lesse then God onely That he is in the power or under the Command of God onely from whom he is the second and after whom he is the first Optatus saies as much Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem There is none above the Emperor but God alone who made him Emperor And what the Emperor was in the Empire the same is the King of England within his own Dominions For the Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in subjection to no Realm but IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT TO GOD AND TO NONE OTHER Hence is it called an Empire and the Imperiall Crown of this Realm 7. The Greeke Commentators are so full for obedience to Kings that they will not yeeld that an Apostle may be freed from this subjection This doctrine S. Paul justifies I stand saith he at Caesars Judgment seat WHERE I OUGHT TO BE JUDGED And after this appeal he resolves that no man not the President himself may judge him or deliver him to be judged by any other Nay after this the President himself might not release him So King Agrippa Had not this man appealed to Caesar he might have been set at liberty Are not these strong evidences of the Kings Supremacy That learned Grotius gives a sure rule whereby to know on whom the Supremacy is settled That saith he is the Supreme civill power cujus actus alterius juri non subsunt whose actions are not subject to any other mans censure or Law But such is the King Qui sub nullo alio sed sub solo Deo agit who lives in subjection to none but to God onely For who may say unto him what doest thou When therefore David had sinned he cries out unto the Lord In te solum peccavi against thee onely have I sinned thou onely canst call me to account Hence is that resolution of all the learned of this Church in the time of King Henry VIII among whom were Bishop Carnmer and Bishop Latymer Although Princes do otherwise then they ought to do yet God hath assigned NO JUDGES OVER THEM in this world but will have the judgement of them reserved to himself And the judgement of the great Lawyers in France is this Rex solus THE KING ONELY IS THE SUPREME LORD of all the Subjects aswell Lay as Ecclesiasticall within his own Dominions All other men live under judgment cum deliquerint peccant Deo peccant legibus mundi and when they offend they sinne against God and against the Laws of the Land 8. But I know you relye more upon the Laws of this Land then upon the Laws of God and upon our Lawyers rather then the Fathers and out best Divines I shall therefore transgresse my profession shew you what their opinion is This Realme say the Statutes is an Empire whereof the KING IS THE SUPREME HEAD and consisteth of the Spiritualty and Temporaâ—ty OVER WHICH THE KING HATH WHOLE POWER AND JURISDICTION Are you of this Realm or are you not Iâ—â—on be then are you either of the spiritualty or temporaâ—ty And if of either then wholly under the Kings power The whole power is his Why seek you to rob him of it Of this Realme the King not the Parliament is the Supreme head One head not two He that makes two Supremacies makes a Bul and he that seâ—â— two heads upon one body frames a monster 9. Indeed they are so far from having any Supremacy that they are Subjects as well in as out of Parliament When King Edward the Confessor had all the Earles and Barons of the Kingdome assembled in Parliament he cals them all his leige men My Lords you that are MY LEIGE MEN. Perchance you may say the King calls them so but that makes them not so You shall therefore have their own acknowledgement in Parliament thus We your most loving faithfull and obedient SUBJECTS REPRESENTING THE THREE ESTATES OF YOUR REALME of England Thus the whole Parliament united into one body False therefore is that proposition that the King is Major singulis sed minor universis greater then any and lesse then all the Inhabitants of this Realme For here the representative body of the three Estates of this Kingdome assembled in Parliament in their highest capacitie acknowledge themselves to be the Queens Subjects and her most obedient Subjects because to her they thus assembled did justly owe both subjection and obedience which none that are supreme can owe. And these are due to his Majestie à singulis ab universis from one and all from every one singly and from all joyntly 10. Secondly when they are assembled in Parliament they Petition as well as out of Parliament This is evident by the Acts themselves wherein we read that our Soveraigne Lord the King by the assent aforesaid and at the PRAIER OF HIS COMMONS The same words are repeated 2 Hen. 5. c. 6 9. And in Queen Elizabeths time the Parliament humble themselves in this manner That it MAY PLEASE YOUR HIGHNESSE that it may be enacted c. I might come down lower but I shall satisfie my selfe with Sir Edward Cokes report who assures us that in ancient times all Acts of Parliament were IN FORME OF PETITIONS Mr. Geree himselfe acknowledgeth they should be so now The King saith he may passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy when HIS HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT think it convenient and PETITION FOR IT Either then the Houses have no Supremacy oâ— else they humble themselves too low when they Petition His Majestie But this Supremacy of Parliament is one of the new lights that were lately wafted into this Land in a Scottish Cookboate 11. Thirdly what Supremacy can there be in those that may not lawfully convene or consult till the King summon them and must dissolve and depart when the King command The Writ it self runs thus prelatis Magnatibus nostris QUOS VOCARI FECIMUS To the Prelates and our Nobles WHOM WE HAVE CAUSED TO BE CALLED And Sir Robert Cotton out of Elie Register tels us that Parliaments were assembled at first as now Edicto Principis not at their own but at the Kings pleasure And Sir Edward Coke assures me that None can begin continue or dissolve the Parliament but BY THE KINGS AUTHORITY And let me tell you that if his Majestie shall withdraw himself from Parliament it is not for your great Masters to inforce him to return but to pray his presence and to inform his Majestie that if he forbear his presence among them fourty dayes that then by an ancient Statute they may return absque domigerio Regis to their severall homes This is all they ought or may do 12. Fourthly whereas according to your words the Parliament is to regulate all other Courts the Court of Parliament is to be regulated by the
hearted Englishmen observe this that are lovers of their Countreys liberties 21. We have seen what the King hath granted sworn as also in what order and that the Oath is but one And yet Mr. Geree goes forward as if it were certain without question that this to the Clergie were a severall Oath from that to the people Confidently therefore he presseth it that the King cannot afterwards ingage himself Whereas he ingaged himself alike to his people at the same instant that he would preserve the priviledges both of Clergie and Commonaltie because both his people Now why His Majestie should be bound to maintain the priviledges of that one estate rather then of the other I cannot conceive Especially when I consider that the priviledges of the Clergie are granted to God without whose blessing nor privilege nor people can be preserved The King then herein non câ—â—sit jure suo hath not yeelded up the Clergie or his right to any other neither can he with a safe conscience do so But since Magna Charta hath been so often confirmed even by 32. severall Acts of Parliament the Parliament in that sense you take it hath parted with that right it had by these severall Grants and Confirmations and we ought in justice to enjoy our priviledges and they to maintain them unlesse they mean to affront and subvert so many Acts of Parliament and that main Charter and honour of this Kingdom As if they onely had the judgement of infa 〈…〉 ibilitie which Scotland denies Declarat of the Kingdom of Scotland p. 19. CHAP. IX How far forth and wherein the Clergie is subject to a Parliament and to what Parliament 1. THe net is prepared the snare layed danger is at hand and yet we must not forsake or betray the truth in time of need The noose layed by our Church adversary is this The Clergie and their priviledges are subject to the Parliament or they are not To this we must say yea or nay and the man thinks he hath us sure enough But the man is mistaken one mesh is not well made up and I must tell him that we are subject to the Parliament and we are not Subject we are to the Parliament consisting of head and members but not to the members without the head not to the members alone since we are subject to the members meerly for the heads sake and in those things onely wherein he subjects us to them Set apart the head and we are fellow members fellow subjects For Iowe no temporall subjection to any or many Subjects but onely for the Kings sake Though the Parliament be a great a representative an honourable body yet it is but a body And that body with every member thereof owe obedience and service to the head not one to another I say nothing if I prove it not by Scripture Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake Whether it be to THE KING AS SUPREME or unto Governors AS UNTO THOSE THAT ARE SENT BY HIM by the King As if he should say Submit your selves to the King for the Lords sake and to other Governors for the Kingâ— sake For Kingâ— have their Commission from God but all State Governors from the King and Iowe them no subjection beyond their Commission If then it shall please the King to give the members of Parliament power over us we must submit either by doing or suffering Either by doing what they shall command or by suffering what shall be inflicted on us 2. Subjection is not due to them as they are great or rich men but as they are the Kings Ministers This is evident because all Commissions breath and expire with the King Upon death of the King follows necessarily the dissolution of Parliament None of us that are meer Subjects have at such a time power one over another but onely by advice none of us authority but onely as this or that man hath gained esteem by his wisedome and integritie Onely the Preisthood never dyes because Christ ever lives from whom the Preist hath his Commission But all other subordinate powers expect a new Commission from the succeeding Prince This experience taught us upon the death of Queen Elizabeth 3. Though this be truth yet no truth can charge us that we claime exemption from secular power You see we acknowledge our selves subject to the King as also to those Ministers that he sets over us But as these may not exceed their Commissions given by the King neither may the King exceed his Commission granted him by God The Kings Commission is like the Preists ad aedificationem non ad destructionem for upholding the Church and service of God not for the ruining of either And the King may not grant a larger Commission to his ministers then himselfe hath received from the King of Heaven His Commission is to be a nursing father to the Church not a step-father to preserve to her all her rights and dues to see that she be provided with necessaries and to protect her against her profaine and sacrilegious enemies Surely if our Soveraigne hath intrusted the Parliament with any power over the Church and Church-men it is but with some part of that wherewith God hath enriched him and no other 4. Well if we be under Parliamentary power it cannot rationally be conceived to be the meaning of the King so to subject us to the Parliament as to forget or renounce his hath by destroying the priviledges of the Clergie which he hath swoâ—ne to preserve against or in dishonour to that power to which they are legally subject How far we are legally subject to this Parliament I know and how far we are or may be under Parliamentary power I have alreadie declared The power we are legally subject to is his Royall Majestie and it is not it cannot be the meaning of the Kings oath to preserve our priviledges against his own power or to exempt us from his Iurisdiction Let the world judge whether your or our priviledges and principles be distructive of legall power We are bound by Canon faithfully to keepe and observe and as much as in us lieth to cause to be observed and kept of others all and singular Laws and Statutes made for restoring to the Crown of this Kingdome the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiasticall AGAINST ALL USVRPED and forraign POWER Marke that it is not onely against forraign but it is against usurped and all usurped power Shew me if you can one such loyall Canon or resolution from any Presbyteriall Assembly This Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall is by the Lawes and Statutes restored to the Imperiall Crown of this Realme and not upon the Parliament because it is by Gods Word settled upon the Crowne 5. This authority in causes Ecclesiasticall was in the godly Kings amongst the Jews Christian Emperors in the primitive Church and hath been exercised by the
But though S. Paul stand upon his privileges and e magnifie his office yet f he acknowledgeth himself to be Cesars subject and that at his tribunall HE OUGHT TO BE JUDGED 7. Our Saviour himself had severall Relations he was the Son of David and the Lord of David the Son of David according to his humanitie but the Lord of David in his Deitie As Lord of all he receives tithes and sacrifices h as a Subject he payes tribute to Cesar and when an arraigned person i he acknowledgeth Judge Pilate to have power against him Besides this he is a King a Priest and a Prophet a King to command a Priest to offer sacrifice and a Prophet to foretell what he sees meet Nay there is hardly a Citizen of London but hath a treble relation to severall privileges 1. to the generall Rights as he is a free denison of this Nation 2. to others as he is Citizen of London and to a third sort as he is free of this or that Company And shall the meanest Freeman enjoy his severall Rights when the Ministers and Stewards of God are cut out of all Are we dealt with as the Dispensers of Gods high and saving mysteries Nay are we so well dealt with as the lowest members of this Nation Is not this the way to lead in Jeroboams Priests to fill the Pulpits with the scum of the people and to bring the Priesthood into utter contempt O all ye that passe by the way behold and consider if ever the like shame befell any Nationall Church that is threatened to ours at this day But thus it comes to passe when there is no King in the Israel of God 8. If this distinction between Clergie and Laity be a branch of Popery how comes it to passe that those great Reformers and zealous enemies to Popery suffered the Clergie to continue a distinct Province of themselves and that they did not with Popery quite extinguish this distinction Why doth Q. Elizabeth call them a great State of this Kingdome if they be no State at all Why did King Edward VI. that vertuous Lady Queene Elizabeth and wise King Iames summon the Bishops to convene in Convocation as a distinct society and to vote in the House of Peers as Lords spirituall plainly by title distinguished from the Lords temporall Vndoubtedly say you all priviledges of the Clergie that are or were contrariant to the Laws of the Land were abolisht in the reign of Henry the eight They were so It follows therefore undoubtedly that these priviledges which were continued through so many Princes raigns that were enemies to Popery were neither Popish nor contrariant to the Laws of the Land And yet some of those times were not over favourable to the Clergie 9. That we are a distinct society or Corporation from the people is evident by the Coronation Oath by Magna Charta by severall Acts of Parliament and by Scripture itself The Coronation Oath observes the distinction of Clergie and People and assures us that they shall be distinctly preserved Magna Charta does the like and the Acts of Parliament distinguish the Kings subjects into Clergie and Laity allotting to each their severall priviledges allowing the people to take many courses which the Clergie may not This distinction is approved by Scripture where the Lord takes the Levites from among the children of Israel S. Paul assures us that Every High Preist is TAKEN FROM AMONG MEN. And the Scholiast tels us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is there taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Apostle had said he is set apart from men from the Common people This exemption or distinction which you are pleased to call a branch of Popery or of Antichristian usurpation is here justified by Gods owne word And Josephus that was well skilled in Moses writings and Judaicall Antiquities testifies that Moses did seperate the tribe of Levi from the communitie of the people He might have said that God himself did it for the text saith plainly that THE LORD SEPERATED THE TRIBE OF LEVI to beare the Arke of the Covenant to stand before the Lord to administer unto him and to blesse in his name From that time forward they were not numbred amongst the rest of the people the Lords they were and the rest of the tribes were strangers to their office The very light of nature taught the heathen to distinguish between Preist and people and to allow them distinct priviledges And the light of Scripture taught Christians to do the like hence is it that not onely in the Canons of the Church but also in the Imperiall constitutions this distinction between the Clergie and Laity is most frequent and familiar Otherwise what strange confusion must necessarily have overspread the face of the Church if this distinction had not been religiously preserved What diverse would not see these times have enforced us to feele 10. And yet for all this we say not that we are exempt from secular power neither set we up two Supremacies This will prove to be your Popish or Anarchicall doctrine yours I say that would so fain cast this aspersion upon us For do not you tell us that ther 's a Supremacie in the King and a Supremacie in the Parliament Are not here two Supremacies set up by you that so you may make the Parliament Law-lesse and subject to no power We detest and have abjured the Popes Supremacie and not onely that but all other Supremacies besides the Kings within these his Majesties Dominions and Countries For we have sworne that King Charles is THE ONELY SUPREME GOVERNOR of all his Realms over all persons in all causes But you induce the peoples Supremacie Wheras we know no Coordination but a Subordination of all persons severally and jointly to his Majestie and to his Majestie onely within all his Dominions 11. We protest before God and the world sincerely and from the heart that the King is major singulis major universis greater then any and greater then all the Members of his Dominions whether in or out of Parliament and that he is homo a Deo secundus solo Deo minor second to God and lesse then God onely To this our best Lawyers bear Testimonie even that the King is Superior to all and Inferior to none And our Acts of Parliament say the same Thus much in substance we have sworne and we unfainedly beleeve that all the world cannot absolve us of this Oath As therefore we hitherto have done so shall we still by Gods grace bear faith and true Allegiance to his Majestie his heirs and successors though it be to the hazard of our liberty of our estates and lives Yea we acknowledge our selves obliged to the Laws of the Land in all those things which concern the right and peaceable administration of the State To the King we pay first fruits and
with the chief Priest the Priest of the first Order And is it not so now Have we not just cause to say to you Ye take too much upon you ye Presbyters ye sons of Bishops What Is it not enough for you that God hath separated you from the multitude that he hath taken you neer himself to do the service of the Lords house and to administer the Sacraments but you must have the Bishops office But you must be giving Orders as well as the Bishop Surely this is to assume that power to your selves which God never committed to any Presbyter while a Presbyter 24. Last of all I cannot but observe that when the Lord had punished these schismaticall and seditious persons the tumult ariseth afresh against Moses and Aaron they cry out upon them as murderers as if these two had slain the people of the Lord for thus they call that factious and damnable crue But the Lord decided the controversie and shewed manifestly who were His first by consuming the mutineers with the plague and secondly by causing Aarons rod when it seemed to be quite dead to revive even to bud and blossom and bear fruit in the Tabernacle Thus the mouthes of the rebellious Children were stopped and Gods Ordinance justified Oh that salvation were given unto Israel out of Sion Oh that the Lord would deliver his people out of Captivity Oh that we might see Aarons rod once more bud and blossom and bring forth Almonds Then should Jacob rejoyce and Israel should be right glad CHAP. XVII Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdom 1. IN this Treatise you blame those that seem to set up two Supremacies and yet you cannot see the same beam in your own eye You are of kin sure to those Lamiae those witches that were blind at home but quick-sighted abroad Thou that findest fault with another doest the same thing For do not you say plainly that there 's a Supremacie in the King and a Supremacy in the Parliament I hope you know your own language Clodius accusat It is an usuall thing for your confederacie to charge the King and his good Subjects with that which your selves are either guilty of or intend to induce 2. What two Supremacies two superlatives at the same time in the same Kingdom Is this possible What because there is summus and supremus because there are two superlatives of the same word shall we therefore have two Supremacies in the same Realm Is not this flatly against the Oath of Supremacy Wherein you and I and your great Patriots have sworn that the Kings Highnesse is the ONELY SUPREME GOVERNOUR OF THIS REALME and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countreys But the King hath been so long out of your eye that he is now out of your minde and the Parliament shall at least be his corrivall in the Supremacy Take heed take heed of perjury I can tell you of severall Acts of Parliament since the Reformation that lay a penaltie of fourty pounds upon every particular perjurie If His Majestie had all these forfeitures they would satisfie his debts and make him a glorious King after all these pressures 3. But you clip His Majesties wings though ye make him flie and tell us as you conceive that the Supremum jus Dominii the supreme right of Dominion which is above all Laws is not in the King To say it is in him is in this in our State a manifest error Why what 's become of the Oath of Supremacy Have we forgot that Was not that provided for this State In our State this is no error in yours it may be or else you are in a manifest error Certainly the members have sworn that the King is the ONLY SUPREME GOVERNOUR OF THIS REALM or State And that he is so as well IN ALL Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall If He be the onely Supreme how shall we find another Supreme or an equall to him within his own Dominions If He be so in all things and causes both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall what thing or cause is there wherein he is not the onely Supreme or wherein he hath any other Supreme joyned to him For certain these particles Onely and All are exclusive of any copartner 4. But you will chalk out a way whereby to elude or avoid this Oath and the restrictions therein There 's a supreme Parliament as well as a supreme King Or a Supremacy is in the Parliament and a Supremacy in the King An excellent Arithmetician he hath learned to multiply of one and one onely he hath made two Thus have they raised division out of unity and from hence are these distractions and divisions which are so repugnant to the weal of the people This is one of their new lights which is borrowed from their multiplying glasse that makes a molehill as bigge as a mountain and a Spider as large as a Sea-crab But when the multiplying glasse is layed aside the spider will be but a spider 5. Well let us see how you make good this twofold Supremacy The Supremacy or the Supremum jus Dominii that is over all Laws figere or refigere to make or disanull them at pleasure is neither in the King nor in the Houses apart but in both conjoyned Here then we are fallen back to one Supremacy And this Supremacy is not the Kings onely but it is the Parliaments as well as his This is to skip from Monarchy to Aristocracy Kingdoms indure no corrivals and Kings have no Peers But this man hath found one thing wherein the King hath Peers and consequently is not the onely supreme Governour of this Realm Strange how that Parliament and all since that time have been so mistaken as not to see their own right but to ascribe all to the King and that in a point of so high concernment Surely they wanted this young Preacher to bring them in a new light But I beleeve it will appeare that the Supremacie over all Laws to make or disanull them is in the King alone at the Petition of both houses and that those Parliaments knew full well 6. For satisfaction in this point I shall observe what Scriptures Fathers and some modern writers have resolved concerning Kings S. Petter plainly and fully ascribes Supremacy to the King Submit your selves saith he to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake Whether it be to the KING as SUPREME or unto Governors as unto them that are sent by him Kings are sent by God to them therfore we submit for the Lords sake All other civill Governours are sent by the King to them therefore we submit for the Kings sake that sent them Answerable hereunto are those passages in Tertullian that the Emperor is homo a Deo secundus solo Deo minor in Dei solius potestate a quo secundus post quem primus the man second to God and
Sir Edward Coke because a Lawyer and a States-man This great learned man assures us that It is a more grievous and dangerous persecution to destroy the Priesthood then the Priests For by robbing the Church and spoyling spirituall persons of their revenues in short time insues GREAT IGNORANCE OF TRUE RELIGION and of the service of God and thereby GREAT DECAY OF CHRISTIAN PROFESSION For none will apply themselves or their sons or any other they have in charge to the Study of Divinitie when after long and painfull studie they shall have nothing whereupon to live Will not our Church then come to a sweet passe And yet to this passe we are almost brought 16. All the inconvenience that Mr. Geree presseth is this that we are not subject to the Parliament to be whipped and stripped as they please If we be not subject to them I am sure they have made us so But how far forth and wherein we are subject to the Parliament and what Parliament shall speedily be taken into consideration Chap. 9. 17. You speak much of a former and a latter Oath the former to the people the latter to the Clergy As if His Majestie took two severall Oaths at two severall times Whereas in truth it is but one Oath as you acknowledge p. 1. taken at the same time and as it were in a breath Indeed there are severall priviledges proposed to the King which he first promiseth and afterwards swears to maintain As for the promise it is first made in grosse to the people of England afterwards to the severall States of this Realm but first to the Clergie by name In generall to the people of England the King promiseth to keep the Laws and Customs to them granted by his lawful and religious Predecessors Under this word People are comprehended the Nobilitie Clergie and Commons of this Kingdom Afterwards distinguishing them into severall ranks he begins with the Clergie promising that he will keep to them the Laws Customes and Franchizes granted to them by the glorious King S. Edward his Predecessâ—â— Secondly he promiseth to keep peace and GODLY AGREEMENT entirely to his power both to God the holy Church the Clergie and the People Here also you see his promise to the Church and Clergie goes before that to the People In the third branch His Majestie promiseth to his power to cause Law Justice and discretion in mercy and truth to be executed in all HIS JUDGEMENTS to all before named Next he grants to hâ—ld and keep to the Comminalty of this HIS KINGDOM the Laws and rightfull Customes which they have TO THE HONOUR OF GOD mark that so much as in him lyeth The Commonalty you see are not mentioned till we come to the fourth clause And last of all lest the Bishops though implied in Church and Clergie should seem to be omitted and an evasion left to some malignant spirits to work their ruine and yet seem to continue a Clergie the King promiseth to the Bishops in particular that he will preserve and maintain to them all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that he will be their Protector and Defender How then can he desert them or leave them out of his protection 18. These promises made the King ariseth is led to the Communion Table where laying his hand upon the holy Evangelists he makes this solemne Oath in the sight of all the people The things that I have promised I shall perform and keep So help mâ— God and the contents of this Book Though then the promises be severall the Oath is but one and so no former no latter Oath not two but one Oath The Kings Oath to the people is not first taken but you are wholly mistaken 19. If any man desire to know who the People and Commonalty of this Kingdom are let him look into Magna Charta where he shall find them marshalled into severall estates Corporations and conditions There you shall also see the severall Laws Customes and Franchizes which the King and his religious Predecessors have from time to time promised and sworn to keep and maintain That Great Charter begins with the Church Inprimis concessimus Deo First we have granted to God and by this our present Charter have confirmed f in behalf of our selves and our Heirs for ever that the Church of England be free and that she have her Rights entire and her Liberties unmaimed Now Sir Edw Coke that Oracle of the Law tels us that this Charter for the most part is but DECLARATORY OF THE ANCIENT COMMON LAWS OF ENGLAND to the observation wherof THE KING WAS BOUND AND SWORN And not onely the King but the Nobles and Great Officers were to be SWORN to the observation of Magna Charta which is confirmed by thirtie and two Acts of Parliament 20. The Liberties of this Church as I have gleaned them from Magna Charta and Sir Edw Coke are these First that the possessions and goods of Ecclesiasticall persons be freed from all unjust exactions and oppressions Secondly that no Ecclesiasticall person be amerced or fined according to the value of his Ecclesiasticall Benefice but according to his Lay tenement and according to the quantitie of his â—ffence Thirdly that the King will neither sell nor to farm set nor take any thing from the demeans of the Church in the vacancie Fourthly that all Ecclesiasticall persons shall enjoy all their lawfull Jurisdictions and other rights wholly without any diminution or subtraction whatsoever Fiftly A Bishop is regularly the Kings IMMEDIATE OFFICER to the Kings Court of Justice in causes Ecclesiasticall Sixtly It is a Maxime of the Common Law that where the right is spirituall and the remedy therefore onely by the Ecclesiasticall Law the conusans thereof doth appertain to the Ecclesiasticall Court Seventhly Sir Edw Coke tels us from Bracton that no other but the King can demand or command the Bishop to make inquisition Eightly Every Archbishoprick and Bishoprick in England are holden of the King per Baroniam by Baronry And IN THIS RIGHT THEY THAT WERE CALLED BY WRIT TO THE PARLIAMENT WERE LORDS OF PARLIAMENT And every one of these when any Parliament is to be holden ought ex debito Justitiae by due of Justice to have a Writ of Summons And this is as much as any Temporall Lord can chalenge The conclusion of all is this that neither the King nor His Heirs or Successors will ever endeavour to infringe or weaken these Liberties And if this shall be done BY ANY OTHER nihil valeat pro nullo habeatur let it be of no force and passe for nothing Hence it is provided by Act of Parliament that if any Judgement be given CONTRARY TO ANY OF THE POINTS OF THE GREAT CHARTER by the Justices or by any other of the Kings Ministers whatsoever IT SHALL BE UNDONE AND HOLDEN FOR NOUGHT Let all true
Kings of this Realme according to an Act of Parliament in that behalfe An. 32. Henr. 8. c. 36. According to this Statute were the Bishops and the rest of the Clergie assembled bâ— King Edward VI. and Queene Elizabeth for composing the Articles of Religion which were allowed to be holden and executed within this Realme by the assent and consent of those Princes and confirmed by the subscription of the Arch-Bishops Bishops of the upper House and of the whole Clergie in the neather House in their Convocation As is to be seen in the Râ—tification of those Articles Agreeable to the same Statute the Arch-Bishops Bishops and other of the Clergie were summoned called by K. Iames to treat of Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiasticall Which were by them agreed upon An. Dom. 1603. and were by the same King of blessed memorie ratified and confirmed by his Letters Patents And I am certaine that we have subscribed and sworne That the Kings Majestie under God is THE ONELY SUPREME GOVERNOR of this Realme and of all other his Highnes Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall or ECCLESIASTICALL THINGS OR CAUSES AS TEMPORALL 6. The substance of your touchie argument is I hope satisfied in the eye of every moderate and discreet man The rest that follows is but a Rhetoricall flourish or reiteration of what passed before as if the Kings Oath to the Clergie could not be consistent with the priviledges of the Nation formerly by him sworn to As if without peradventure there were a former and a latter Oath which I have proved to be most false And as if we of the Clergie were none of the Nation Or as if we were bastards and not legitimate slaves and not free-born subjects And yet blessed be God diverse of our Orthodox Clergie are as well descended as any that speake against them Is this my good brother to reverence the Preists and count them holy Is this the way to invite men of worth to incorporate themselves into your Presbyteriall Hierarchie Surely we are a part of this Nation to whom this promissory Oath was made Our Rights consisted comfortably many yeers with the priviledges of the people to the honour of this Nation and to the astonishment of others With what face then can you say that the Kings Oath to the Clergie cannot be consistent with the priviledges of the Nation Whereas it is evident that in three or foure yeers this Nation is so weary of the Presbyteriall encrochments that they can no longer possibly endure them 7. But by your words it seems when and while the Clergy were a distinct corporation from the Laitie the Oath had this sense viz. that the Kings oath to the Clergie was consistent with the priviledges of the Nation That must be the sense if I know what sense is But the Clergie were and are a distinct corporation In ceasing to be Popish we are not ceased to be Preists neither is that necessary and just exemption or distinction yet abolisht If it be why are you so zealous to distinguish us and our privileges from the people and their priviledges Whereas if we be all one without distinction our priviledges must needs be the very same and so no inconsistencie at all But of this more fully Chap. 11. 8. A Popish exemption it was for the Clergie to be free from the Kings Commands But this is abolished and we readily submit to every Ordinance of man and wish that you and your Assembly brethren would learn the same Christian obedience A Popish exemption it is for the Bishops and their Churches to know no Governor but the Pope That also is disclaimed and at the Kings Coronation it is publickly acknowledged that the Bishops and their Churches are under the Kings government The Antichristian usurpation is condemned and true Christian subjection justified The King is the â—nely Supreme O vernâ—r to him we owe obedience and to others for him and under him And though all Antichristian usurpation were abolishâ—d upon the death of Queen Mary yet in all the Acts since that time to this present Parliament the Lords spirituall are distinguished from the Lords temporall the Clergy from the Laity and the Convocâ—tion from the Parliament Yea even in these times of confusion the Clergie are doomed by your great Masters to be unfit for Lay or Civill imploiment If there be no such men then was that sentence sencelesse while we are of the same Corporation with them we are as capable of any office of State as the rest of our fellow-subjects even to be Members of both Houses But this distinction is still on foot the Kings Oath therefore to us is still binding especially since our immunities may as well subsist with the priviledges of the Commons as the priviledges of Bristoll with the Franchizes of London 9. Indeed you may well twit us with the change of our condition for we have just cause with Bishop Latymer to complain that there is a plain intent to make the Clergie slavery which was far from the intention of this Oath till your faction prevailed in the change But what inconvenience will follow if we confesse that the intention of the Oath was changed with the change of our condition Not that which you aime at For therein and so far forth onely is the intention of the oath changed as our condition is changed But wherein is our condition changed A Church we are still Bishops and Preists we are still onely our condition is thus far changed before we were subject to Antichristian usurpation but now we are altogether for Christian Allegiance Before our Bishops and Preists were subject to the Pope but we submit wholly to the King And I hope we shall not fare the worse for that The Kings Oath is to protect the Church as it is not as it was not as she was popish and superstitious but as she is Catholick and Apostolike Then she was subject to the Pope and free from the King but now she is subject to the King and free from the Pope But you would faine enforce us to our old vomit for we cannot but discern that a far more intollerable tyranny is drawing on by how much the more dangerous it is to be subject to a multitude then to one to a multitude at home then to one abroad Both of them being equally destructive to the liberty of the Church and alike contrary to the Word of God 10. Besides the change of our condition is either for the better or the worse If for the worse this is to maintain Popery He that saith our condition is changed for the worse justifies that it is better for us to be subject to the Pope then to the King If for the better then must the intention of the Oath be changed for the better For are not these your words that the change of the Clergies condition must needs change the intention of the Oath Without question the intention of
the Oath was to protect all his subjects in their severall places dignities add degrees and not to suffer them to oppresse or devoure one another to see justice done for them and upon them according to the Laws established and not to yeeld to any Law that may be distructive to the rights or liberties of any of his subjects 11. The intention of the Oath is to maintain the ancient legall and just rights of the Church and to preserve unto the Bishops due law and justice We desire no more and no man may with reason deny this to be the intention of the Oath The The words are plaine Sir will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirme the Laws Customs and Franchizes granted to the Clergie by the glorious King S. Edward your Predecessor c. And again Our Lord and King we beseech you to pardon and grant and preserve unto us and to the Churches committed to your charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice All this the King hath sworne to performe and hath acknowledged that by right he ought to do it And would you have him to be forsworne and to neglect that which by right he ought to make good Surely you would make an excellent ghostly father for the man of sin 12. Neither is this the peculiar opinion of us Church-men onely that great Oracle of the Law resolves that The King is bound to maintain and defend the rights and inheritance of the Church And he gives two reasons for it first because the Church is alwaies in her minoritie it is under age Seconly she is in Wardship to our Lord the King And then he addes Nec est juri consonum quod infra aetatem existentes PER NEGLIGENTIAM CUSTODUM SVORUM exhaeredationem patiantur seu ab actione repellantur Neither is it consonant to the Law nor yet to conscience that those who are under age should either be spoiled of their inheritance or barred from action at Law THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR GUARDIANS Especially Kings being by divine Ordinance made Guardians and nursing fathers to the Church Es 49. 23. 13. You see we have divine and humane Law for what we say we claime no priviledges long since by Act of Parliament abolisht We desire not his Majestie to contradict but to ratifie bis Oath and to maintain those Laws he found in force But as for you all your endeavour is to perswade the Laity that our weale is their woe and that the upholding of the Clergie in their due and ancient state would be certain ruine to the Commons As if our Priviledges were like Pharaohs lean kine ready to devoure the fat of the Laity as if our aime were to reduce Antichristian usurpation to subvert the ancient Laws Whereas every man may readily discern that these are but pretences The true end aimed at in these invectives and incentives is that the caninus appetitus the wilde ravenous stomachs of M. Geree and his fellow Presbyterians may be satisfied But at seven yeers end they will be as lank and hungrie as Pharaohs famished kine It was so with King Henry VIII and it will be so with all that tread in his steps 14. It s apparent then to make the intention of that Oath to be false and fallacious and under pretence that it may not be against legall alteration so to wrest it that it may be to the ruine of a great body of his subjects and those not the worst that it shall be against all Law and conscience for f that Law which is unjust is no Law That it shall be to the subversion of the true Religion and service of God to the distraction of his people and to the eternall dishonor of himself and the whole Kingdome makes his Oath in your sense utterly unlawfull And if unlawfull then is it not obligatory either in foro conscienciae or in foro justitiae either before God or any good man unlesse it be to do the contrary But if this Oath in the true and literall sense be not against legall alteration but against unjust oppression sacriledge and profanenesse manifest it is that it is both lawfull and obligatory and the King may not without violation of his Oath and certain danger of the pure and undefiled Religion passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy what ever His Houses of Parliament think or Petition or presse never so violently 15. But your opinion is that the King may passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy And what I thinke or what the King thinks it is no matter if His Houses of Parliament think it convenient he may do it It is wonder you had not said he must do it Indeed you say that which is equivalent for are not these your words He cannot now deny consent to their abolition without sin And if the King without sin cannot deny it then must he assent unto it Thus by your words it seemes he is at their disposing not they at his Indeed if a man may beleeve you the power is in the Houses and not in the King For do not you say that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with the consent of the King to alter whatsoever c. And againe There 's no question of POWER IN THE PARLIAMENT to over-rule it The power it seemes is in them consent onely in the King And here The King may passe a Bill when His Houses think it convenient Well he may and he may choose he may consent or dissent Cujus enim est consentire ejus est dissentire And so long we are well enough For the Kings Negative in Parliament is a full testimony of his Supreme power Hence is it that the Houses Petition for his consent which they need not do if the power were in the Houses Besides His Houses the Kings Houses you call them and so they are This also manifests that they are at his disposing and not He at theirs They must therfore wait his pleasure til he thinks it convenient His consent they may Petition for enforce they ought not since they are his subjects enforce it they cannot since he hath power over his own will And whatever you suppose it is in his power to consent or dissent when he sees it convenient and consequently to keep or not to keep his Oath His affirmative makes it a Law his negative denys it to be a Law For The King is the onely Judge whether the Bills agreed upon and presented be for the publick good or no And to take away the Kings negative voice is contrary to your Covenant it diminisheth the Kings just power and greatnesse and cuts off all Regall power Witnesse the Declaration of the Kingdome of Scotland p. 18. CHAP. X. Whether it be lawfull for the King to abrogate the Rights of the Clergie 1. THe question proposed is concerning Episcopacy but now you are fallen to the
I will not say that you are Hereticks in this and in other your new-forged doctrines invented to subvert Monarchy and Episcopacy But I shall tell you S. Austins opinion and so leave you to the opinion of the world He in my conceit is an heretick saith that Father who FOR ANY TEMPORALL COMMODITIE and chiefly FOR HIS OWN GLORY AND PREFERMENT doth either raise or follow false and new opinions And are not pelf honour and preferment the cause of all these fidings and seditions in Church and State If these times speak it not I am deceived As for your opinions it hath been sufficiently manifested that they are both false and new 9. Be your opinions what they will their immunities and rights must down or you will fail in a Dilemma The Clergie say you either hold their rights and immunities by Law or otherwise This is not to be denied But what follows upon this 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 not by Law it is but an usurpation You say it and we grant it For truth it is that we claim no rights and immunities but what the ancient and Christian Laws of this Realm have confirmed unto us by Act of Parliament 10. You say that the Parliament hath power to alter all Laws What if a man should say that this assertion is not true I conceive it were no blasphemie Indeed it is a blasphemous position to broach the contrary None but an Atheist dares justifie that the Parliament or any mortall Soveraigntie hath power to alter either the Law of God or the Law of Nature And yet these are Laws And who but an enemy to his Countrey and a friend to confusion dares affirm that the Parliament hath power to alter the Monarchicall or fundamentall Laws of this Kingdom I am sure Justice Jenkins resolves that by the Law of the Land a Parliament cannot alter any morall Law 11. Give me leave to propose your own Argument in terminis in behalf of the City of London The Citizens of London either hold their rights and immunities by law or otherwise 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 immunity ceaseth If their immunitie be not by Law it is an usurpation without just title which upon discovery is null How like you this my rich Masters of London Hath not Mr. Geree set you in the sleep way to ruine But ye may perchance have a confidence that the Parliament will not serve you so Be of that minde still The power it seems is in their hands how they will use it towards you I cannot say How they have used it towards us and towards our good Soveraign ye know And can ye look to fare better Remember what our Saviour saith The servant is no greater then his Master If they have persecuted me they will also persecute you As they have used your Lord and King they will use you The courtesie ye are like to find is that which Vlysses had from Polyphemus to be their last breakfast 12. Well upon the alteration of the Law the immunitie ceaseth and so the Kings ingagement in that particular An Ordinance of Parliament hath absolved many a subject from his Oath of Allegeance and now we shall have a Law to absolve the King from his Oath of protection But I am sure no Law can absolve him from a duty inherent to his Crown And such is the duty of protecting his Subjects from oppression and the Church from sacriledge You cannot therefore possibly absolve him from this ingagement Besides it was never conceived that an Ordinance was of sufficient force to alter a Law The Kings ingagement therefore stands as yet in this particular 13. But suppose there were such a Law as you-speak of could it be just I have learned from your London Ministers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law is so called in Greek from rendering to every person what is just meet equall In very deed as the great Lawyers speak Jus idem est quod justum aequum The Law is nothing else but that which is just and right If it be otherwise it is not jus but injuria an injurie but no right You are pleased to acknowledge our privileges to be our rights How then can they be taken from us without injuriâ—â— And it is not lawfull with the supreme Judge for any Prince or Court to deal injuriously with the meanest that are subject to them Justice it is to give to every man his own Injustice then it must needs be to spoil any man of that which is his either by the Laws of God or man Suppose us to be in equall balance with our fellow Subjects and that we have no other right to our lands and privileges but by the Laws of the Realm what reason can be given why we should not peaceably enjoy what is ours by the Law of the Land as well as the rest of our fellow Subjects We have the same right and why not the same protection CHAP. XIV Whether the Lands of the Church may be forfeited by the misdemeanour of the Clergie 1. VVE shall have reason to work us out of our rights and Law to turn us out of the Kings protection But such reason and Law as may with much ease and more equitie be returned upon your selves Your reason is this because these rights were indulged to the Clergie for the personall worth of present incumbents If therefore their successors forfeit them by their ill demeanour these rights may be taken from them This is easily resolved not so easily proved For the truth is these rights were not given to particular persons but to a succession of Bishops and Priests and other Officers for Gods service Or rather these lands and privileges were given to God and the Church for the maintenance of these offices My unworthinesse makes not the office the worse neither can my wickednesse make a forfeiture of Gods inheritance I may with Abiathar justly be deprived of my place and the benefits thereof but the place and the rights thereof fall not into a Premunire a good man even Zadok succeeds this traitor Abiathar and enjoyes not onely the office but all the profits that belonged thereto This was Solomons justice he knew how to distinguish between the faultie Priest and the faultlesse office But you are a rooter if a twig be in fault up with bâ—aiâ—h and root This is your justice But it is far from the juâ— Judge of all the world to root up the righteous with the wicked And surely we ought to endeavour to be righteous and just as our heavenly Father is just 2. Have you
miters were your aim these you have preached for these you have fought for what would you more All these your Masters have and the Crown to boot and yet not quiet Indeed all these thus gained will not afford a quiet conscience That there may be some shew of legality the King must get the CLERGIES CONSENT and the Bishops must lay down their Miters And then 't will passe for currant that these Acts were passed by their own consent and so no wrong done Volenti non fit injuria True it is undone they are without consent but if they consent they undo themselves and wrong their souls And a madnesse it were to be chronicled if I should cut mine own throat to save my enemie the labour How then can I give away Gods inheritance to the Edomites Ishmalites lest perchance they enter forcibly upon it And yet the Bishops are much to blame if they will not do this if not the Crown will run an hazard and the whole Land be brought to ruine 21. What is to be done in this case Surely if the Bishops knew themselves guilty of the difference betweene the King and his subjects God forbid but they should be willing to part with all they may lawfully part with and be earnest with Jonah that they might be cast into the sea to allay this dangerous storme if that would do it But what is Gods and the Churches they cannot give away or alienate No no saith S. Ambrose I cannot deliver up that which I have received to preserve not to betray The Lands of the Church they may take if they please Imperatori non dono sed non nego I give them not to the Emperour but I deny them not I withstand him not I use no violence What I do is for the Emperours good quia nec mihi expediret tradere necilli accipere because it would be neither safe for me to give them up nor for him to receive them What beseemes a free Preist I advise freely si vult sibi esse consultum recedat à Christi injuriâ If he desire to prosper let him forbear to wrong Christ Observe what belongs to the Church is Christs not the Bishops If any part of it be diminished the wrong is done to God and not to man Ananias layed down his possession at the Apostles feet but kept back part of the price Here was wrong done But to whom think you Not to the Apostles no he lyed not unto men but unto God he couzen'd God and not man This was the moderation of S. Peter and S. Ambrose and we may not be drawn from this moderation Advise your great Masters to embrace so much moderation as to wrong no man but to give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs unto God Till then however they may seem to prosper they will never be secure CHAP. XV. Whether it be lawfull to take away the Bishops lands and to confer them upon the Presbytery 1. THe Church at this present is much like her Saviour hanging between two theeves but in so much the worse case because neither of these are for our Saviour One the Independent is wholly for stripping the Church of all settled maintenance With him the Minister is to rely meerly upon the peoples benevolence And reason good for he is no longer a Minister then it pleaseth that Congregation But the other the Presbyterian is like the chough in the fable that would faine prank up himself with other birds feathers The Bishops lands and revenues must be diverted divided to maintaine Parochiall Pastors so you call them Sacriledge you condemne but theft you like well of so you and your fellow Presbyterians may be gainers Quocunque modo rem is profitable doctrine so you may have it you care not how you come by it nor who smarts for it The man of Jerusalem fel into such hands 2. Prelacy must be abolisht that 's agreed upon So far you go with your Parliament but you are against seizing of the Prelates revenues to private or civill interest That is as I conceive to any particular mans use or for the service of the State as ye call it I am just of your mind and resolve with you that this kind of impropriation could want neither staine nor guilt Such was that in the dayes of K. Henry the eight which was deservedly cried out of all the Christian world over But cry out you and your Mr. Beza with your Stentorian voices upon this detestable sacriledge your good Masters are resolved upon the question and have exposed the Bishops lands to sale So they may have these revenues to dispose of they will venter stain guilt and curse too say what ye can 3. I must confesse you would faine set a faire glosse upon this detestable act You would have those large revenues as you are pleased to call them to be passed over from the Fathers of the Church to the sons of the Church from the Bishops to Parochiall Pastors or Presbyters I call these parochiall Pastors sons of the Church because though they be called Fathers in respect of their Parishioners yet are they but sons in respect of Bishops from whom they have their orders and by whom as Ministers they are begotten For Presbyters have not power to ordain a Deacon much lesse to ordain a Presbyter as hath been already manifested shall be more fully if God give me life and leave to examine the Divine Right of Church Government 4. But since these revenues must be diverted or passed over from the Fathers to the sons to supply them with sufficient maintenance who shall make the conveiance And when the conveiance is drawn with all the skill that may be it is nothing worth till the proprietary the true owner give his consent and confirme it Desire you to know who is the true owner Look upon God he hath accepted them and taken possession of them his they are by deed of gift The Charters usually run thus Concessi offero confirmavi DEO Ecclesiae I grant offer or confirme TO GOD and the Church such and such Lands Mannors or messuages When they are thus offered God accepts of the gift and sets this stamp upon them They offered them before the Lord THEREFORE THEY ARE HALLOWED And again Nothing devoted or separated from the common use that a man shall devote unto the Lord whether it be man or beast or LAND OF HIS INHERITANCE MAY BE SOLD OR REDEEMED every devoted thing is MOST HOLY UNTO THE LORD When it is once seperated from common use it may no more return to common use since as your Geneva Note tells us It is dedicated to the Lord WITH A CURSE To HIM that doth turn it to his private use And of this curse they have been sensible that have turned it to such use Observable therefore it is
keep it for him to his power and this Commander keeps this Towne till he have no more strength to hold it unlesse he force the Towns-men to armes against the priviledge which he hath sworne to maintaine Well what then If this Governour now surrender this Towne upon composition doth he violate his Oath Thus far Mr. Gerees question what think you of it What any man thinks is no matter Mr. Geree thinks none will affirme it And I think there be many that will affirme it and I am one of that number Good Lord to see how Mr. Geree and I differ in opinion His is but thought without proof but I shall give you reason for what I think and say 13. If this Casuist speake to purpose as he ought he speaks of a King of this Realme and no town within this Realme hath any such priviledge as not to bear armes against the Kings enemies or not to keep it for his Majestie to the utmost of their power The reasons are these First these are the Kings Dominions and Countries 2ly These Towns and Cities are part of these Dominions 3ly The inhabitants and Citizens thereof are his Majesties subjects 4ly All lands and tenements are holden either mediatly or immediatly of the King 5ly This Citie or Towne is the Kings otherwise how could he put a Commander into it and give him an Oath to keep it for him I speake of Towns within these his Majesties Dominions which in all writings are called the Kings Cities Counties and Towns 6ly It cannot be imagined that the Kings of this Realme would grant any priviledge destructive or dangerous to their owne safety And we must take notice that All Liberties at the first were derived from the Crown Adde hereunto the severall Acts of Parliament wherein the Peers and Comminalty confesse themselves to be bound and make faithfull promise to aide their Soveraigne at all seasons as also to assist and defned his or their rights and titles to the utmost of their power and therein to spend their bodies lands and goods against ALL PERSONS whatsoever But new Lords new Laws and these Statutes are out of date 14. By this time I hope you see that no towns-men have any such privilege as to refuse to bear arms in the Kings behalf But they are bound by their allegiance and the Laws of this Land to keep those Towns for his Majestie to defend them with all their might against his foes If then the inhabitants shall be backward the Commander ought to force them to armes and if he do it not he violates his Oath and the Towns-men their fidelity And now you may tell your freind that helped you to this supposition that he is no skilfull Apprentice at Law If then the Kings case be such in this particular his Highnesse may not recede from his Oath nor do any thing contrary thereto 15. Though this may seeme reasonable to sober men yet the onely objection as you conceive which lyeth against this is that though it be not in the Kings power to uphold them yet it is in his power not to consent to their fall Though this be not the onely yet is it a just objection or rather a resolution which being rightly harkned to will preserve the King from sin in this particular For how ever you are so uncivill with his Majestie as to call it peremtorinesse in him to deny assent to the fall or abolition of Episcopacy yet such as are learned to sobriety know this to be Christian prudence and true fortitude not to fear them that can imprison him that can rob him of this earthly Crowne and slay his body but to stand in aw of him that can slay the soul that can deprive him of his heavenly Crown and cast him into the infernall pit Oh 't is a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of the living God we are not therefore to be threatned or frighted into sin These things you can presse violently in the Pulpit but now you are beside both Pulpit and text beside modesty and truth It is Justice Religion and courage not peremtorinesse to deny the least assent to sin That it is sin to yeeld to or confirme the abolition of Episcopacy is already manifested C. 4. 6. Since it is to destroy an Ordinance of Christ which cannot be done without sin 16. However then he may indanger his own Crown not save their Mitres yet he shall be sure by denying assent to save his own soul for without consent no sin and without sinne no damnation A woman ravished is free from fornication because she assents not but is really enforced and yet he that commits that sin upon her must die for it This is the Kings case right if he yeeld not this is a rape upon his power no sin in his person since no assent Hence is it that Idolatry and Oppression in Scripture are charged upon Kings because their assent makes a Law Without the Kings affirmative every Ordinance imposed upon the people is not Law but Tyranny since it is not legall but arbitrary Our brethren of Scotland say as much Take their words There can be no Law made and have the force of a Law without the King Declaration of the Kingdom of Scotland p. 19. 17. That it is in his Majesties power or not in his power to deny assent to the abolition of Bishops is most certainly true But we must learn of you to distinguish between a naturall and a morall sense and then we shall find both true that he can and he cannot deny consent In a naturall sense he may but in a morall sense he may not In a naturall sense he may because the will cannot be inforced In a morall sense it is not in his power because he cannot now deny consent without sinne So it is and it is not in his power or rather as S. Austine speaks In potestate est quod in voluntate esse non debet That is in our power which ought not to be in our will The King then hath it in his power to yeeld or not to yeeld because he may do which he pleaseth The book of God stands by and adviseth him to do that which is right in the sight of God proposing blessings if he do so and menacing curses if he shall do any thing contrary to Gods revealed will And all this while it doth but instruct perswade him to do what he ought and may when he will This then being in the Kings power he must take heed he incline not to sin 18. I cannot but resolve that to forsake the naturall sense if good is to be unnaturall To renounce the morall sense is against good manners and the morall Law If therefore both senses may be kept we are to preserve them both safe With confidence therefore I speake it that it is not onely in his power but it is his