A

SHORT ANSWER

TO THOSE

Nine Arguments

VVhich are brought against the

BISHOPS

SITTING IN

PARLIAMENT.

Hofe reafons had need to be ftrong; and the inconveniences hainous that fhould take away an ancient and hereditary right, eftablished by law. These are not fuch,

1. To trade in fecular affairs, and to be taken up with them,is indeed a great and juft hinderance to the exercise of our minifterial function;but to meet once in three years in a Parliament for fome few weeks at the fame time when we are bound to attend convocation business, is no fenfible impediment to our holy calling.

2. We do indeed promife & profefs when we enter into holy orders that we will give our felves fo much as in us lies wholly to this vocation; will it therefore follow that we may not upon any occafion lend our felves to the care of the publick when we are thereunto called? And if this notwithstanding, we may, yea must take moderate care of our houfhold affairs, and the provision for our family; why not as well of the Common-wealth?

3. For ancient Canons of Councells; will they be content to be bound

Bbb 2

bound by them, who urge them upon us? Or will they admit fome, and reject others? Or will they admit them where they are contrary. to our own laws? Now our Clarendon Conftit. have exprefly, debent intereffe omnibus judiciis: The Canons therefore muft yield to them, not they to the Canons.

4. Twenty four Bishops have dependence upon two Archbi-fhops. When was it otherwife? Is it not fo in all fubordinations of government? If this be a juft inconvenience, let all be levelled. to an equality, and that shall end in a certain confufion but they fwear to them Canonicall obedience: True, but it is only in omni bus licitis & honeftis mandatis: The fuppofition implyed must needs favour of uncharitablenefs; that the Metropolitans will be ftill apt to require unlawfull things, and the Bishops will ever bafely stoop to a fervile humoring of them.

5

But they have their places only for their lives;and therefore not fit to have a legiflative power over the honors, liberties, proprieties of the fubject. 1. If they have their Bishopricks but for their lives, yet there are fcarce any of them that have not fo much temporall eftare in fee as may make them no lefs capable of a legiflative power then many of the houfe of Commons who claim this right. Secondly, is the cafe other now then it hath been all this while ? yet for fo many hundred years there have been good laws, and juft fentences given by their concurrence, notwithstanding this their tenure for Life. 3ly. If they be honeft and confcionable though they had their places but for a year, or a day, they would not yield to determine ought unjustly: And if difhoneft and confcienceless, it is not the perpetuall inheritance of our places that can make our determinations just..

6. If dependencies, and expectations of further preferment lie in our way; why not equally.in many Temporall Lords, who are intereffed in offices, and places in court? why fhould we be more mif-carriageable by fach poffibilities or hopes then others? Efpecially, when our age is commonly fuch, and the charges of removes fo great that there is fmall likelyhood of an equall gaining by he change.

7. If feverall and particular Bishops have much incroched upon the confciences of his Majefties fubjects, in matter of their propri-ery, and liberty; what reafon is there to impute this unto all ? why

fhould

fhould the innocent be punished for the wrongs of the guilty? Let thofe who can be convinced of an offence this way undergo a condigne cenfures Let not an unjuft prejudice be cast upon the whole calling for the errors of a few.

8. It is not to be expected but the whole number of 26. fhould be intereffed in the maintenance of that their Jurifdiction which both the laws of Men, and Apoftolicall inftitution hath feoffed them in; why fhould they not defend their own lawfull and holy calling against all unjuft oppofition of gainfayers. If their hearts did not affure them their ftation were warrantable and good, they were beafts if they would hold them; and if their hearts do affure them fo, they were beafts if they would not defend them: But there are numbers in all the three Kingdomes that crye them down ;True, but there are greater numbers for them, perhaps an hundred for one; and if fome bufie factionilts of the meaner fort here about (a body compounded of Separatifts, Anabaptifts, Familifts, and fuch like fuffe) make fome fhow and noife, yet what are these, to the whole Kingdom? Neither do these men more oppugne our votes in Parliament, then our ftations in the Church; fo as this argument will no lefs hold for no bishops,then for no votes,as likewise that inftance in the practife of Scotland. Scotland hath abolisht Epifcopacy they fay; The more pity; let them look, quo jure, and what answer to make unto that God whofe ordinance it is: But I had thought it fhould have been a ftronger argument ; England retains Epifcopacy therefore Scotland fhould; then Scotland hath abolifht Epifcopacy, therefore England fhould do fo too:Let there be any other Church named in the whole Chriftian World that hath voluntarily abandoned Epifcopacy, when it might have continued it; and if their practise be herein fingular, why fhould not they rather conforme to all the reft of Chriftendom, then we to them.

9. But the core of all, is, that it fets too great a diftance between us, and our Brethren of the Clergy, and fo nourishes pride in us, difcontentment in them, and difquietnefs in the Church: An argument that fights equally againft all our fuperiority over our Brethren, and against our votes here: By this reafon we must be all equall, none fubordinate; and what order can there be where none is above other? What is this but old Korabs challenge.Ye take too much upon you, wherefore lift ye up your felves above the Congregat ion

of

of the Lord: Now; I beseech you, whether was there more pride in Mofes and Aaron that governed, or in Corah and Dathan that mur mured and repined?

It is pride then that causeth contention, but where is this pride? whether in those that moderately manage a lawfull fuperiority, or in those that scorn and hate to be under goverment? Were those Brethren so affected as they ought, they fhould rather rejoyce that any of their own tribe are advanced to thofe places wherein they. might be capable of doing good offices to them and the Church of God, in ftead of fwelling with envy against their juft exaltation, and would feel this honor done to their profeffion; and not to the perfons.

Lastly, what a mean opinion doth this imply to be conceived of us by the fuggefters, that we who are old Men, Chriftian Philofofophers, and Divines fhould have fo little government of our felves as to be puffed up with those poor acceffions of titular refpe&s, which thofe who are really and hereditarily poffeffed of, can weild without any fuch taint or fufpicion of tranfportedness.

Shortly,in all thefe Nine reasons there is nothing that may induce an indifferent Man to think there is any juft ground to exclude Bifhops from fitting and voting in Parliament.

FOR

FOR

EPISCOPACY

W

AND

LITURG Y.

ry

E cannot be too wary of,or too oppofite to Pope& Antichriftianifm:But let me admonish you in the fear of God to take heed that we do not dilate the name and imputation of these too farr; for I fpeak it with juft forrow and compaffion there are some well meaning and feduced fouls that are by Erroneous teachers brought into the opinion that the facred form of the.. Goverment of the Church and the holy forms of the publick devotions, and prayers of the Church and all the favorers of them are. worthy to be branded with the title of Popery and Antichriftianifm.

For the firft, my heart bleeds in me to think that that calling which was inftituted by the Apoftles themselves and hath ever fince. continued in the univerfall Church of Chrift without interruption to this day, fhould now come under the name of Popery : I fpeak of the calling; if the perfons of any in this ftation have been faulty, let them bear their own burden, but that the calling it felf fhould. receive this conftruction in the opinion of well-minded and confcionable Chriftians is juftly moft lamentable. I befeech you look back upon the hiftories of former times, look but upon your Acts and Monuments, and fee whether any have been more expenfive either of their ink, or their blood against the tyranny of Popery and fuperftition then the Bishops of this Church of England, in fo much as the reverend Dr. Du Moulin in his publick Epifle profeffes that the Bishops of England were they to whom this Church is beholden for the liberty and maintenance of the Proteftant Religion in this

Kingdom