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
tangunt prosint nemini praesertim notabile afferant nâ—cumentum That they may be commodious for those whom they concerne and yet not be evidently injurious to others From these or the like grounds I find it resolved by the Sages of this Kingdom that the King may grant priviledges to any Corporation so they be not prejudiciall to some other of his Subjects 5. But wherein is the Kings Oath to the Clergie inconsistent with his Oath to the people Because his Majestie hath first say you taken an oath for the protection of the people in THEIR LAWS and liberties Their Laws The peoples Laws Who made them makers or Masters of the Laws Do the people use to make Laws in a Monarchie Behold all are Law-makers Who then shall obey None but the Clergie Thus the Clergie must obey the people and if obey then please For whom we obey them we must please And yet there is much danger in pleasing the people For If I should please men that is the common people I were not the servant of Christ The plain truth is the Laws are the Kings Laws so we call them and so they are and his subjects must observe them Otherwise he beareth not the sword in vaine The Liberties indeed are the peoples granted and confirmed unto them by the Soveraignes of this Realme But wherein will the latter Oath be a present breach of the former and so unlawfull One would think here were some great wrong offered to the people as if some immunities or means were taken from them and transferred upon the Clergie by this Oath But when all comes to all it is no more then this that One of the priviledges of the people is that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with the consent of the King to alter what ever in any particular estate is inconvenient to the whole I had thought that this priviledge you speake of had not been a priviledge of the people but of the Parliament that is of the Peers and Commons representees of the people met in a lawfull and free Parliament with the Kings consent Not of the representees of the people alone But you would faine incense the people a new against us under a pretence that all is for their good and for the maintenance of their priviledges because they are represented by the House of Commons Whereas the truth is you endeavour to devolve al upon that House for the erection of Pâ—ssbytery That so both Church and State may be Democraticall both settled under a popular government 6. Let us take a view of this passage and see what truth is in it One of the priviledges of the people is say you that the Peers and Commons in Parliament HAVE POWER TO ALTER what-ever is inconvenient How the Lords will take this I know not though of late they have been so passive Can they endure that their power should be onely derivative and that from the people Your words are plain one of the priviledges of the people is that the peers have power As if the Lords had no power in Parliament but what issued from the peoples priviledges Why then are they called Peers when they are not so much as Peers to the people but their substitutes if not servants Surely you lay the Lords very lowe And if it be one of the peoples priviledges that the Lords have power then is it also one of their priviledges that the Lords have no power that the people may take it from them when they please Cuius est instituere ejus est destituere they that can give power can also take it away if they see good This of late hath been usually vaunted against the House of Commons and you say as much to the House of Peers Whereas the peoples priviledges are but severall grants of the Kings of this Land proceeding meerly from their grace and favour Alas the people hath not so much as a vote in the Election of Peers neither have they liberty to choose Members for the house of Commons no not so much as to meet for any such purpose untill they be summoned by the Kings Writ So the peoples priviledges depends upon the Kings summons no such priviledge till then 7. And whereas you say that the Peers and Commons have power to alter what-ever is inconvenient You are much mistaken When by the Kings summons they are met in Parliament they have power to treat and consult upon alterations as also to present them to his Majestie and to petition for such alterations where they see just cause But they have no power to alter that is in the King or else why do they Petition him so to this day to make such changes good as they contrive Hoc est testimonium regiae potestatis vbique obstinentis principatum This a full testimonie of the Kings power in all causes and over all persons that the Lords Commons Assembled in Parliament are faine to Petition for his Royall consent and confirmation before they can induce an alteration The truth is the Power of making laws is in him that gives life to the Law that enacts it to be a Law not in them that advise it or Petition for it Where the word of a King is there is power it is his word Le Roy Le Vâ—lt that makes it a Law then t is a Law and not before No power makes it a Law but his For he doth whatsoever pleaseth him When it pleaseth him not when it pleaseth them many times therefore he rejects Bills agreed by both houses with his Roy ne veult the King will not have them to be Lawes The reason is given by that renowned Justice Jenkins because the Law makes the King the onely Judge of the Bills proposed I counsell thee therefore to keep the Kings commandment or to take heed to the mouth of the King and that in regard of the Oath of God That is saith the Geneva Note that thou obey the King and keep the Oath that thou hast made for the same cause This is agreeable to Scripture And the wisest of this Kingdome not long since acknowledged that without the Royall consent a Law can neither be complete nor perfect nor remaine to posterity A Law it is not it binds not till the King speak the word Yea the Kingdom of Scotland hath declared that the power of making Laws is as essentiall to Kings as to govern by Law and sway the Scepter Declar. of the Kingdome of Scotland p. 34. 8. But if this be the peoples priviledge that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power WITH THE CONSENT OF THE KING to alter what is inconvenient Whose priviledge is it I pray you for the Lords and Commons without the Kings consent to make alterations and abrogations with root and branch This is no priviledge of the people nor yet of the Houses Because as Justice Jenkins observes it is against
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