
The Bill for Root and Branch (commonly called the Bishop's Bill) having long been agitated, and in the Commitment grown from two sheets to above forty; I did think it would at least have been brought to question for the engrossing: This that follows was ready to have been interposed upon that question. The Bill is since laid down (I hope) to its perpetual rest. This was prepared as an endeavour to lay that asleep: And because it doth most fully represent my utmost end and aim for Reformation, I am willing to subjoin it here unto the rest.  

{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
Mr. Speaker.  
THis Bill is now in question for its further progress: I must give a vote unto it one way or other. The inward dictate of my conscience will not suffer me to be affirmative. We may now debate this Bill super totam materiam, and I will then (with your leave and patience) give you some account why I am so fixed negative. This I shall do as briefly as this cause can bear.  
You had from my hand a very short Bill,  
— Non hos quaesitum munus in usus.  
I am willing (with many more) to abrogate that which is: provided that I may at that very time, in the same Bill know and constitute what shall be; such an addition to this Bill I did at first expect: Such an addition I shall anon be bold to present, but it will not now suit this bill, as it is now mistempered to that purpose.  
This Bill when it was but a short one, it did contain a great sum, An Act for the utter abolishing of all Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, Prebendaries, chanters, canons, and all other their under-officers. These may be Legion for aught I know, they are so many, and many of them instruments and officers of vexation only. 
Ep. l. 4. c. 92.  Pope Gregory the first gave a true prediction when he said, that Antichrist should come Cum exercitu Sacerdotum, with an army of Priests; it hath proved so. True on the other side, where the numberless numbers of Monks, friars, and Secular Priests, with his janisary Jesuits, do match the greatest army that ever the Grand Signior hath led. True in proportion with us, if the under-officers among us do reach near the thousands they have been (of late) computed at. But letting pass the army of all their under officers, the substance and body of our present work is reducible to two heads.  

1 episcopal government.  
2 cathedral Societies.   
All the rest are unto these, but Phaleratae nugae, their idle trappings and additional impertinencies.  
In the discussion and resolution of all this (I am confident) if we be but candid, temperate, and respectful hearers of one another: we shall find that (all this while) we are farther of, in words, in language and expressions, than we are in matter, in truth, and in purposes.  
In the first place therefore, lest we should beat the air in a mistaken sense of words, I will be bold in a word or two, to give you the different sense of the word Episcopacy.  
Sir, It will be maintained upon good ground that Episcopacy is of divine right: it will be maintained upon grounds as good, that Episcopacy is not of divine right. The ambiguity lies in the word Episcopacy, and it must be put into a certainty, or else we shall run ourselves into a certain Labyrinth of words, & lose the matter.  
Three sorts of Episcopacy I have observed, & no more: pardon me if I use expressions which you have received before: They were his, they are mine, and Beza taught us both: who gives them thus,  

1 Episcopatus Divinus.  
2 Episcopatus Humanus.  
3 Episcopatus Satanicus.   
Others in milder language do keep the same sense: So you may please to say there is,  

1 Episcopus Pastor.  
2 Episcopus Praeses.  
3 Episcopus Princeps.   
The first of these we all do reverence: it is the ordinance of God. You may safely write a Noli me tangere upon that: you have the holy text to warrant you. 
Psa. 105. 15.  Noli tangere Christos meos.  
The second also (in its degree) I do highly honour, it is of right venerable antiquity: And for my part, if I can find such Episcopacy among us, I shall willingly submit thereto, though it should prove but the ordinance of man. King's are no more themselves. Yet being once invested, obedience is due unto them by Divine right. 
1 Pet. 2. 13.  You have another Text for this also. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake. So than the first is the ordinance of God, to be obeyed for God: The second, although the ordinance of man, yet (Whilst it stands so ordained) is to be obeyed for God also.  
The third Episcopacy hath too much of the Principality. This I detest, this I abhor. This is originally and really Antichristian. Away with this if you please, both Root and Branch.  
If you will give me leave and patience, I will (as briefly as I can) touch them over and explain myself.  
First Episcopus Pastor. This I say is of divine right. Every spiritual Shepherd is to have a flock: and every congregation must have a Pastor to oversee that flock. This is original, and of no less than Divine institution. I need not prove this Bishop. If there be any doubt of this Episcopacy, 
Vers. 28.  look S. Paul in the twentieth of the Acts, there he gives this charge. Take heed (saith he) to the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops. I know well that this text is by some Expositors construed of other Bishops. But how ever here are Bishops by divine right. And (mark you!) the holy Ghost (God for ever to be blessed) he first made Bishops. The original is plain {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}▪  
S. Peter speaks by the same spirit. 
1 Pet. 5. 2  Feed the flock of God (saith he) which is among you: taking the bishopric thereof. Our english reading is the oversight thereof, both the same. Overseers and Bishops differ no more than a Greek name and an English: several sounds, but the same sense. The original is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} being Bishops thereof, nothing can be more plain.  
Now (Sir) this Episcopacy, we shall not, we must not, we dare not remove. This is that Bishop of whom the most ancient Ignatius, 
Ep. ad T●al.  thus, Episcopo subjecti estote, velut Domino, ipse enim vigilat pro animabus vestris.  
Away then with their impertinent objection, who say, that there is a malady in the very name of Bishop: that the name is odious: you see the holy Ghost hath honoured this name and title, with approbation. Nay this name and title must never sink into obloquy, it being one of the attributes of our blessed Saviour. He is the Bishop of our souls. 
1 Pet. 2. 25.   
The second is Episcopus praeses. If this be but Humanus Episcopatus (for I do not determine the point already warm between a reverend and worthy Bishop and his Anti-pent-agonists) if it be not founded upon Divine institution, yet certainly it stands on good grounds, and pleads its own right by a good title, and that either jure Apostolico, or jure Ecclestastico: or jure civili & constitutivo: or jure rationis & convenientiae. All or any of these do entitle it jure bono. And that by so good, so approved a right, that Mr. Speaker) I am bold to stand up, and to forbid any man from this hour for 1600 years upward, to name any one age, nay any one year, wherein this Episcopacy was out of date in the best part of Christendom. By the word Bishop I do here understand, a man of the Clergy eminent in honour and power, by virtue of a superior degree, above other men both Ministers and people within a certain circuit or territory allotted and subjected to his particular care and survey in matters spiritual and affairs ecclesiastical.  
I will not trouble you to repeat the character of this Bishop: I have formerly been bold with you in that kind. He had a precedency. He had a presidency: He had a power, potestatem directivam, it cannot be denied. I gave you an instance, very accommodate to my sense: (Master Speaker) yourself are our Bishop, we are your Presbyters.  
It is true, that we have made you our Bishop, our Overseer, our precedent: and now it is as true, that neither we without you, nor you without us, can establish any one order. Not you without us, we must be your Assistants. So Ignatius of old, 
Epist. ad Tral.  The Presbyters are (saith he) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as the Senate of God, and the band of Apostles. Nor we without you, for so the same Ignatius (give me leave to press his venerable authority, although Ignorance and Arrogance have of late decried both him and all Antiquity.) 
Epist. ad Magnes.  They (saith he) who do all things {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} without a Bishop, to such men Christ will say— Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the works I bid you? Such men do seem to me {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not to be of good conscience, but to be counterfeiters and dissemblers. Mark his judgement on such as would do all things without a Bishop.  
Of this Bishop, the Bishop President (and I plead for no other) it must be meant, which I read in the same Ignatius (I will not trouble you with any younger, or any weaker authority, and I will hold myself within those Epistles that are indubiously his) the words are these, 
Epist. ad Tral.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}— {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. It is necessary (necessary he says) that you do nothing without the Bishop.  
Clearly then, the Bishop President in the best and purest age, was of the Quorum in all ecclesiastical affairs. And for this last age, Reverend Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Zanchy, Danaeus, learned Chamier, all admit, none reject this kind of Episcopacy.  
They who deny that ever any such Bishops were in the best, the purest times, I entreat some one of them (if any such be here) to stand up, and to show me, teach me, how I may prove, that ever there was an Alexander of Macedon, or a Julius Caesar, or a William the Conqueror in the world. For Sir, to me as plain, as evident it is, that Bishop's President, have been the constant, permanent and perpetual governors, and moderators of the Church of God in all ages. And this being matter of fact, I do hope that historical proof will be sufficient adequate proof in that which in its fact is matter of History. But proofs herein are so manifold and so clear, 
Sir Tho, Aston, review of Episcopacy, p. 1▪  that I borrow the free and true assertion of a worthy and a learned Gentleman: It may be thought want of will rather than want of light, which makes men deny the antiquity of Bishops in the Primitive times.  
Therefore answer not me, but answer Ignatius, answer Clemens, Tertullian and Irenaeus. Nay, answer the whole indisputed concurrence of the Asian, the European, and the African Churches, All ages, All places, All persons: Answer (I say) all these or (do as I do) yield to the sufficient evidence of a truth. Deque fide certâ, sit tibi certa fides. But do not think to bring me into a dream of a new born, or new to be born Church-government, never known, never seen in Christendom before this Age.  
As for them, who say that all Episcopacy is Antichristian: Truly Sir, they may (if they please) with as sound reason, and with as much knowledge say that all Church-government is Antichristian, and I doubt there are some abroad ripe for such a sense.  
Sir, Let us be wiser than to cozen ourselves with words, and through a mistaken Logomachy run ourselves into a Church Anarchy. If you talk with a Papist, in point of Religion, presently he is up with the word Catholic; Catholic he tells you he is, of the Catholic Roman Church. This goes off o'er rotundo: but require him to speak plain English— The universal Roman Church, and then you may laugh him into silence. Just so: some cry, away with Bishops, no Bishops: no, not of any kind. I desire one of that sense to stand up, and tell me sadly, would you have an Overseer in the Church or not?  
Ancient S. Clement (whom S. Paul calleth his Fellow-workman) in his undoubted Epistle to the Corinthians, 
Phil. 4. 3.  doth foretell that a time should come, when there would be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Contention about the very name of Bishop. I think the time is now. For my part, I will not make that my contention: But for the government by an episcopal presidency, show me any thing more agreeable to the holy word: show me any thing more honoured by the holy Martyrs of the first and the latter times: show me any more rational and prudential way of government, and I yield unto you.  
Some against all Episcopacy do plead unto us, the fresh example, and late practice of our neighbour Churches. But I beseech you Sir, are not we herein as fit to give them our, as to take their example? I am ashamed to hear yesterday's example pressed as an argument by some, and the all-seeing providence through all ages to the contrary turned aside, by the same men, as not worth an answer. Or if an answer you get, it is but this dead one, wherein (as in a mare mortuum) they would drown all reply. Oh (say they) the mystery of Iniquity began to work in the Apostles time. Ergo, what? Therefore (say they) this Episcopacy is that mystery of iniquity: And so they do desperately conclude with themselves, that Christ did never support his Church with a good government till Farell and Frumentius did drive their Bishop out of Geneva: or since then, until Presbytery begat independency. But their syllogism is as true logic and as consequential, as our Kentish Proverb, that Tenterden Steeple is the cause of Goodwin sands. Both Arguments are in one and the same mood and figure. But I return and proceed.  
I have not asserted this kind of Episcopacy as Divine, yet I profess that it soars aloft, — Et caput inter nubila condit.  
It hath been strongly received, that Presbyters succeed to the seventy Disciples, and Bishops to the Apostles. S. Peter honours Episcopacy, by entitling the holy Apostles thereunto, for Mathias is chosen to take a bishopric (the very word there) which Judas lost by going to his own place. 
Act. 1. 20   
S. Paul tells you, 
1 Tim. 3. 1.  This is a faithful saying, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, If any man desire a bishopric, he desireth a good work. And this S. Paul, writes not at large in an Epistle to the body of a whole Church, as to Rome or Corinth, but this is in directed unto Timothy, then designed to be the particular Bishop, that is the precedent and Overseer of Ephesus.  
Two things are (or may be) here objected. First, that neither of these Texts, nor any other can be found, expressly mandatory, requiring the Office of Episcopacy in the Church. Next that the name of Bishop is in some places plainly given unto Presbyters. I answer.  
If you put me upon this, that you will not yield unto Episcopacy▪ until you have a Text expressly positive therein, consider if by the same rule you do not let loose many other points as well as this. Show me an express for the Lord's day to be weekly celebrated. It will be hard to find divers Articles of our Creed in the holy Scripture terminis terminantibus. What have you there for paedobaptism? What precept or example have you from our Saviour, that women shall receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Why should women be baptised, since the covenant (to which baptism doth succeed) Circumcision, was a seal between God and men only? what have you there express, why I may not believe the Trinity to be three Almighties, as well as three persons, & but one Almighty?  
But Sir, the golden rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, is an unfailing guide. Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, look what among Christians, hath been everywhere at all times, by all men universally received, Atque id quidem verè est Catholicum, and there you may rest secured. So (I say) that for right sense of these Texts, and for warrant of this Episcopacy, the universal practice of the whole Church of God, especially in the Apostles times, and immediately succeeding the Apostles, is a most undeniable commentary to clear unto us, that this kind of Episcopacy is and was of apostolical allowance, if not of apostolical institution. And thus in other points doth Tertullian argue against Martion, and S. Augustine against the Donatists.  
The second exception is thus. These Bishops may well be thought to be but Presbyters, for (say they) the name of Bishop is given to Presbyters also in holy writ. Ergo, Episcopacy is not a several degree from Presbytery.  
Surely Sir, if this argument be a sound one, than Apostleship itself, was not a several order and degree from the 70. Disciples, and from Presbyters, and then it had been a vain thing to take Mathias from a Disciple into the lot and fellowship of an Apostolate. S. Peter doth not degrade himself of his Apostleship, when he entitleth himself {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a fellow Presbyter. 
1 Pet. 5. 1.  That very Office which is called a bishopric, 
Act. 1. 20. 25  is within 4. or 5. verses following, called the ministry of an Apostleship. And if you will argue from community of names to identity of Office (so is done in the titles of Bishop and Presbyter) surely then we shall find, many more Apostles than they who saw the Lord in the flesh. 
Act. 9 27  So Barnabas is called an Apostle. 
2 Cor. 5. 16.  So Andronicus and Junius are among the Apostles. S. Paul calls Epaphroditus, The Apostle of the Philippians, 
Acts 14. 14.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. 
Rom. 16 7.  So speaking to Titus and others, they are styled {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Apostles of the Churches. shall I conclude that all these who are thus called Apostles, 
Phi. 2. 25  were indeed, and in proper acceptation very Apostles? No man will say so.  
By the same argument, (from community of name to identity of Office, which argument by Antiprelatical men, is much enforced) I may prove an Apostle and a Deacon to be the same Office. S. Paul calleth his Apostleship but a Deaconry, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} And again, 
Acts 20. 24.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, I was made a Deacon. 
Eph. 3. 7.  I conclude, that if Apostles be called Deacons, 
Col. 1. 23  and Deacons be called Apostles, and yet the Offices are, and are reputed to be distinct and several: So may the same men be called sometime Bishops, sometime Elders or Presbyters, and yet the two different degrees remain different and unconfounded. Take heed of enforcing such argument, to prove a parity in degree by the community of Appellation, since you may read of our blessed Saviour himself, that he is a 
a Ro. 15. 8.  Deacon, an 
b Esa. 41. 27.  Evangelist, an 
c Heb. 3. 1.  Apostle, a 
d 1 Pet. 2 25.  Bishop. But forbearing this, I proceed.  
M. Speaker, I come now in brief to my third Episcopacy, Episcopus Princeps. This, this third age, is the burden of our song, — De duro est ultima ferro. Gold was the first: the second was bright and glistering, a silver age at least. But this, this where we now are, it is Iron, I and rusty too.  
This is that Clergy Monarch whom we would avoid. This ambition of a sole power, it is a very old sin, it began in Diotrephes, of whom the Apostle complains that he was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Primatum dilexit, he loved to be a Primate, the first, the sole in authority. He (Diotrephes alone) did cast the brethren out of the Church: and therefore the Apostle doth threaten that when he comes, 
3 Jo. 9  He will bring the deeds of Diotrephes to remembrance.  
This dangerous soleship is a fault in our Church indeed; and this I take to be Pestilentia Cathedrae, the very pest and poison of Episcopacy; this is that which must away, and this being gone, I shall not fear their tyranny.  
If it were not for this, they could neither oppress good Ministers, nor prefer dull drones, scandalous persons, nor pragmatical innovators. If they had not been so sole in power, our many several chairs for Religion had not groaned with such number & weight of complaints. But by this, they have been able to do mischief above belief.  
Et ipse miror, 
Sen.  vixque jam facto malo  
Potuisse fieri credo.—  
The exemplar piety, the ardent love, and sweet humility of holy Bishops in the first four centuries, did work so far upon the credulous hopes of both clergy and Laity, that presuming to find in the same chair a succession of the same goodness, they became guilty of a desperate submission to a sole power of one man, before they knew what changes, and what consequences they should feel.  
Ignatius the great Bishop of Antioch, doth discriminate his own Episcopacy, from an Apostleship, even by this, that he had not a soleship of power and authority as they, and therefore he says, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, I do not command you as an Apostle.  
This Bishop keeps a dangerous distance between his own pharisaical worship, and the Plebeian Clergy, who yet are, all in order as good, & many of them in merit better than his Lordship.  
To draw this to a point: The first Episcopacy we all are vowed unto. The second, none will dissent from, but a lover of novelism: The third, none can submit unto, but such as are content to be passive in a Tyranny. Away then with that, and with that alone, and then away with their needless question who say: show us another government, before you take this away.  
Away with that interregnum of Lay-Commissioners, the high road way, or the next degree to Anarchy. Renovation is not Innovation, to reform is not to bring in a new form, but to purge the present form, by reducing it unto the old. Quaerite antiquas semitas, 
Jer. 6.  & state super eas. State▪ stay there: we may keep our places, though we change our postures. Away with our present Episcopacy, but give us the ancient Presidency. Both may be done at once.  
Mr. Speaker, This way of Commissioners, wherein five Lay men shall have the control of all that is or was of Clergy cognisance and function: mirabile dictu, I want words.— I much fear that this may prove, a dangerous new way, to let in other new ways hereafter. In the mean time what view, what show, what face of a Church shall poor England have? England of late the glory and the pride of Christendom reformed! My heart aches to think, that when Christendom was ready to come over unto us, we are now ready to run away from ourselves: And to see that we labour so much for ruin & Eradication, that we are like to lose (by a not seasonable laying hold thereon) the most glorious hopes of a full and blessed Reformation that ever lay before a Parliament. The issue will be, if we will have ruin, we shall have ruin. If at present we have that active ruin so much pursued, we shall shortly have a passive ruin undesired. Let us not be fond of this ill sounding proverb: 
Mal. 4. 1.  Take away both Root and Branch: it is threatened as a curse, I never read it any whereas the language of a blessing.  
But (Sir) Vsquequo? How long shall we be in this wilderness of Anarchy? No time, no bound set, no period fixed to our confusion of government? How dare we thus discompose, disfigure, and deform the beauty of our Church? will your commissionated Church be comely as the tents of Kedar, 
Cant. 1. 4  and as the curtains of Solomon? Where is that Acies ordinata, the Church that was prophesied to be terrible as an army with banners?  
In the Prophet Zachary the Lord doth threaten it as a curse, 
Zach. 11.  to break both his Staves: both that of Beauty (which is interpreted the beautiful order of government) and that of Bands (which is construed brotherly unity:) and surely I think order and unity, if one be broken, neither is firm. Let this than happen to other nations, to our enemies, but with us let the hands of unity, & the beauty of order be our double support: otherwise we shall have cause to bemoan ourselves in the words of the same Prophet, 
Zach. 11. 2.  howl ye fir trees, for the Cedar is fallen: Because all the mighty are destroyed— for the defenced forest is cut down. There is the voice of howling of shepherds, for their glory is destroyed.  
For my part, I do here freely and heartily profess, that I am none of those men, that 1600 yea after my Saviour came to plant his Church, will consent to give a new rule, a new invented government to his Church never known until this age. I dare not think (who can think it salva pietate?) that the son of God, the wisdom of the Father, came down from Heaven, to plant a Church, to erect a kingdom, and that he did erect this kingdom, that he did plant this Church, many hundred years since, and this with the dear price of his precious blood but either never would or never could 〈…〉 government, till we were 〈…〉 of such assertions that 〈…〉 consequences 〈…〉 impiety, and may lead on a new path to atheism. Believe it (Sir) believe this: 
Col. 2. 3.  The wisdom of the wisdom of God, cannot be guilty (I speak with zeal and reverence) of such an improvidence, to erect his kingdom then, and to give it his rule but now. Join with me (I beseech you Sir) in this Faith, that our blessed Saviour on whose shoulder the government did rest, 
Esay 9 6  did not immediately, and for so many ages after forsake his Church, and abandon it to Antichristianism, 
Mat. 28. 20.  with whom at first he promised to be always unto the end of the world.  
In a word (Sir) we are all quick scented, we are all on fire to hear of an arbitrary rule in the civil State: I beseech you, let us all be equally or more zealous for the Lord of Hosts: Let us not be guilty of bringing in an arbitrary rule into his House. Take heed (Sir) let us all take heed of such a dangerous parity, as some would bring in among us: & the rather because they presume to set the stamp of divine authority upon that counterfeit metal.  
Parity of degrees in Church-government hath no foundation in holy Scripture, & is as absonous to reason, as parity in a State or family. Indeed it is a fancy, a dream, a mere non entity, it neither hath nor ever had a being. If it be any thing, it is absolute anarchism, and that is nothing, for privation of government is not a government.  
But on the contrary imparity is from Divine authority: our Saviour did plant it, & then I am sure it is a plant that should grow and continue. By the way I press you not with instances of God's Church under the law, though that, & this under the Gospel were both planted by the same All-knowing wisdom. From the equity of which law there, & from the imparity of governors therein, a most solid and unfailing argument may be deduced for the lawfulness of an imparity also under the gospel. For that which is good in itself, is ever so. And without all peradventure, if Church imparity did (in its own being) lie cross unto the will of God, or to the law of his Church, God never would, never could have commanded it. But that our Saviour also so in the Evangelical Church did plant imparity is most clear. First, he chose his 
a Lu. 6. 13  12. Apostles. Afterward he appointed 
b Luk. 10 1.  70. Disciples: yet no man can affirm that these were all of the same Order, Dignity, and Degree. If they had been so, what needed so curious 
c Acts ●.  supplement when once the number was reduced to eleven? After our saviour's ascension, the holy Apostles did ordain another imparity, and that was of 
d Act. 6. 6  Deacons.  

e Phil. 3. 17.  S. Paul biddeth some {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to watch and observe; He commendeth others if they desire 
f 1 Tim. 3. 1.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to Oversee. So are there 
g 1 Thes. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} labourers in the word, and you know who was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
h 1 Cor. 3. 10.  a wise master-builder, which is more than others were, though all be called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
i Rom. 16 3. 21. Phi. 2. 25 Philem. 24.  fellow-workmen, fellow-labourers in the spiritual building. Farther Sir, as you read 
k 2 Tim. 2. 3.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} soldiers, and 
l Phil. 2. 25. Philem. 1. 2.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} fellow-soldiers: so you may read also that there were {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
m Heb. 13 17, 24.  Leaders and Governors, such as had oversight and must be obeyed. The Elder or Presbyter is frequent in the apostolical Epistles, and there are in power and honour above these (not as our novelists do fondly construe under these) 
n 1 Tim. 5. 17.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the ruling Presbyters. One of which number S. Paul doth call 
o Rom. 12. 8.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Ruler. As in 
p ad Tral.  Ignatius there are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Leaders or Rulers of Churches.  
Is there no imparity in all this? Then the Rulers and the ruled are the same in logic. But for my part, I am clear and confident in this that imparity in power among persons officed in the Church, is both lawful and expedient, and aught to be preserved, if order, decency, Necessity, universal practice, apostolical example, and Divine authority can altogether make but one concludent argument.  
M. Speaker, I do humbly and earnestly entreat, & beg of every member of this House, seriously and sadly to examine his own soul (never more cause than in this present vote) what end and what ultimate aim he hath in this dreadful Bill. What is the government his heart doth wish for? Three ways of Church-government I have heard of, and no more; the episcopal, the presbyterial, and that new born bastard Independency: Non datur quartum. The last of these is nothing but a confounding Ataxy, rent upon rent, and a schism of schisms, until all Church community be torn into atoms, every three men, (
a As may be collected by Spensers wretched Pamphlet.  nay every three women) dissociating themselves into an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a wilworship of their own devising, which fondly & madly they would call a Church. Where and in what corner of the world hath this airy Independency been asleep until these days? Quo consule? under what Kings reign was it born? where may I hear that it hath a being? where may I read (below the world in the moon) that ever it had a being? I will be bold to brand it with the name of a new-minted Seminary for all self-pride, heresy, schism, sedition, and for all libertinism, except an outward seeming saintship. A pestilence to all government, a traitorous and a clouted Anarchy. If this way have any favourers in this House, let them own their Religion and speak for it.  
The next is the presbyterial way, a more orderly, and a better tempered novelty then the other, but a novelty, and indeed but elder brother to Independency: upon this you had my sense at midsummer last. It is enough for me that I can point out when it began: since my father was born, or I am sure at most in my grandfathers days: and it is my fixed resolution that since (by God's blessing) I am of the oldest Religion, I will never consent to any but to the oldest government.  
The third way is episcopal: the original whereof is high, and beyond my search to define: yet this I am bold to affirm: it had a Being, and that an allowed Being in the best, the first, the purest age, and (as I said before) if it be not of apostolical institution, yet clear enough it is of apostolical permission. It will be said that our Bishops are nothing such: yet (Sir, I pray you) may not they be easier made such, than the Dutch or Scottish Presbytery, or a new-England Independency can be? what is our work but to reform? I would the question were put whether our Episcopacy shall be reformed or not.  
But (Mr. Speaker) it is true, there are degrees in episcopacy itself: and to this point also, give me leave to express myself, and it may be necessary for me so to do, although I am confident, you are herein pre-resolved as I wish. Sir, the stairs are so easy, and ambition (that first made devils) is so apt to climb, that so long as the ladder is not taken away; The (1) Priest would be a (2) rural Deane. He an (3) Archdeacon. Then (4) a Bishop. An (5) Archbishop. A (6) Metropolitan. A (7) Primate. The Primate would be a (8) Patriarch (his own book breathed that hope) and once a Patriarch, why not a (9) Pope? Thus have you nine degrees of a terrestrial Hierarchy, suitable to the invented nine orders of a celestial Hierarchy among the Angels. It was a fond fancy to invent them in the world above, and it will prove a dangerous folly in us to suffer these in the world below. One of the links of this chain is almost burst asunder: 
There was then but one Archbishop and he impeached for his life.  never let that be soldered again. Sir, In uno Syllâ multi Marii: Cut off but one archiepiscopacy, and you shall at once destroy with it, both Metropolitan, Primate and Patriarch, and in time the Pope also. Archiepiscopy! why, who ever voted that to be divine? nay, who can give a good moral and prudential reason for the subsistence of archiepiscopy? This indeed is a Prince among the Lordly Prelates, and they all do swear canonical fealty and allegiance to his sovereign mitre. But I forbear, being confident there is a concurrency enough in this House to vote the Abolition of that needless and that dangerous degree.  
So than my sense is thus in brief. Away with Archiepiscopacy both root and branch. Away with my Lord Bishop both root and branch. Touch not our Pastor Bishop. reformed, reduce, replant our Bishop President, and with him his Presbytery. Give him his ancient, due, and proper power. Let him ordain & censure, but with due assistancy, and not otherwise. Reason and necessity, and all exemplar government require this Episcopacy: show me a college without a Master: A city without a governor: A ship without a pilot: An Army without a general: do the States thrive without an Excellency? or doth Venice prosper without a Duke? or can you secure our own House in order without a Speaker?  
But Sir, I have heard some among us say, if then we must have a Bishop, let him be like a pilot, only for a voyage: let him be like yourself, a Speaker only for a Parliament. I answer, if but so, yet is it better than any other way that I see yet propounded to you; far better than the hazardous way of Commissioners, that shall begin now, and end no man knows when. But Sir, I come in again upon my own ground, and do affirm that ab initio non fuit sic; your Bishop of old was not occasional pro re natâ, and immediately degraded, nothing so: but continued a fixed constant, perpetual moderator and precedent for life, unless outed for his own demerits. I am for the old way, Reason and Religion have allowed it, and the constant practice of the best and most ancient times hath honoured it.  
Take this also farther to approve it. If your Bishop President be not constant, the encouragement to piety and Learning will not be so constant. Let desert in the Church have in its own sphere (as desert in the civil State hath) a constant reward of Honour and of Profit. For Sir, Honour and Profit must invite forth Learning and industry, or you shall have none.  
Thus have you (with my imperfections) my sense upon episcopal government, the first part of your Bill, I pass in brief unto their cathedral Covents, my second distribution. Mr. Speaker. I have been diligent and attentive to the whole procedure of all debates of this nature, yet am I, just where I ever was, nothing moved, not at all changed, unless this be a change; that by hearing my own sense better argued for by others, than I could do for myself, it is now deeper fortified within me.  
One main exception to the quite voting away our Cathedrals, ever was and doth yet remain with me. That which sticks with me is this: what certainty, what security shall I have that Learning and Religion shall have a perpetual maintenance, and a sure reward of Honour and of Profit proportional you will say, that your Vote already passed will secure me; nothing so: You have indeed voted that all the Lands of the Deans and Chapters shall be employed to the advancement of Learning and piety. But in the mean time what becomes of the Bishops Lands? They are cathedral also: if you take away the present proprietor, what shall become of the Land? we shall not rifle for it; Shall we make a gift of what is none of our own? or shall we cure the commonwealth at the cost of the Church? I hear little said in the house, I hear too much in private.  
But I proceed. This Vote (I say) doth not secure me: It is too general. My reason why I am not herewith satisfied is this, because for aught this Vote expresseth, you may give all the Land to any one use only, and perform your Vote; as for instance, if all the wealth of Deaneries be distributed among the Parish Ministers only, your Vote is fulfilled; But all the Learning and the piety, that we are bound to take care of, is not thereby provided for.  
This (I say) doth therefore stick with me, and notwithstanding your general Vote so inwardly, that until I do see and know, how and in what manner the use and the particular disposal of this great revenue (both episcopal and conventual) shall be, I cannot concur to vote away the present possessors thereof: No, nor the future successors thereunto. Our Deans and Prebends as now they stand, or rather, as they have of late abused themselves, are both burdensome and scandalous to us, and to our Religion. Yet I must look upon their revenue, as the great reward, and powerful encouragement of Religion and of Learning.  
Some would alter and amend these cloisters, others would root them out; some would transfer their wealth, but do not tell me whether. Some would annex all to the Crown, to enlarge the royal revenue; Some reputing them incendiaries, would out of their forfeited estates, pay our debt of promise to the Scots; Some would distribute all that wealth among Parish Ministers only; Others have mixed and different designs. And there want not some who upon all these Lands do write, 
Coloss. 2. 21.  Touch not, taste not, handle not; you know it was urged by a worthy learned Dr. 
Dr. Hacket.  at the bar, 
Rom. 2. 22.  that of Saint Paul, Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou sacrilege? This theme I shall decline, and whatsoever my opinion be, whether man can give unto God a special property in a piece of Land or not; yet am I fully resolved never to alienate any of these revenues, but to mend the uses in the way of piety, so that this supposed danger of being sacrilegious shall be certainly out of my doors.  
In the next place, my humble and my earnest desire is, that you will maintain the Pen as well as the Pulpit; Polemie as well as persuasive learning. If our Cathedrals were rightly tempered, we might hope for admirable fruit of their revenues. Young Students in Divinity wander for want of manuduction. Poor Christians among us want a godly, sober, plain and pithy english Paraphrase upon the whole Bible. Our Nation, our Religion, and all Christendom want the just volumes of a large Latin Commentary. The body of Divinity should be reduced into a solid catechism. Every heresy might be choked in its first breath. All the Fathers might be revised and briefly animadversed. I cannot think of half the happiness we might hope for, so long as the rewards of wisdom are held forth to invite and encourage Industry. 
Prov. 8. 18.  Riches and honour are with me, saith wisdom, that knew how to invite. Take then none of the reward away, either of Profit, or of Honour; So much reward as you abate, so much industry you lose. Who ever went unto the Hesperides only to fight with the Dragon? only for that? for victory, and for nothing else? No, Sir, but there was the fruit of Gold (Profit as well as Honour) to be gained, to be achieved, and for that the Dragon shall be fought withal. 
— Quis enim doctrinam amplectitur ipsam,  
Praemia si tollas?—   
The Lawyer, the Physician, the Merchant, through cheaper pains do usually arrive at richer fortunes; And but that it pleaseth God to work inwardly, I should wonder that so many able heads, ingenious spirits, and industrious souls, should joy in the continual life long pains, and care of a Parish cure, about 100 l. per annum stipend for life, when with easier brows, fewer watchings, and lesser charge, they might in another profession (as every day we see it done) fasten a steady inheritance to them and their Children, of a far larger income.  
In this place there was composure of that which was (on a like occasion) spoken 22. Novemb. and is entered pag. And this place is half imperfect for want of those lines here.  
Let me here by way of anticipation, prevent that which will else come in objectively upon me. The universities (it will be said) are amply furnished with able disputants: what need other care, other provision?  
Truly Mr. Speaker, excepting some of our public professors there, and some few of the heads of our houses there, who hath descended into this Ariopaguses? There is indeed good training, good preparatory exercisings of raw soldiers there; and much valour in counterfeit skirmishes among them: But for perfect Polemy in letters, you may guess what our universities can yield, by observing our trained bands at common musters: Your graduate in the school of war will tell you, that good Artillery men, though quick at a dry muster, and nimble with false fires, are not immediately completed into true and full soldiers: So every Syllogizer is not presently a match to cope with Bellarmine, Baronius, Stapleton, &c. Mr. Speaker, you see my heart; I move not, I plead not for the Deans, nor for the Prebends. If they will not prove, if they cannot be turned to be champions in this holy warfare; then the rich revenue detur digniori: Let it be given to them that will bring forth better fruit. But if there may be had such a reduction of them, such a retrenching of them, nay, such a new forming of them, that we may be always sure in all Polemicke learning, to have some men of valour, to go in and out before us: Surely Sir, let them be so reduced, so retrenched, so new formed; if not, if this cannot be, then let others have the wealth, that will do the work.  
After all this (I beseech you) let me not be misconstrued, as if I intended an apology for these cathedral societies: it is neither in my wish nor power. These Covents are still the same with me they ever were: and the short character of a cathedral Corporation (as now it stands abused) is still the same it was. A nest of non-residents. An Epicurean college of riot and voluptuousness. A school for compliments in Religion: but a scourge upon the life and practice thereof. They have been the Asylum for superstition: but the Scalae Gemoniae for true Piety. Of late they have been the shame of our Clergy: and are now almost become the scorn of our Laity. Yet Sir, for all this (all this so bad, so true) I am still where I was. Though the channel be foul and muddy, where these waters (I mean their wealth) doth run, yet I cannot wish it dried up; but rather purged and cleansed, or else a new channel cut, wherein the current of all their wealth may run on, pure and clean to the holy uses of Religion and of Learning. Sir, many great and excellent uses (all for piety and Learning) may be presented to you: I beseech you let us consider sadly on it. For if this wealth be but once like water poured abroad, no time, no age to come will ever give us such a stock again. And thus I end the second of my two general heads.  
To sum up all; you see I am for the old original episcopacy, with Presbyteries subjoined thereunto: and I am for an explicit disposal of all manner of Church revenues: your bill denies me both. It denies me my strong wishes, and forceth upon me the terror of confusion. This Bill indeed doth seem to me an uncouth wilderness, a dismal vastness, and a solitude wherein to wander, and to lose ourselves and our Church, never to be found again; methinks we are come to the brink of a fatal precipice, and here we stand ready to dare one another, who shall first leap down. And that which increaseth my horror and amazement to the height, is to hear men confidently affirm, that we go safe upon an even ground, and that all this while the government is not changed. Surely Sir, either my head is giddy, or else I see in this Bill our English Church turn round, or rather tossed upside down.  
Persuade the King to commit all his regal authority into nine Commissioners, and tell him, that he is still a Monarch. Beside the change of governors, do you not give us new rules? do you not take away the old? and is the government still the same? I will instance in one. What is become of the divine Ordinance of Excommunication? must there be none? there is none in all your Bill. Five laymen shall require five Ministers to ordain: is not this new? was this government with us? nay was it ever in the world before? Five Lay-Commissioners must judge and pronounce in matter of heresy: yet still our Church government is unchanged. I know not what to say in so dull, so flat a cause. Truly Sir, for my part I do look upon this Bill as upon the gasping period of all good order: it will prove the mother of absolute anarchism: it is with me as the passing bell to toll on the funeral of our Religion, which when it goes will leave this dismal shriek behind.  
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  
When Religion dies, let the world be made a bonfire.  
In short Sir, this Bill hath so little of my Hopes, so nothing of my Reason, so all of my Fears, that if it must pass, I do most humbly pray, and do earnestly beseech this Honourable House to grant me this favour, that I may be admitted to my Protestation against this Bill, and so recorded. And (although some worthy members of this House are troubled, as they have cause, to have their names set on a post) yet it is my ambition that I may as negative to this bill, be posted up from Westminster to the Tower, and from Dover to Barwick, as one that dares not hazard a whole national Church at blind man buff.  
To conclude all: so great a variety of matter: so total a mutation, of so vast and so hazardous a consequence: it doth amaze me and distract me so, that although I must say No to your Bill, yet I hardly know with what motion to conclude. But thus I adventure.  
Let the intent and scope of Reformation be divided into two Bills.  
Let the subject of the first be Church government.  
Let the subject of the second be the disposal of Church revenues.  
Let both these bills go pari passu, hand in hand together.  
And because I cannot so well by word of mouth and memory present them, I do humbly beg leave either to read unto you such heads, for the first of these bills, as I conceive will well stand both with our Religion, and with the present laws of the Commonwealth: Or else that you will please to take in a new Bill ready formed to that sense, and I doubt not, but you will quickly find it the best and nearest way to piety, Peace, the honour of our Religion, and the glory of God.    

Church-Government. Reduced into a few heads, fit (as I conceive) to be formed into a Bill to be presented to the Commons House in Parliament.  
Memorandum, An imperfect copy of these, without my knowledge or consent hath been three times printed before.  

I.  
Imprimis.  
EVery several Shire of England to be a several Circuit or diocese for ecclesiastic jurisdiction: excepting the little Country of Rutland, which may be joined to Leicester. And Yorkshire which may be well divided into three.   

II.  
The Dioceses in Wales to remain in Circuit as at present.   

III.  
Twelve learned Divines of irreprovable life and Doctrine, to be selected in every diocese, as a constant Presbytery, and they to give necessary assistance to the Bishop.   

iv.  
A pious, and painful Divine of exemplar life and Learning to be established the Bishop and constant precedent over this Presbytery, and throughout the several dioceses aforesaid respectively.   

V.  
This Bishop in each diocese to ordain, suspend, deprive, degrade, excommunicate, by and with consent and assistance of seven Divines of his Presbytery then present, and not otherwise.   

VI.  
This Bishop to actuate and perform all those services and employments trusted unto, and expected from the present Bishops of the Land, by virtue of the present laws of the Land.   

VII.  
The times of Ordination throughout the Land to be four times every year, viz. the first Sunday in every month of May, August, November and February yearly.   

VIII.  
Every Bishop constantly to reside within his diocese, and to keep his especial residence in some one prime or chief city or town within his diocese: as in particular the Bishop of Kent at Canterbury. The Bp. of Sussex at Chichester, &c.   

Ix..  
Every Bishop to have one especial particular Congregation within his cure, the most convenient for nearness to his chief residence, and the richest in value that may be had, where he shall duly preach, unless he be lawfully hindered, and then shall take care that his cure be well supplied by another.   

X.  
No Bishop shall remove, or be translated from the bishopric which he shall first undertake; unless it be done by the King, with consent of a national Synod, or consent of Parliament.   

XI.  
Upon death or other avoidance of a Bishop, the King to grant a congee d'eslier to the whole Clergy of that diocese, and they to present three of the Presbyters aforesaid, and the King to appoint which of the three his majesty shall please.   

XII.  
The first Presbyters in every diocese to be named in this present Parliament.   

XIII.  
Upon the death or any other avoidance of a Presbyter, the Ministers of that diocese to present three: and the Bishop with the rest of the Presbyters to make election out of that three: and if votes be equal, than the Bishops vote to sway the Election.   

XIIII.  
The congee d'eslier for election of a Bishop shall issue forth within two months after the death, or other avoidance of a Bishop. The choice of another Presbyter to be within one month after the death or avoidance of a former Presbyter.   

XV.  
No Bishop or other Clergy man to have the constant manage of any temporal office, or secular jurisdiction, but only for the present to hold and keep the probate of Wills in the usual places, until the Parliament shall otherwise resolve. Yet I conceive it fit that twelve Bishops, (by the rest of the Bishops to be chosen) be every Parliament called to sit there assistant, to give advice in matter of Religion, and in cases of Conscience, when the House of Lords shall please to require it of them.   

XVI.  
Parochial Ministers to be entrusted and endued with more power then formerly: the manner and extent whereof to be determined in the next national Synod:   

XVII.  
The Parish Minister to hold weekly Vestries there with the Parishioners, to consider and take notice of all manner of scandal within the Parish.   

XVIII.  
The Parish Ministers to meet in every rural deanery once every quarter, there to prepare, and make up (by joint assent) such presentments of scandal, as may be fit to be transmitted to the Bishop and Presbytery.   

XIX.  
The Bishop once a year (at Midsummer) to summon a Diocesan Synod, there to hear, and by general vote to determine all such matter of scandal in life & doctrine as shall be presented to them.   

XX.  
Every three years (at the same day the triennial Parliament shall begin) a national Synod to be (whereby there will be no need of archbishops) which Synod shall for persons consist of all the Bishops in the Land, and of two Presbyters to be chosen by the rest out of each Presbytery: and of two Clarks to be chosen out of every diocese by the Clergy thereof.   

XXI.  
At the first day of their convention the Bishops out of their own number to choose a moderator or precedent of the Synod.   

XXII.  
From the Vestry, appeal may be to the rural Deanery, from thence to the Diocesan Synod, and from the Diocesan to the national Synod.   

XXIII.  
This national Synod to make and ordain Canons for the government of the Church, but they not to bind, until confirmed by the King in Parliament.   

XXIIII.  
Every Bishop to have over and above the Benefice aforesaid, a convenient dwelling in the chief Town of his residence, a certain profit of a constant rent allowed and allotted proportional to the diocese wherein he is to officiate.   

XXV.  
That certain choice Benefices of the best value, and most convenient situation, that can be had, may be allotted to the Presbyters, one to each, and that they also may have each of them a constant yearly profit over and above his Benefice.   

XXVI.  
As for the Revenue of the Bishops, Deans, Chapters, &c. a strict survey to be taken of all their rents and profits, by choice Commissioners in every several County, and the same at an appointed time to be represented to the Parliament, and in the mean time no timber to be felled. Afterward some of the profits may be laid by to make a stock, wherewith to purchase in the first fruits and Tenths, by ascertaining a more steady rent to the Crown. Impropriations may be bought in. Ministers Widows and Orphans may not with husband and father lose all support. Libraries (at the public charge) to be provided for every Bishop. And some colleges erected, and by degrees endowed for Divines therein to exercise themselves, through all the latitude of Theology.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
THus have you a faithful & a clear exposure of myself in matter of Religion, both in what I have said, and what I wish may be done. Let the candid and ingenuous Reader judge me. Such of the Prelaticke party as are in love with present pomp and power will be averse unto me, because I pare so deep: The Rooters, the Antiprelaticke party declaim against me, because I will not take all away. At last Midsummer a new Moon did take these men, I did begin to find a different greeting, a change of salutation. Some expostulate: others condemn: some advice: others would seem to condole: all upon occasion of my speech 21. June; although I find not there (or in any thing else that I have said) any cause to make me the object either of their anger, their council, or their pity.  
The plain truth (as I touched before) is that immediately upon my approach unto this Parliament, some circumstances did concur to lead my language on upon the Archbishop, not any personal passages (God and my soul do witness for me, I have not such a temper) But being servitor for that Shire, and in that diocese where some of his hardship then fresh and new was brought by complaint unto me; The accident of presenting that complaint did beget me almost as many new friends as he had old enemies: and I know not what misconception did thereupon (untruly) entitle me an enemy to the very function of episcopacy. I never gave my name in to take away both root and branch. I love not the sound of a curse so well. If by the Rooters I have been so mistaken, their credulity is not my crime. And their foul language shall neither be my shame nor sorrow, I will repeat some of their salutations,  

1 A. G.  One tells me that I would only have new Bishops in room of old ones: Cuius contrarium verum est. 
2 W. P.  Another that I have a Pope in my belly. 
3 S. W. B.  A third that he was never more sorry for any speech in the House, meaning that 21. Jun. 
4 M. S.  Another that strange things were said of me. 
5 W. C.  A fifth and 
6 Mr. S. S  sixth that I go the way to spoil all their work, so I hope I do. 
7 Dr. B. from others.  A seventh that it is said I am fallen from Grace: so some men seem desperately to look into the ark of God. 
8 Dr. W.  An eighth that I have contraried all that I said before: let the Dr. show me that now. 
9 R. L. B.  A ninth is told that I am apostated; I doubt his Religion (in quantum it differs from that of the Church of England) is an apostasy. 
10 Mr. F.  A tenth that I am gone over to their adversaries. 
11 S. A. H.  An eleventh and 
12 T. W.  twelfth that the Primate of Ireland, and Dr. Brownrig have infected me, I dare drink their poison. 
13 G. H.  That the two learned and painful equals without match, Mr. Reading, and Mr. Abbot, abusing my trust in them, and good opinion of them do mislead me; a slander upon three at once. 
14 S. E. P.  That Dr. Burges and I have conferred notes; I wish we had. 
15 Mr. K.  That I am for Bishops, for crosses and for Images; true and false. 
16 I. K.  That if I had held where I was, there had not been a Bishop in the Land before August last; a false wizard, I did hold where I was, and yet the Bishops are where they were. 
17 Civis ignontus.  That I have lost the prayers of many thousands. 
18 T. C.  That I have lost the honour I had, and that my conscience is not so good as it was in the beginning of this Parliament. Good (Mr. C.) you who would have Bishops out of their chairs, come you out of the chair of the scornful. You are one of them who jog our elbows, and boar our Parliament ears with Babylon, Antichrist, and the mystery of Iniquity, which I dare say is grossly misunderstood by yourself and many others of your rooting Tribe.  
Before this Parliament was convened, you would have joyed upon that day, when the sting of ill executed episcopy (the high Commission) had been taken away; and (the pest of the chair) soleship of power retrenched. One is done, and both had been effected, if you and such as you had not overheated a furnace that was burning hot before; and with pressing for ruin have betrayed the time of a blessed Reforming. Take it unto you, for upon you, and the blind ignorant wilfulness of such as you, I do here charge the sad account of the loss of such a glorious Reformation, as being the revived image of the best and purest ages, would with its Beauty and Piety have drawn the eye and heart of all Christendom unto us. 
Pro. 30. 15.  The horseleeches daughters do cry, Give, give. And you that might have had enough, do still cry more, more. The greedy Vulture of an insatiate appetite is incurable. To reform Episcopacy it is in your esteem too faint, too cold a work, it is labour ill bestowed and unthankfully accepted, nay one of you (said in my hearing) it is a sin to labour in the dressing and pruning of that plant, 
Mr. F.  which (say you) is not of God, and must be digged up. And with Episcopacy, away with the burden of our Liturgy. 
a S. M.  If you take not off this burden also, it will be girded upon us closer and stronger than ever. Away with the thought of a national Church also, 
b Protestation protested. p. 20.  It hath no pattern in the Scripture. 
c Mich. Qnintin. p. 4.  It is impossible for a national Church to be the true Church of Christ. Let us have no Church but Congregations, 
d Eatons sermon vouched by Sir Th. Aston. p. 4.  and let them be without all superintendency: as much to say, as let every family be a Church, and have Religion as they please. A way with all 
e Assertion of Scottish government p. 3. & 5.  distinction of Clergy and Laity, it is popish and Antichristian. Let us then banish from us such popish names, and send them home to Rome. 
f Quintin. p. 9  The Church is a body of parity, whose members are all Kings and Priests. 
g Sp●n●●rs Pamphlet.  And every man must exercise his gifts in common. So also the learned (but herein absurd and gross) 
h thought to be Salmasius against Petavius p. 397. 398.  Walo Messalinus, Omnes olim Presbyterierant Latci; and again, Waldensis & Lutherus crediderunt tustos ac fideles Laicos posse omnes, quae in Ecclesiâ Dei agi necesse est, agere, & omnibus muneribus Ecclesiasticis defungi. These things thus pressed, and pursued, I do not see but on that rise of the Kingship and Priestship of every particular man, the wicked sweetness of a popular parity may hereafter labour to bring the Kingdown to be but as the first among the Lords, and then if (as a Gentleman of the House professed his desire to me) we can but bring the Lords down into our House among us again, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. All's done. No rather, all's undone, by breaking asunder that well ordered chain of government, which from the chair of Jupiter reacheth down by several golden links, even to the protection of the poorest creature that now lives among us.  
What will the issue be, when hopes grow still on hopes? and one aim still riseth upon another, as one wave follows another? I cannot divine. In the mean time you of that party have made the work of Reformation far more difficult than it was at the day of our meeting, and the vulgar mind now fond with imaginary hopes, is more greedy of new achievements then thankful for what they have received. Satisfaction will not now be satisfactory. They and you are just in 
a De Benef. l. 2. c. 27.  Seneca's description. Non patitur aviditas quenquam esse gratum. Nunquam enim improbae spei, quod datur, satis est. Eo maiora cupimus, quo maiora venerunt.— Aequè ambitio non patitur quenquam in eâ mensurâ conquiescere, quae quondam fuit ejus impudens votum.— Vltra se cupiditas porrigit, & foelicitatem suam non intelligit. Learn moderation (Mr. C.) unless (as 
b J. H. H. M.  some of you Rooters do seem to hold) you do think moderation itself a vice. The Stoic was in that point more pious than such Christians: 
Epictetus.  his Motto was, and your lesson is, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
FINIS.