Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	witness_v	writ_n	year_n	19	3	3.9585	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77858	An humble examination of a printed abstract of the answers to nine reasons of the House of Commons, against the votes of bishops in Parliament. Printed by order of a committee of the honourable House of Commons, now assembled in Parliament.	Burges, Cornelius, 1589?-1665.	1641 (1641)	Wing B5672; Thomason E164_14; ESTC R21636	38,831	83

yet both Church and Kingdome binde them to give themselves in all other particulars wholly to the Calling study and exercise of the Ministery which they have received in the Lord Collos 4 17 that they may fulfill it III. REAS. of the House of Commons BEcause Councels and Canons in severall ages do forbid them to meddle with Secular Affaires I. ANSVVER To this 3. Reason a five fold Answere is directed Councels and Canons against Bishops Votes in Parliament were never in use in this Kingdome and therefore they are abolished by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. II. ANSVVER So are they by the same Statute because the Lords have declared that the Bishops vote hereby the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm and all Canons that crosse with those are there abolished III. ANSVVER So are they by the same Statute as thwarting the Kings Prerogative to call Bishops by summons to vote in Parliament IV. ANSVVER So are they by the Vote of the House of Commons 21. Maii 1641. because they are not confirmed by the Act of Parliament EXAMEN I put all these Answers together because they will not need distinct Examinations they being much what coincident at least in the maine scope which is to keepe this third Reason out of the Court as being no sufficient evidence in Law to eject the Defendants out of their holds in Parliament against some of their desires It is acknowledged that no Councels or Canons not confirmed by Parliament have here in England any power to bind the subjects either of the Clergie or of the Laitie as hath been clearly Resolved upon the Question this Parliament in both houses But whether the House of Commons referre to any Canons so confirmed I may not take upon mee to affirme or deny because they have beene pleased to forbeare to cite those to which they doe referre Nor can it bee I thinke denyed that any Canons were in use within forty yeares before the Statute of 25. Hen. 8.19 to which I conceive the Answerer hath relation against Bishops votes in Parliament and so Bishops bee shot free from such Canons if urged against them in that capacity as binding Lawes But what neede the Answerer to have taken all this paines of multiplying of Answeres to shew that no Councels or Canons not ratified by Parliaments bee binding to Bishops in this or any case whatsoever For where hath the House of Commons so urged them Surely not here They have not vouched them as Lawes to thrust the Bishops out of the House of Peeres as sitting there against the Lawes already in being but as rationall Arguments and prudentiall Grounds to induce the Parliament to use their Legislative power to abrogate the Lawes if any be for their sitting there seeing that many godly Bishops in former Ages have made divers religious and wholesome Constitutions and Provisions against such exorbitant usurpations of the Clergie For however those Canons bee not formally obligatory here yet are they really worthy the Consideration of those who have a power to reduce Bishops by a binding Law to that which heretofore so many learned and pious men of their owne Coat and Calling have pronounced and decreed to be just and necessarie Further than this the House of Commons bee not engaged And who knows not that the Bishops and their Officers have and still doe urge divers Canons of forraigne Councels and domestique too that never were confirmed by Parliament upon both Clergie and Laitie when such Canons make for the Bishops or their Officers And these must take effect like the Laws of the Medes and Persians And yet now when they see such Canons turned upon themselves although not as Lawes but as rationall arguments only how witty they be in putting off all by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. which makes nothing at all against the House of Commons or this Reason produced by them And what offence or incongruity was it in the House of Commons to urge Canons and Councels against the Bishops in this particular when no Divine that ever complained of such usurpations of the Clergie hath held it incongruous to presse the very same against them I will not trouble my selfe or others with many instances that alone shall suffice which hath beene before * Exam. of the first Answe to the first Reason alledged out of Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterburie That Prelate taxing the excessive exorbitances and scandalous courses of the Clergie in the reigne of Richard 1. was not affraid to give this as the chiefe if not the only reason of all that prodigious breaking out Quod contra Orthodoxorum Patrum decreta c. that contrary to the decrees of the Orthodoxe Fathers the Clergie did too much intermeddle in worldly businesses If then so great a Prelate did well in laying this home to the charge of the Clergie that their not regarding the Decrees and Canons of former Councels was the maine cause of all the evills committed by them it cannot unbecome the House of Commons assembled in Parliament and passing a Bill against Bishops Votes in Parliament to produce and use the Canons and Councels of Bishops themselves against such courses held on and maintained by our Bishops against the judgement and solemne determinations of their owne Predecessors in the Prelacy in all the Churches of Christ As for the Declaration of the Lords that the Bishops Vote in Parliament by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme I meddle not with it because as I am ignorant of the Lawes and Statutes by which they vote so am I not acquainted with what the Lords have declared thereupon Only I have heard that divers Abbots voted as anciently in Parliament as Bishops yet are taken away Yea this Answerer hath informed mee Answer to Reason 7. that anciently the Bishops were assisted in Parliament with a double number of Mitred Abbots and Priors But Sir Edward Cooke could find no more in the Parliament Rolles but twenty seven Abbots and two Priors Commentary on Littleton Institutes Sec. 138. Nor doe I know the difference of the Tenures of the one or of the other or why in regard of originall right Bishops should rather vote in Parliament than Abbots and Priors so long as those Orders continued in being That great Master of Law before named tels us that both Abbots and Bishops were called to Parliament by the Kings Writ else they came not there Ibid. although they held of the King Per Baroniam Witnesse the Abbot of the Monasterie of Feversham founded by King Stephen who albeit hee held by Barony yet for that hee was not called by Writ hee never sate in Parliament And perhaps it is not simply a Barony that gives all the Bishops a right to fit there for I have read somewhere that all the Bishops of King Henry 8. his foundation have not Baronies annexed to them Yet they are called by Writ and vote as Peeres in Parliament But bee their right what it will I

the Reason is not abated Next what a scandall to Bishops is it that even since the Reformation begun in Edward the sixth his time the Bishops all the Bishops should oppose the restauration thereof in the beginning of Queene ELIZABETH after an interruption of scarce five yeares and an halfe Surely if Bishops can so farre degenerate in so short a time they are hardly to bee trusted with Voting in Parliament for any long continuance especially in an age of such a postatising of the most and warping of the best IX REASON of the House of Commons BEcause Bishops being Lords of Parliament it setteth too great a distance betweene them and the rest of their Brethren in the Ministery which occasioneth pride in them discontent in others and disquiet in the Church ANSVVER This is an Argument from Morall Philosophy which affords no Demonstrations All are not proud that Vote in Parliament nor discontented which are not so imployed This Argument fights onely against their Title of being LORDS which is not the Question at this time And were those Brethren so wise and well affected as they might be they would rejoyce rather that some of their owne profession are advanced to those places wherein they may bee capable upon all occasions of doing good offices to them and to this whole Church EXAMEN The first note is but a peece of mirth which is but little Demonstration of any great Morality in a Cause so serious If all bee not proud that vote in Parliament they have the more cause to be thankfull to God that keepes them humble in so great a temptation Yet usually all be not humble who say they are not proud Proud men of all others will be least knowne of Pride The Reason doth not say that all are proud who Vote but only that such high dignity not meet for them occasioneth pride and I hope it will not bee denyed by a Bishop to be a rule of Divinity as well as of Morall Philosophy that apparent and experienced occasions of sinne must bee avoyded as well as the sinne it selfe Besides this Answerer takes no notice of the maine basis of the Argument which is that this setteth too great a distance betweene the Bishops and the rest of their Brethren And to say truth there was no great Reason why hee should considering the Principles of Prelates which will never suffer them to subscribe to the truth of such a Proposition They never thinke the distance to be too great betweene themselves and the inferiour Clergie And the neerer to parity the neerer to Heresie Yet because this is an opinion not very fit to bee spoken out it was good policy to passe over this branch in silence and it were superfluous to labour in the asserting of that which the Answer doth not gain-say And though all bee not discontented that are not so imployed for some of them are Chaplaines Dependants Expectors Pretenders to the like places and so cannot but rejoyce to see them on Cock-Horse who will they hope one day give them the hand to lift them up behind them Yet there bee many moe who have more cause of just discontent at the infinite clation intolerable pride and boundlesse passions of some of the Bishops who looking up to their owne Lordly Titles doe take it for a part of their honour to looke downe upon their poore brethren with so much superciliousnesse as if they were not brethren but servants yea slaves ad servitutem natos Tiberius Tacit as Hee said of his subiugated fellow Senators of Rome Before this Lording in Parliament came up the old Rule among Bishops was Con. Carthag 4. ca. 34. Episcopus in quolibet loco sedens stare Presbyterum non patiatur But that Canon is now 1240. yeares old and so may well be forgotten Now it is well if he may after long atttendance bee admitted into the presence of a Bishop where he must stand bare headed while the Bishop sits or perhaps lyes along in State And whereas before they were not ashamed to call and honour them as Brethren now they have other names for them Dunce Asse Foole Iack Rogue Scotish spirited rascall any thing that a tongue set on fire of Hell can belch out Lo here the goodly fruit of Episcopacie advanced to the heigth of Peerage in Parliament and wel were it for many of them and their poore Clergie if this were the worst and greatest cause of griefe and discontent administred by the Bishops to many grave Godly painefull peaceable Ministers whose heavie burdens are presented in multitudes of Petitions to the present Parliament and therefore I forbeare to relate them But where it is said that this Argument of the House of Commons fights only against their Title of Lords the Answer misreports it For it marcheth not fighteth against them as Lords of Parliament now if to be a Lord in Parliament and to Vote as Peeres there be not the same thing the Answer is worthy of Consideration otherwise it can expect no entertainment but neglect The House of Commons did purposely use this phrase here because the very Reason it selfe is grounded partly upon the Title yet so as that they consider a Bishop as a Peere admitted to Vote in Parliament These two are convertible and equipollent expressions He is a Lord of Parliament Ergo he Votes He Votes in Parliament Ergo a Lord of Parliament And this Lordship in Parliament is that which lifts him up so high above his brethren as makes him to be and they to fare the worse all dayes of his life Wherefore to conclude all such is my folly that I know not what wisedome or good affection it were for those Brethren to rejoyce much to see any of their owne Profession to bee exposed to so great temptations by being advanced to that place which is so farre from rendring them capable or apt to doe good offices to either Church or State as that it makes them more unapt unto and uncapable of doing any good at all either in Parliament Pulpit or Consistory For it puts them out of their Calling unapts them for the proper worke of it and is not seldome secretly followed by the just judgment of GOD with a spirit of coldnesse and benumdnesse of those excellent parts wherewith many of them before abounded with a spirit of giddinesse in point of judgment with a spirit of contempt of those Ordinances which formerly they prized in point of affection with a spirit of pride over their brethren in point of behaviour with a spirit of persecution of the power of godlinesse in point of jurisdiction and with a spirit of opposition to the perfect Reformation of this whole Church See the close of last precedent Answer in point of Legislative power in Parliament ERGO Bishops ought not to Vote in Parliament FINIS Pag. 2. l. 28. after acceptat there should be a short line thus as implying some words omitted which in the Author be interposed p. 4. l. 7. r. indicare p. 26. l. 5. r. avocation p. 34. l. ult r. 18. ibid. in Mar. dele 1317. r. M. 17. p. 63. l. 14. r. could p. 75. l. 25. r. nati