Master Geree's Case of conscience sifted Wherein is enquired, vvhether the King (considering his oath at coronation to protect the clergy and their priviledges) can with a safe conscience consent to the abrogation of episcopacy. By Edward Boughen. D.D.

CHAP. XII. Whether to sit and vote in Parliament be incongruous to the calling of Bishops.

1. SOmething an hard theme to treat upon, and unplea∣sing to the times. And yet I must say something to it, lest I seem to desert the cause, to blame our Predecessors of indiscretion, and to acknowledge that weaknesse in our Bi∣shops, which the wisest of this Kingdom know to be far from them. What? Not contented to strip us of our rights, lands, and priviledges, but you must twit us with the losse of y the Bishops Votes, as if they were neither fit to sit or vote, in the House of Peers? That this hath been done cannot be denied; but how justly I shall not question for the honour I bear to my Sove∣raign. Yet thus much is evident to every single eye, that we have had many even and conscionable Parliaments, where∣in Bishops have voted: what kinde of Parliament we have had without them, some will make bold to speak hereafter. But a word in private. Were they not thrust out, lest the King should have too many faithfull Counsellors in the House? Were they not removed, to make way for these civill broils?

The Incendiaries knew full well, that those messengers and makers of peace would never have passed a Vote for war.

2. But what were the motives, that wrought upon His Majestie, to yeeld to have the Bishops turned out of that House, z wherein they had voted from the first day, that ever Parliament sate in England? And before ever there was an House of Commons, they had their Votes in the great Coun∣cels of the Kingdom; as Sir Robert Cotton manifests in his Treatise, that the Soveraigns person is required in the great Councels of the State. p. 3. &c. If at any time they have been forced out of these Parliaments, or great Assemblies, it hath been with so ill successe, that with all possible speed they have been recal∣led. Will you hear the motives? Surely they were the very same, that drove the King from Westminster, and London. I re∣member, the Clothiers were perswaded in a mutinous man∣ner to cry down the Bishops votes, because they had no market for their clothes. And now they cry out, that they want wooll to make clothes. Is not this the blessing they have gained by that hideous and senselesse out-cry?

3. But why was this privilege abolisht, as incongruous to their calling? Are Bishops unfit to advise, or assent in framing Laws? Surely they are rationall men, and learned men. By reason of their age, and offices, which they have heretofore passed tho∣row, they must needs be men of much experience. And it is to be presumed so many, for so many, as conscionable, and as much for the common good, as any. And such men are most fit to prepare, and commend Laws for and to Kings. For I have learned, that a this is a strong argument in Law, b Nihil, quod est contra rationem, est licitum, Nothing contrary to reason, is law∣full. For REASON IS THE LIFE OF THE LAW; nay the COMMON LAW it self IS NOTHING ELSE BUT REASON. Which is to be understood of an artificiall perfe∣ction of reason, gotten by ¹ long studie, ² observation, and ³ experience, and not every mans naturall reason: for, Nemo nascitur artifex, no man is born Master of his profession. Against reason there∣fore it is, that men of long study, much observation, and experi∣ence, should be excluded from voting in matters of such high concernment. And some men, that have scarce any of these,

should be admitted, as if they were born wise, or gained State∣experience by hawking, or hunting. 'Tis true, that c Senatore sons might be admitted to the government of the Common∣wealth, before they were five and twenty yeers of age: but d before they were twenty and five yeers compleat, they could give no suffrage among the rest of the Senators, though Senators. This was the wisdom of that thriving Roman State.

4. Now give me leave to enquire more strictly, what it is, that is incongruous to the calling of Bishops. Is it to sit in the House of Peers? or to Vate in the House of Peers? or both? That the Lords Spirituall have sate and voted with the Lords Temporall, cannot be denied. The Acts of Parliament speak it, from the first Session to this last. Let it not be thought incongruous for Bishops to sit with the best of Subjects. e They sate at Constantines own table. Nor to be numbred among Peers. f The prophecie saith, that they may be made Princes. Nor to vote in matters of State: since usually they are men of great Learning, of much experience, observation, and conscience. Such as fear God, honour their Soveraign, and love their Countrey with-out by ends. Such they are, and such they ought to be. And though sometimes there be a Judas among the twelve, yet is the Calling never the worse.

5. Had it been incongruous to their Calling, Melchisedech that was both King and Priest had never been a type of our Savi∣our. The Law of God and Nature abhor that, which is incon∣gruous. Had it been incongruous to the Priesthood, God had never made Moses and Eli Governors of his people, in temporall affairs; for g they were both Priests. h Jethro, Priest of Midian, was of excellent use to Moses in State affairs. And it may not be forgotten, that i King Jehoash thrived, as long as he heark∣ned to Jehoiada the High Priest. But when he sleighted the Priests counsell, he suddenly fell into the extremest miseries. 2 Chron. 24. 21. 23. &c. Our Histories will likewise tell you, how K. Henry VII. prosper'd by applying himself to the ad∣vice of his Bishops, Morton, Denny, Fox, and others. And how his Son K. Henry VIII. never thrived, after he turned his ears from the counsell of his Prelates. And yet he excluded them not from Parliaments; he could not be drawn to that. Sure,

had this been incongruous to their calling, your fellow-Ministers of London would never have granted, that two distinct offices may be formally in one and the same person; as Melchizedech was formally a King and Priest. I. D. p. 212.

6. A wonder it is, that you & your faction should spie thi•• incongruitie, which was never discerned by the wisest of our fore-fathers. The Writ, which summons the Parliament, runs thus, k Rex habiturus colloquium & tractatum cum Praelatis, Mag∣natibus, & Proceribus. The King intending a Conference and Trea∣tie with his Prelates, and Great men, and Peers. This Writ, as some report, was framed under K. Henry III. and is continued in the same terms to this day. And yet no incongruitie discerned in it, till ye came in with your new Lights, which issue from your light brains. But now the Bishops must no more vote, no, not sit in Parliament; because you, forsooth, conceive it to be incongruous to their calling. But will any wise man take your word for a Law, or imagine it to be more authentick, then the resolutions of all our fore-fathers? You have no way to fin∣ger the Bishops lands and Jurisdiction, but by turning them out of the House. This, this was it, that moved you to charge their presence in Parliament with incongruity.

7. The Lawyers tell us, that l the Writ of Summons is the basis and foundation of the Parliament. And m if the foundation be de∣stroyed, what becomes of the Parliament? Truly it falls; saith Justice Jenkins; according to that n maxime both in Law and Reason, Sublato fundamento opus cadit, the Foundation being taken away, the work falls. If then it shall be proved, that you endea∣vour to ruine the Foundation, the Writ of Summons, it must ne∣cessarily follow, that you endeavour the ruine of the Parlia∣ment. By the Writ the King is to have treatie with his Pre∣lates. But you suffer him to have no treaty with his Prelates. Where then is the Writ? Nay, the Bishops are quite voted down root and branch. How then shall he treat in Parliament with those, that have no being? The Lord commands o the Ark to be made of Shittim-wood: If there had been no Shittim wood, the Ark could not haue been made. If there be no Pre∣lates, where's the treatie? Where the Parliament? It will not serve to slip in the Presbyters; they are not the men, they are

not called for. p These are Episcopall privileges: q all other Ec∣clesiasticall persons are to be contented with those liberties and free customes, quas priùs habuerunt, which they enjoyed here∣tofore.

8. The Writ summoned this Parliament, for the defence of the Church of England. Herein you have also made the Writ void; for you have destroyed the Church of England. And in destroying the Church, you have destroyed the Writ. The Com∣mission is for defence; they then that destroy, what they are bound to defend, overthrow their Commission. r Our Saviour sent his Apostles to preach peace; s to blesse, and not to curse; t to please God, and not man. If then we preach warre, and not peace; if we curse, when we ought to blesse, if we please men, and not God, we forfeit our Commission. S. Paul is plain; u If we please men, we are none of Christs servants; much lesse Apostles. For x his servants we are, whom we obey, whom we please. If then we prove y faithlesse and unprofitable servants, we shall be turned out of our Masters house, even out of doores, and cast into outer darknesse. Upon these grounds I argue thus. He that overthrows the prime intention of the Writ, overthrows the Writ. But you have overthrown the prime intention of the Writ. Therefore you have overthrown the Writ. That you have overthrown the prime intention of the Writ, I prove thus. The prime intention of the Writ is for the State, and defence of the Church of England. But you have z overthrown the State and de∣fence of the Church of England. You have therefore overthrown the prime intention of the Writ. The second Proposition cannot be denied, it is so palpably true. The former is Sir Edw: Cokes; his words are these. a The State and defence of the Church of Eng∣land is first in intention of the Writ. And b if the Writ be made void, all the processe is void; and so farewell Parliament.

9. Besides, I have learned, that c the assembly of Parliament is for three purposes. First, for weighty affairs, that concern the King. Secondly, For the defence of his Kingdome. And thirdly, for de∣fence of the Church of England For the King, no question, but the Bishops are faithfull to him. We see, they have constant∣ly adhered to him in these times of triall. In Gods and the Kings cause they have all suffered, and some died commen∣dably,

if not gloriously. For the defence of the Kingdome none more forward with their advice, purses, and prayers. And for the Church, who so fit, who so able to speake as Bishops? Versed they are in the divine Law; in Church history, and in the Ca∣nons of the Church. They fully understand not onely the pre∣sent, but the ancient state of the Church. They know, what is of the Essence of the Church; what necessary, and what convenient onely; what is liable to alteration, and what not. These things are within the verge of their profession, and most proper for them to speak to.

10. When King David first resolved to bring up the Arke of the Lord from Kiriath-jearim, into his own Citie, d he consulted with the Captains of thousands, & hundreds, & cum universis Principibus, and with all his Princes, about this businesse, e By their advice he orders, that the Arke should be carried in a new Cart; and Ʋzzah and Ahio are to drive it. But what be∣comes of this consultation? f An error was committed clean thorough, and Ʋzzah suffers for it. Though David were a marvelous holy man, and a good King, and had a company of wise, religious Councellors about him, in the removall, and ordering of the Arke, they were mistaken, because they did not advise with the Preists about it. For g the Preists lips preserve knowledge▪ & they shall inquire of the Law at his mouth. And h the Law will not have a Cart to carrie the Arke, nor Lay∣men to meddle with it. David saw his mistake with sorrow; and confesseth to the Preists, that i he and his Councellors had not sought God after the due order. And why so? k Quia non era∣tis praesentes (so the Fathers read) because the Preists were not pre∣sent, & he had not consulted with them about this sacred bu∣sinesse. And hence it is, that l they did illicitum quid, somthing that was unlawfull. That then a thing be not unlawfull, we must consider, not onely what is to be done; but the order and man∣ner is to be considered, how it ought to be done; least failing of the due order, it prove unlawfull. Most Christians know bonum, what is good; but few are skilled in the bene, how it ought to be done; and that is it, that makes so many ruptures, so ma∣ny breaches, and factions in the world, because every man will prescribe the order, and manner; which, God knows, they ttle understand.

11. When therfore David had once more resolved to fetch up the Arke from the house of Obed Edom, he calls for the Preists, and acknowledgeth, that m none ought to carrie the Arke of God, but they; and that n therefore the Lord had made a breach upon him and his, because the Preists had not brought it up at first. That this fault may be duly and truely mended, o David com∣mands the Preists to sanctifie themselves, and to bring up the Arke. They did so, p they brought it up upon their shoulders, q ac∣cording to their dutie. And r God helped the Levites, that bare the Arke; because it was now done in due order. It is no shame then for us, to acknowledge our error with David, and with him to amend, what is amisse. Yea this was such a warning to him, that s he would not so much as resolve to build an house for the Lord, till he had acquainted the Pro∣phet Nathan with it. In matters therefore, that concern the Arke of the Covenant, the Church of the living God, it is not safe to do any thing without the Preists advice. If then the cheif and maine end of calling a Parliament be for the good of the Church, it is most necessary to have the cheif Fathers of the Preists present. But Sir Edward Coke assures me, that this is the main end of calling a Parliament. His words are these; t Though the State and defence of the Church of England be last named in the Writ, yet is it FIRST IN INTENTION. And what is first in in∣tention is chiefly aimed at, all other things that are handled, are but as means to effect that. It is not then incongruous, but most consonant to the calling of Bishops to sit and Vote in Parliament.

12. Besides, u if the honour of God, and of holy Church be first in intention, how shall the honour of God, and of the Church be pro∣vided for, how defended, when the Fathers of the Church are discarded, who know best, what belongs to Gods honour; who are most able to speake in defence of the Church, & to shew how she ought to be provided for? Shall she not in their absence be layed open to the subtill foxes, and mercilesse bores to wast and distroy her? Yea x by this means she is already distroyed. So pious Justice Jenkins. The incongruitie then is not to the Bi∣shops calling, but to the covetousnesse of bores and foxes.

13. Another incongruity will follow upon this. y The whole Parliament is one corporate body consisting of the HEAD AND THE

THREE ESTATES. If one of the Estates be wanting, it can∣not be called a whole, but an imperfect, a maimed Parliament. But z the Bishops are one of the three Estates. Suppose them to be the more feeble and lesse honourable Estate, or Member, yet a this very Member is necessary; and the body is but lame without it. Take heed then, that the excluding of Bishops, be not incon∣gruous to the Parliament. I see not, how it can be incongruous to the Prelates to suffer wrong, since b for this purpose they are called. But it is incongruous to the Parliament, to be without them; since without them, it is not a whole, but an imperfect Parliament. For I have read, that c Bishops were in all Parliaments, and voted in them, since we had any. Yea, that great Master of the Law justifies, that d every Bishop ought ex debito justiciae of due justice to be summoned by Writ, to every Parliament, that is holden. But if they leave out the Bishops, they begin with injustice, and lay but an ill foundation for so great a Court of Justice. And where injustice beares the sway, there is little Justice to be ho∣ped for. So they are incongruous in the first stone, or foundati∣on of a Parliament.

14. There is a Statute, that no Act of Parliament be passed by any Soveraign of this Realm, or any other authority what soever, without the advice & assent of the three Estates of the Kingdome, viz. of the ¹ Lords spirituall, & ² temporall, & the ³ Com∣mons of this Realme. And all those are solemnly cursed, by the whole Parliament, that shall at any time endeavour to alter this Act, or to make any Statute otherwise then by the consent of all these, or the Major part of them. This, as the learned in the Law report, is upon record in the Parliament Roles.

15. And what comfort, I beseech you, can his Majestie have to call a Parliament without Bishops, since he cannot assure him∣self of Gods assistance without them? f Cenwalch King of the West-Saxons was sensible, that his Province was destitute of Gods protection, while it was without a Bishop. Indeed g a good Bishop is (with Gregory, Metropolitan of Cesarea) not onely the beautie of the Church, and a fortresse to his flock, but he is the safety of his Country. It was the religious conceit of our country men here∣tofore, that h both King and Kingdome have by the Church a solid, •• sure foundation for their subsistence. And it was the usuall say∣ing

of King Iames, i No Bishop, no King. In Scripture the Preists are called k the Charets and horsemen of Israel; because by their prayers the Country prospered more then by force of armes. And the Greek Fathers observe, that l the Bishop is therefore to pray for all, m because he is the Common Father of all, be they good or bad.

16. And as he can have little spirituall comfort without Bishops; so n without them he can have no temporall releife, no Subsidies granted for his own supplies, or for the defence of the Kingdome. I am sure, none have been granted him at West∣minster, since the expulsion of the Bishops. Thus have you moul∣ded up such a Parliament, as was never known in this Realme, since these great Councels of State were first assembled. For though the Bishops were by his Majestie summoned according to justice; yet were they afterwards turned out at the instigation of a strong & tumultuous faction; & not suffered to vote in mat∣ters that concerned either Church or State. Thus ye are be∣come o like the Princes of Judah, that remove the bounds; That is as the Genevians interpret, p ye have turned upside down all politi∣call order, and all manner of Religion. q Therefore upon those, that have done so, the Lord will powre out his wrath like water; which will surely overwhelm them, as it did those desperate sinners in the deluge. Thus I have manifested, that it is not incongruous to the calling of Bishops to sit, and vote in Parliament; but to exclude them is incongruous to the being of a Parliament, to the weale of the King, and safety of the Kingdom.

17. And yet, as if what-you had delivered, were ex tripode, as sure as Gospel, r from barring their votes, you deduce an argument for taking away their Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall. If one be abolished, why may not the other be removed? As if, be∣cause my cassocke is taken from me, I must necessarily be strip∣ped out of my gowne 'Tis true, if this be also done, I must bear it patiently; but my patience doth not justifie their acti∣on, that do me the injurie. Neither doth the former fact ju∣stifie the latter: truly no more then Davids follie with Bathshe∣ba can countenance the murder of Vriah. The question is not de fact••, but de jure, not what is done, but whether it be justly done. If the fact may justifie a right, then may we maintaine

robbing upon Salisbury Plain; because it hath been done there more then once. A wonder it is, you had not framed your argument thus: who knows not, that the Parliament caused the Arch Bishop of Canterbury to be beheaded? And then why may they not hang the rest of the Bishops, if their lives prove inconvenient, and prejudiciall to the Church? But with Julian the Apostata, ye had rather slay the Preisthood, then the Preists.

17. Indeed s the removall of their Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction is no more against the Oath then the abolition of their Votes. Both alike in respect of the Oath; but if we consider the severall autho∣rities, from whence they are derived, we shall find a difference; because the most part of their Jurisdiction is the grant of God; but their Voting among the Peers is by the favour of Princes, grounded upon the right of Nature, and that civill interest, which every free denizon ought to have in some measure, in disposing of his own, and assenting to new Laws. But suppose Princes may revoke their own favours, can they without pe∣rill to their soules, cut off that entaile, which God hath settled upon his Church? I beleeve, no. But you will onely remove it, not abolish it. And removed it may be from Dorchester to Lin∣colne, from Crediton to Exiter. But the removall of Ecclesiasti∣call Jurisdiction from Bishops to Presbyters, is utterly unlawfull; since without sinne we may not alter the Ordinance of God, who settled this Jurisdiction upon Bishops onely, and not upon Presbyters; as is demonstrated in the next Chapter.

Notes

• y

  One of the pri∣vileges of the Clergie was for the Bishops to sit and vote in the House of Peers. yet that is abo∣lish•• as incon∣gruous to their calling I. G. p. 4.
• z

  Lex terrae p. 14
• a

  Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton, l 2. Sect. 138.
• b

  Omne factum, si rectè factum non est, peccatum est, Nec rectè fa∣ctum esse ullo modo potest, quod non à rectâ ratione proficisci∣tur. Aug. de util. credendi. c. 12.
• c

  Gu••d. Pancirol. de Magistrat▪ Municipal. c. 2.
• d

  Ib. c. ••.
• e

  ••useb. de vitâ Constant. M. l. 1. c 33
• f

  Psal. 45. 17.
• g

  Psal. ••9 ••.
• h

  Exod. 18. 14. 17. &c.
• i

  2. Reg. 12. 2.
• k

  Iustice Ienkins Inconven. p. 4.
• l

  Ib.
• m

  Ib.
• n

  Ib. p. 5.
• o

  Exod. 25. 10.
• p

  Sit Ed. Coke In¦stit. part 4. c 1. Sect. Of what persons.
• q

  Mag, Charta. c. 38.
• r

  S. Mat. 10. 12.
• s

  Rom. 12. 14.
• t

  Gal. 1. 10.
• u

  Ib.
• x

  Rom. 6. 16.
• y

  S. Mat. 25. 30.
• z

  Defensionem Ecclesiae Angli∣c••••ae, that is gone. Just Ienkins Inconven. p. 5.
• a

  Sir Ed Coke In¦stit. part 4. c. 1. Sect. The mat∣ters.
• b

  Iustice Ienkins Inconvenien p. 5.
• c

  Ib. p. 4.
• d

  1 Chron. 13. 1.
• e

  Ib. v. 7.
• f

  2 Sam. 67. Vzzah died be∣fore the Ark, for usurping that, which did▪ not appertain to his vocation•• for this charge was given to the Priests, Gen. Note in 1 Chron 13 10.
• g

  Mai. 2 7.
• h

  Numb. 4 15.
• i

  1 Chron. 15. 13.
• k

  Ib.
• l

  Ib.
• m

  1 Chron. 15. 2.
• n

  Ib. v. 13.
• o

  Ib. ••. 12.
• p

  Ib. v. 1••.
• q

  Num. 4. 15.
• r

  1 Chron. 15. 26.
• s

  1 Chron. 17. 1.
• t

  Sir Id Coke In∣ssit. part. 4. c. 1. Sect. The mat∣ters.
• u

  Ib.
• x

  Iust. Ienkins In∣conven. p 5▪
• y

  Iust Ienkins In∣conven. p ••. Instit. ••••••. 4▪ c 1. Sect Of what persons▪
• z

  Sir Ed. Coke Ib.
• a

  1. Cor. 12. 22. 23
• b

  1 S. P••••. 2▪ 21.
• c

  Lex terrae p. 14
• d

  Sir Ed Coke In∣stit. part. •• c. 1. Sect. Of what persons.
• f

  Beda Eccles▪ hist l. 3. c. 7.
• g

  Bafil. M. ••p. ••1.
• h

  Rog. Hoveden. in Hen. ••. p▪ 601.
• i

  Confer. at Hampt. Court p. 36. & 82.
• k

  2 Reg. 13. 14.
• l

  1 Tim. 2: 1.
• m

  Occumen. in Ioc.
• n

  ••4 Ed. 1 c. 1. & 14. Ed. 3. c. 1.
• o

  Hos. 5. 0
• p

  Gen. note in Ioc.
• q

  Hos. 5. 10.
• r

  And then why may not the re∣movall of their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction be consented to, as well, if it prove inconvenient & prejudiciall to the Church. I. G. p. 4.
• s

  The abolition of the one, is no more against the Oath then of the other. I. G. p. 4.