The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Anſwering Doctor Boughens explanations for the removall of Biſhops out of the Houſe of Lords, in his 12. chapter.
I Proceed now to examine your 12. Chapter, ſpent moſt upon the Theam, whether it be incongruous to the calling of Biſhops, to ſit and vote in Parliament? And here you are very paſſionate; but I muſt firſt tell you, your paſſionate follie falls more foul on King and Parliament, then me; for I do but render the reaſon given by them, in effect, in the very ſtatute. *Anno 17. Car. R. An act for diſabling all perſons in holy Orders, to exerciſe any temporall juriſdiction or authority.The words are theſe; whereas Biſhops and other perſons in holy orders, ought not to be intangled with ſecular juriſdiction (the office of the Miniſtery being of ſuch great importance, that it will take up the whole man;) and that it is found by long experience, that their intermedling with ſecular juriſdictions, hath occaſioned great miſchief and ſcandall; both to Church and State. His Majeſtie, out of his religious care of the Church, and ſouls of his people, is graciouſly pleaſed, that it be enacted; And by authority of this Parliament, be it enacted, that no Arch-Biſhop, &c. ſhall have any ſeat or place, ſuffrage, or voice, or uſe, or execute any power or authority, in the Parliament of this Realm. Now, hath my phraſe done any more, then expreſs the reaſon given for abolition in this Statute by King and Parliament? while therefore you rave ſo at me, doth not all more properly light on them? I may therefore ſay, as ſometimes Moſes, who am I? Your murmurings are not againſt me, but againſt king and Parliament.
But you queſtion, whether they were not thruſt out to make way for theſe civill broyles? The Incendiaries knew well enough, that thoſe meſſengers and makers of peace, would never have paſſed a vote for war.
I anſwer, they ſhould be makers of peace, but have they been ſo indeed of late? I pray, who occaſioned the war by Liturgie, illegally put upon the Scots, but Prelates? who put on the king, to raiſe an Army againſt them, more then Prelates? You know *Biſhop Bath and Wells, to excite his Clergy to contribute.who called it, Bellum Epiſcopale, Who put on the king to break his firſt pacification with the Scots, but Prelates? Then oaths were no ingagements with them, when againſt Prelates: But now the kings oath muſt be cryed up, to keep them up: but you ſhould remember, Quicquid fit propter deum, fit aequaliter; which hints the hypocriſie of your pretences, of renderneſs of an oath in this caſe, if you had not the ſame tenderneſs in the other caſe.
Then Parag. 2. You tell an Apocrypha tale, of the outcries of ſome Clothiers, that occaſioned the making of that ſtatute, as though men would believe your traditional tale before the expreſs words of king and Parliament, contained in the act.
Parag. 3.4. You inquire, why it is incongruous to the calling of Biſhop, to ſit and vote in the Houſe of Peers: and raiſe imaginary reaſons, and confute them, looking over that in the ſtatute: That Biſhops and other perſons, in holy orders ought not to be intangled in ſecular juriſdiction; and this is grounded on Scripture, 2 Tim. 2. comparing v. 4. & 7. and more expreſly ſpeak the Apoſtles; (and you make Biſhops Apoſtles) It is not reaſon we ſhould leave the Word of God, Act. 6.2.and ſerve tables, foreign. Beza, and the vulgar, non eſt aequum. See how the grounds mentioned by king and Parliament in the ſtatute, are grounded on Scripture.
But Parag. 5. You would prove, that there could be no incongruity between their calling, and voting in the Houſe of Peers, by Scripture: For then Melchizedeck, that was both King and Prieſt, had never been a type of our Saviour. It doth not follow; for he was therefore a type, to ſhew, that Chriſt ſhould be both king and Prieſt, but his kingdom was not of this world; he would not intangle himſelf with the affairs of this life, and divide inheritances.
Again, you bring the example of Moſes and Eli, who were extraordinary perſons, as though God doth not things extraordinarily, that are incongruous ordinarily, as to make Deborah, and Huldah, Propheteſſes. But Joaſh thrived ſo long, as he followed Jehojada the high Prieſt: as though a good Biſhop cannot give good counſell to a king, unleſs he ſit and vote among Peers. You tell us alſo, how ſome of our Kings proſpered by their Counſels. Is it not as eaſie to tell you, of a Biſhop that preached, my head aketh, to uſher, in the dethroning of a king? to tell, you how R. 2. was undone, by the unpolitique counſell of the pious Biſhop of Carlile? which ſhews, that uſually the beſt Biſhops, are the worſt States men.
Parag. 6. You add, a wonder it is, that my faction ſpies this incongruity, which was never diſcerned by the wiſeſt of our fore-fathers. See you not, how you call king and Parliament a faction, whoſe ſenſe I expreſt? If I had been ſo rude, what out-cries ſhould we have had of blaſpheming, and ſpitting in the face of authority? Of the ſame nature are other your fooliſh arguings. parag. 7.8. about the writ of ſummons to Parliament; as though the Supremacie being in king and Parliament, they cannot change the ſtate of the Parliament, and ſo of the writ. And therefore all your ſtrange language, doth not only queſtion the integrity of king and Parliament, in their expreſſion, and their wiſdom in making; but their power in performing; which inſolency, whether it deſerve words to anſwer, let the reader judg and this ſame anſwer will alſo take off your 13. parag.
What you ſay, parag. 9. touching the ſufficiency of Biſhops for this work, is not of validity to infer the concluſion, which you would have, are they more able to vote in Parliament, then the Apoſtles to ſerve tables? have they not a ſphear, as Miniſters, that will ſwallow up all their abilities? why ſhould they then, any more then the Apoſtles, leave their ſpiritual work for ſecular imployments?
What you add touching David, parag. 10. that he err'd for want of the preſence and advice of the Prieſts, and ſuffered; but after he calls for the Prieſts, and acknowledgeth his error, &c. This is true, and yet withall, his fault was not in not having the Prieſts, at firſt; but not uſing them as he ſhould: they drove the cart whereon it was, inſtead of carrying it on their ſhoulders; neither is it mentioned, that they diſcovered the error to him, but he to them, having it, as it ſeems, by divine revelations on his humiliation and prayer, 1 Chron. 15.2.
But may there not be the Counſell and advice of Divines, to a Parliament, in matters of God, unleſs they ſit and vote with Peers, in matters ſecular? May they not in a Convocation, or Aſſembly, adviſe in matter of religion, where they ſhall keep the ſphear of Divinitie, and meddle with nothing Heretogeneal to their calling? So your reaſonings, parag. 11, 12. are too weak to infer votes with Peers.
For your ſtatute, Parag. 14. I know not what to ſay to it, becauſe I know not where to finde it. But do you bring this to involve this king and Parliament under a curſe? and blame me for a moderate and neceſſary expreſſion of vinculum iniquitatis? Turp… eſt Doctori, &c.
What you ſay, Parag. 15. Of the benefit of good Biſhops, as Miniſters of the Goſpel: I aſſent to it, but neither of the places ſpeak, as having them Miniſters of State. A King and Parliament may have the bleſſing of faithful Biſhops, by their preaching and prayers; without their votes and preſence among Peers: yea, more then with it, for that uſually makes them too great, to preach in ſeaſon and out of ſeaſon, as Timothy was to do, 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. But you are miſtaken, when you ſay, that the Prieſts are, in Scripture, called the horſe-men of Iſrael, and the chariots thereof: For that was ſpoken of Prophets, not Prieſts, viz. of Elijah and Eliſha.
Parag. 16. You argue Alogically, the King can have no Subſidies granted without them, becauſe none hath yet been granted; a non eſſe ad non poſſe non valet argumentatio. As ill do you abuſe the Scripture againſt the King and Parliament, as Removers of bounds, who have rectified it, confining Clergie men to their own ſphear, Divinity; leaving ſeculars to ſecular-men: therefore your curſe cauſeles ſhall not come.
To parag. 17. I ſay, I delivered not ex tripode, but out of the marrow of the act it ſelf, that the votes of Biſhops in the houſe of Peers was taken away, as incongruous to their calling; and I infer nothing elſe to be taken away, unleſs it ſeems good to King and Parliament; whoſe wiſedom and conſcience, I dare far better truſt then yours; and you abuſe your Reader, to ſay, I argued from the bare fact, when I argue from the fact, with its ground, to the like, on the like warrantable ground. And that the abolition of the one, is no more againſt the Kings oath, then the other, which you confeſs; yet you ſay flatly, 123. If the King yield to let down Epiſcopacy, he breaks his oath; what then do you lay to his charge, implicitly, in conſenting to the abolition of their votes, but perjurie? Is this you that can calumniate others without cauſe, as ſpitting in the face of authoritie, and yet do this, and preſent it to the King himſelf, to read his own doom?
But you diſtinguiſh between priviledges, that are the grants of God, and ſuch as are of the favour of Princes, ſuch as ſitting and voting with Peers.
The diſtinction is good, and helps to clear what I intend; that the King may alter the Prelacie in queſtion, which is but the gift of Princes, not God. See the erudition of a Chriſtian man, on the Sacrament of orders. And Princes may revoke their own grants: but for that juriſdiction, which you ſay, is a grant of God; I confeſs it is: but by him ſetled on Paſtors, the higheſt degree of Church officers now; and thoſe are Presbyter-Biſhops; and therefore the ſetling of it on them in general, is but reſtitution, no donation of any thing new to the Presbyters, nor unjuſt detraction from the Biſhops, who had without the grant of God, ingroſt all power into their own hands.
Caſe of Conſcience reſolved.
AGain when this oath was framed, the Church was indued, by the ignorance of the times, with divers unlawful immunities; in all which reſpects the oath was invalid, being vinculum iniquitatis; and ſome were pared off, as light ſhined forth. And why may not the great revenues of the Biſhops, with their ſole juriſdiction, in ſo large a circuit, be indicted and convict to be againſt the edification of the Church, and it be found more for the glory of God, that both the revenue be divided to maintain a preaching Miniſterie; and their juriſdiction alſo, for the better over-ſight and cenſure of manners? And then is there as good a plea, notwithſtanding the oath, to alter this uſeleſs anti-Evangelical pompe, and domination of a few; as to antiquate, other immunities, ariſing from the error of the times, not the tenure of Scripture. Were indeed the priviledgs in queſtion, ſuch as were for the advantage of the Church, to further her edificacation; or had the Prelates been good Stewards, and innocent in the uſe of them; then had the plea carried a fairer ſhew. But theſe having been ſo many forfeitures by abuſe; and theſe great promotions, and juriſdictions, being as unwieldy to a ſpiritual ſouldier, as Sauls armour to David; and ſo do not further, but hinder the work of the Goſpel, whoſe ſtrong holds are to be vanquiſht, not by carnal pomp, but ſpiritual furniture, mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.4. I ſee no juſt ingagement to maintain ſuch cumberſom greatneſs, adding onelyonly glory to the perſon, not vigour to the main work of the Eccleſiaſtick.
Again, thus I argue: If the king may conſent to alter the laws of the Nation, notwithſtanding his oath, then ſo he may alſo the Clergies immunities: for thoſe rights and immunities, they either hold them by law, or otherwaies: If by law, then the Parliament, which hath power to alter all laws, hath power to alter ſuch laws as give them their immunities; and thoſe laws altered, the immunitie ceaſeth, and ſo the kings ingagement in that particular. If their immunity be not by law, it is either an uſurpation without juſt title, which upon diſcovery, is null: Or, it was given by Papall power in times of darkneſs, which being an Anti-chriſtian uſurpation, is long ſince aboliſht in this kingdom.