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
tenths which Lay Impropriators are seldome charged with To the King we grant and pay subsidies after an higher rate then any of the Laity by many degrees Where then are the two Supremacies which we erect 12. 'T is true indeed that For deciding of controversies and for distribution of Justice within this Realm there be TWO DISTINCT JURISDICTIONS the one ECCLESIASTICALL limited to certain spirituall and particular cases The Court wherin these causes are handled is called Forum Ecclesiasticum the Ecclesiasticall Court The other is SECULAR and generall for that it is guided by the Common and generall Law of the Realme Now this is a maxime affirmed by the Master of the Law that The Law doth appoint every thing to be done by those unto whose office it properly appertaineth But unto the Ecclesiasticall Court diverse causes are committed jure Apostolico by the Apostolicall Law Such are those that are commended by S. Paul to Timothy the Bishop of the Ephesians and to Titus the Bishop of the Cretians First to receive an accusation against a Presbyter and the manner how 2ly to rebuke him if occasion require 3ly If any Presbyter preach unsound doctrine the Bishop is to withdraw himself from him that is to excommunicate him 4ly In the same manner he is to use blasphemers disobedient and unholy persons false accusers trucebreakers Traitors and the like 5ly The Bishop is to reject that is to excommunicate all Hereticks after the first and second admonition 13. These things the Ordinary or Bishop ought to do De droit of Right as Sir Edward Coke speaks that is to say he ought to do it by the Ecclesiasticall Law IN THE RIGHT OF HIS OFFICE These censures belong not to secular Courts they are derived from our Saviours Preistly power aud may not be denounced by any that is not a Preist at least And a Maxime it is of the Common Law saith that famous Lawyer that where the right is spirituall and the remedy therefore ONELY BY THE ECCLESIASTICALL LAW the câ—nusans thereof doth appertain to the Ecclesiasticall Court But A BIHOP is regularly THE KINGS IMMEDIATE OFFICER to the Kings Court of Justice in causes Ecclesiasticall Therefore not a company of Presbyters no rule for that And this is it that wrings and vexes you so sorely For your a me is to share the Bishops Lands and Jurisdiction among you of the Presbyteriall faction This your vast covetousnesse ambition have of late cost the Church full deere and have been a maine cause of these divisions and combustions By these means you have made a forcible entrie upon Nabaoths Vineyard It were well Ahab and Jezabel would beware in time However wise men consider that every one that steps up to the Bar is not fit to be a Judge nor every one that layes about him in the Pulpit meet to be a Bishop 14. Besides in those Epistles this power is committed to single Governors to Timothy alone and to Titus alone But Timothy and Titus were Bishops strictly and properly so called that is they were of an higher order then Presbyters even of the same with the Apostles Hence is that of S. Cyprian Ecclesia super EPISCOPOS constituitur omnis actus Ecclesiae PER EOSDEM PRAEPOSITOS gubernatur The Church is settled upon BISHOPS and every Act of the Church is ruled BY THE SAME GOVERNORS By Bishops not by Presbyters Now the word of God is norma sui obliqui the rule whereby we must be regulated from which if we depart we fall foule or runne awry Since then the Church is settled upon Bishops it is not safe for any King or State to displace them lest they unsettle themselves and their posterity They that have endeavoured to set the Church upon Presbyters have incurred such dangers as they wot not of For if we beleive S. Cyprian they offend God they are unmindfull of the Gospel they affront the perpetuall practise of the Church they neglect the judgment to come and endanger the souls of their brethren whom Christ dyed for Neither is this the opinion of S. Cyprian onely Ignatius speaks as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As many as are Christs cleave fast to the Bishop But these that forsake him and hold communion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the accursed shall be cut off with them This is Ignatius genuine resolution attested by Vedelâ—us from Geneva and if true a most dreadfull sentence for those that endeavour the extirpation of Episcopacy 15. As for the Priviledges of the Clergie which you are so earnest to ruinate I shall manifest that they have footing in the Law of Nature in the Law of Moses and in the Gospel In the Law of Nature Abraham give tithes to the Preist of the most high God The Preists in Egypt had lands belonging to them as also portions of the Kings free bountie And the same Law of Nature taught Pharoah and Joseph not to alienate either the Preists lands or other their maintenance in time of extremest famine By the light of Nature Aâ—taxerxes King of Perfia decreed that it should not be lawfull for any man to lay toll tribute or custome upon any Preist Levite Singer Porter or other Minister of the house of God And King Alexander sonne of Antiochus Epiphanes made Jonathan the High Preist a Duke and Governor of a Province He commanded him also to be clothed in purple and caused him to sit by or with his own Royall Person He sent also to the same High Preist a Buckle or collar of Gold to weare even such as were in use with the Princes of the blood And by Proclamation he commanded that no man should molest the High Preist or prefer complaint against him And can it be denied that Melchisedec Preist of the most high God was King of Salem and made so by God himself 16. In the Law the Lord made Aaron more honourable and gave him an heritage He divided unto him the first fruits of the increase and to him especially he appointed bread in abundance For him he ordained glorious and beautifull garments He beautified Aaron with comely ornaments and clothed him with a robe of glory Upon his head he set a miter and a crown of pure gold upon the miter wherein was ingraved Holinesse And this if I mistake not is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Philo tels us was set upon the Preists head and is the cheife ornament of the Eastern Kings The reason he gives for it is this because while the Preist is discharging his dutie he is more eminent then any person whatsoever even then Kings But I rather conceive it was because at that time he represented or prefigured the Royall Preisthood of our Saviour 17. For the Gospel we have prophecies in what state and honor
Master GEREE'S CASE of CONSCIENCE SIFTED Wherein is enquired VVhether the KING considering His Oath at Coronation to protect the Clergy and their Priviledges can with a safe Conscience consent to the Abrogation of EPISCOPACY AUG de Trin. l. 4. c. 6. Contra rationem nemo sobrius contra Scripturas nemo Christianus contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit CYPR. Ep. 27 Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disposuit Dr. CORN BURGES Fire of the Sanctuary p. 68. Men now count it an high piece of zeal to direct their Directors and like Clock-makers to take the Church all in pieces at their pleasure By EDWARD BOUGHEN D. D. LONDON Printed in the yeare 1650. TO THE MOST EXCELLENT AND PIOUS PRINCE CHARLES KING of England Scotland France and Ireland Defender of the Faith and Guardian of the Church SIR IT may seem strange to some but my hope is not to Your Majesty that I make this Dedication at this time to Your sacred Person The matter of this Treatise is in Your behalf it justifies Your solemn Oath at Coronation the just necessitie of this Oath as also Your Crown and dignity and the goodliest Floure in that Crown Supremacy To whose hands then should I chiefly present it but to Yours The times affright me not from my faith and duty I remember well that during the Ecclipse of heaven and the King of heaven there was one that durst acknowledge our Saviours Kingdom and in the full assurance of his title preferr'd his petition to him as a King And shall I be ashamed to do the like I know You are my onely Soveraign here on earth I know You represent my Saviour in his kingly office though Your Crown be wreathed with thorns With all humility therefore I present this acknowledgement of my most loyall affections which are due to Your sacred Majestie from Your poore but most faithfull Subject Edward Boughen To the intelligent READER I Was intreated by a very good Friend to take Mr. Gerees Case of Conscience into consideration and to bestow some pains in disclosing the weaknesse and foulnesse of his arguing Truly I was willing to undeceive my seduced Countreymen and yee ded to his request The Treatise I finde to be small but dangerous It aims at the ruine both of Church and Kingdom It perswades the King that his Oath as Coronation is a wicked Oath and that he ought to break it And then wo be to his Soul and the Kingdoms safety Yea he affirms it to be Vinculum iniquitatis the bond of iniquitie Thus he hath knit up out most gracious Soveraign with all His religious Predecessors in the bundle of iniquity No sooner read I this but b my heart was hot within me and while I was musing upon this and the like blasphemies the fiâ—e was kindled within me and at the last I spake with my tongue Why should this Shimei blaspheme my Lord the King and slander the footsteps of those anointed of the Lord that have so long slept in peace Because he hath done this wickednesse the Lord shall return it upon his owne paâ—e And King Charles shall eblessed and his throne shall be established before the Lord for ever Consult I pray you with Dr. Cornelius Burges a feirce Assembly man and of great authority among them and he will tell you that God is tender not onely of the safety but also of the honour of HIS ANOINTED In so much that he hath made a law to all not to revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of the people Which Law saith he not onely prohâ—biteth imprecations and seditious railings which are an HELLISH IMPIETY though it be but in word onely â—e the Prince never so impious but even all rude bitter and unseemly speeches And Mr. Nathaniel Ward in his Sermon upon Ezech. 19. 14. preached before the Commons June 30. 1647. affirmes that besides the male administrations of Government by Magistrates themselves there is no readier way to prostiâ—ute it then to suffer vile men to BLASPHEME AND SPIT IN THE FACE OF AUTHORITY All this Master Geree hath done most undeservedly If then I shall cleare the Kings Oath from these foule imputations I shall prove Mr. Geree to be involved in the bond of iniquity And he that is so his heart is not right in the sight of God he is in the very gall of bitternesse Just in Simon Magus case I shall therefore take up S. Peters words and advise him to Repent of this his wickednesse to pray God if perhaps the thought of his heart may be forgiven him If you conceivâ—â— I have ventered upon some questions not so fit to be handled without my Profession I beseech you take notice that this Minister hath led me into these undesired and unpleasant pathes He that undertakes to answer a book is bound to confute all but what he approves Silence in such passages speaks consent Good Reader let true reason Scripture and authority guide thee and then thou shalt be sure to judge impartially Take notice that J G. stands for Mr. John Gerees Case of Conscience I D. for Jus Divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici Sir Robert Cotton for his Treatise that the Soveraignes person is required in the great Councels or Assemblies of the State His Majesties Oath published by Himself in an Answer to the Lords and Commons in Parliament 26. May. 1642. SIR will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirm to the people of England the Laws and Customs to them granted by the Kings of England you Lawfull and Religious Predecessors and namely the Laws and Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergie by the glorious King S. Edward your Predecessor according to the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospel established in this Kingdom and agreeable to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customs of this Realme Rex I grant and promise to keep them Episcopus Sir will you keep Peace and godly agreement entirely according to your power both to God and the Holy Church the Clergie and the people Rex I will keep it Episcopus Sir will you to your power cause Law Justice and Discretion in mercie and truth to be executed in all your Judgments Rex I will Episcopus Will you grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightfull Customs which the Commonaltie of this your Kingdom have and will you defend and uphold them to the honour of God so much as in you lieth Rex I grant and promise so to do Then one of the Bishops reads this Admonition to the King before the people with a loud voice OUR Lord and King We beseech you to pardon grant and to preserve unto us and to the Churches committed to our charge all Canonicall Priviledges and due Law and Justice and that you would protect and defend us as every
Supremacy Not in this kingdom it must be looked for some where else 17. Secondly Ea quae sunt Jurisdictionis pacis ad nullum pertinent nisi ad regiam dignitatem Those things which concerne Jurisdiction and Peace belong to none but onely to the Royall dignity The same he affirmes of restraint and punishment These then belong not to the Parliament since that cannot chalenge Royall dignity Where then is their Supreme power All power almost consists in Jurisdiction ordering of Peace and punishing offenders And all these are flowers of the Crown Yea the power of the Militia of eoyning of mony of making Leagues with forreigne Princes the power of pardoning of making of Officers c. All Kings had them the said Powers have no beginning If then all these and many more are peculiar to Soveraignty what is left for the Parliament Why surely if you will to be the Kings Supreme or chief Councell and his capitall Court This they are and this is an high honour to them being rightly used 18. Thirdly Omnis sub Rege ipse sub nullo Every one is under the King but the king is under none but God onely The Supremacy then must needs be in the king who is superior to all but the God of heaven And over the Supreme there can be no earthly superior To admit a comparative above the superlative in the same kinde is a solecisme not onely in Grammar but in reason and Religion Yet though no superior there may perchance be an equall to this supreme There may so but not within his own Dominions Rex enim non habet parem in regno suo The King saith the Statute hath no Peer in his Land And if Justice Jenkins may be heard he tels us that the Houses in Parliament confesse the King to be above the representative Body of the Realm They are not therefore his equals and so have no Supremacy When I can be perswaded that any or all the Members of the Body are equall to the Head then I shall be apt to beleeve that there may be two Supremacies in a Kingdom But I am confident that a wife may as safely admit of two husbands as a Kingdom of two Supremes For the king is Sponsus Regni that Husband who by a Ring is espoused to this Realm at his Coronation But a Ring is superstitious and husbands are grown out of date The onely thing in request is liberty to take or leave what and whom we please 19. But the Parliament is the supreme Court by which all other Courts are to be regulated what say we to that This I say that the Parliament is Curia capitalis the supreme Court of this Kingdom and yet his Court it is whose Courts the rest are It is therefore called Curia Regis and Magnum Concilium Regis The kings Court the kings great Councell yea and the kings Parliament Sir Rob. Cotton justifies it from the Parliament Rowles Henry IV. began his first Parliament Novemb. 1. The King began his second Parliament Jan. 20. And of Henry VII thus It is no doubt but he would have been found as frequent in HIS GREAT COUNCELL OF PARLIAMENT as he was in the Starre-Chamber And this very Parliament how oft have they called themselves The kings great Councell They are so and they are no more But why am I so carefull to heap up instances Your self call it His the Kings Parliament p. 2. and His Houses of Parliament p. 8. 20. If then in your sense we take the Houses without the King there is no Supremacy in them either severally or joyntly since they are but Subjects and the representative body of Subjects And under this consideration they cannot regulate other Courts unlesse the king give them power to do so But take the Houses with the king and then it is most true that there is a Supremacy in the Parliament and that it hath power to regulate all other Courts But this Supremacy it hath by and from the king and from no other We therefore professe with that learned Mr of the Law that the Parliament is the HIGHEST AND MOST HONORABLE AND ABSOLUTE COURT of Justice of England CONSISTING OF THE KING the Lords of Parliament and the Commons The Lords are here divided into two sorts viz. SPIRITUALL AND TEMPORALL When such an Assembly meets and each House and the Members thereof keep themselves within their proper limits I dare be bold to say that this Court is assembled as it ought for provision for support of the State in men and money and well ordering of the Church and Common-wealth and determining of such causes which ordinary Courts nesciebant judicare were not skilfull to determine These are the causes of such Assemblies 21. But truly when they are thus assembled I do not conceive that they have power to make or disanull all Laws at pleasure but upon just and necessary occasion For there is great danger in altering Laws without urgent cause Innovation in government makes an alteration in State sudden alterations are not for the safety either of bodies naturall or bodies politicke Observe what the mirror of his time K. Iames speaks We are not ignorant of the inconveniences that do arise in Government by admitting Innovasion in things once settled by mature deliberation And how necessary it is to use constancy in the upholding of the publik determinations of State For that such is the unquietnesse and unstedfastnesse of some dispositions affecting every yeer new formes of things as if they should be followed in their unconstancy WOULD MAKE ALL ACTIONS OF STATE RIDICULOUS and contemptible Whereas the STEDFAST MAINTAINING OF THINGS BY GOOD ADVICE ESTABLISHED IS THE WEALE OF ALL COMMON-WEALTHS There is often danger seldom pleasure in the change of Laws Truly since the Laws-have been neglected and varietie of Ordinances have supplied their roome We have been fed with the bread of tears we have had plentiousnesse of tears to drinke We are become a very striffe unto our neighbours and our enemies laugh us to scorne 22. That the King in Parliament doth usually make or alter Laws as the necessity of the times and common good of his Subjects require is no rare thing Yet this ought to be done with much care and deliberation that so nothing be enacted which may be justly greivous or destructive to his leige people Sithence according to your determination He cannot lawfully make any ingagement to any against the Laws and LEGALL RIGHTS of others Your reason is because that were not Cedere jure suo sed alieno a parting with his own but with other mens rights The same reason will hold against the Parliament Suppose we should grant what we may not that the King and Parliament are equals it follows necessarily that whatsoever is unlawfull for one is unlawfull for any other of the same ranke
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
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
to slip in the Presbyters they are not the men they are not called for These are Episcopall privileges all other Ecclesiasticall persons are to be contented with those liberties and free customes quas priùs habuerunt which they enjoyed heretofore 8. The Writ summoned this Parliament for the defence of the Church of England Herein you have also made the Writ void for you have destroyed the Church of England And in destroying the Church you have destroyed the Writ The Commission is for defence they then that destroy what they are bound to defend overthrow their Commission Our Saviour sent his Apostles to preach peace to blesse and not to curse to please God and not man If then we preach warre and not peace if we curse when we ought to blesse if we please men and not God we forfeit our Commission S. Paul is plain If we please men we are none of Christs servants much lesse Apostles For his servants we are whom we obey whom we please If then we prove faithlesse and unprofitable servants we shall be turned out of our Masters house even out of doores and cast into outer darknesse Upon these grounds I argue thus He that overthrows the prime intention of the Writ overthrows the Writ But you have overthrown the prime intention of the Writ Therefore you have overthrown the Writ That you have overthrown the prime intention of the Writ I prove thus The prime intention of the Writ is for the State and defence of the Church of England But you have overthrown the State and defence of the Church of England You have therefore overthrown the prime intention of the Writ The second Proposition cannot be denied it is so palpably true The former is Sir Edw Cokes his words are these The State and defence of the Church of England is first in intention of the Writ And if the Writ be made void all the processe is void and so farewell Parliament 9. Besides I have learned that the assembly of Parliament is for three purposes First for weighty affairs that concern the King Secondly For the defence of his Kingdome And thirdly for defence of the Church of England For the King no question but the Bishops are faithfull to him We see they have constantly adhered to him in these times of triall In Gods and the Kings cause they have all suffered and some died commendably if not gloriously For the defence of the Kingdome none more forward with their advice purses and prayers And for the Church who so fit who so able to speake as Bishops Versed they are in the divine Law in Church history and in the Canons of the Church They fully understand not onely the present but the ancient state of the Church They know what is of the Essence of the Church what necessary and what convenient onely what is liable to alteration and what not These things are within the verge of their profession and most proper for them to speak to 10. When King David first resolved to bring up the Arke of the Lord from Kiriath-jearim into his own Citie he consulted with the Captains of thousands hundreds cum universis Principibus and with all his Princes about this businesse By their advice he orders that the Arke should be carried in a new Cart and Vzzah and Ahio are to drive it But what becomes of this consultation An error was committed clean thorough and Vzzah suffers for it Though David were a marvelous holy man and a good King and had a company of wise religious Councellors about him in the removall and ordering of the Arke they were mistaken because they did not advise with the Preists about it For the Preists lips preserve knowledge they shall inquire of the Law at his mouth And the Law will not have a Cart to carrie the Arke nor Lay-men to meddle with it David saw his mistake with sorrow and confesseth to the Preists that he and his Councellors had not sought God after the due order And why so Quia non eratis praesentes so the Fathers read because the Preists were not present he had not consulted with them about this sacred businesse And hence it is that they did illicitum quid somthing that was unlawfull That then a thing be not unlawfull we must consider not onely what is to be done but the order and manner is to be considered how it ought to be done least failing of the due order it prove unlawfull Most Christians know bonum what is good but few are skilled in the bene how it ought to be done and that is it that makes so many ruptures so many breaches and factions in the world because every man will prescribe the order and manner which God knows they ttle understand 11. When therfore David had once more resolved to fetch up the Arke from the house of Obed Edom he calls for the Preists and acknowledgeth that none ought to carrie the Arke of God but they and that therefore the Lord had made a breach upon him and his because the Preists had not brought it up at first That this fault may be duly and truely mended David commands the Preists to sanctifie themselves and to bring up the Arke They did so they brought it up upon their shoulders according to their dutie And God helped the Levites that bare the Arke because it was now done in due order It is no shame then for us to acknowledge our error with David and with him to amend what is amisse Yea this was such a warning to him that he would not so much as resolve to build an house for the Lord till he had acquainted the Prophet Nathan with it In matters therefore that concern the Arke of the Covenant the Church of the living God it is not safe to do any thing without the Preists advice If then the cheif and maine end of calling a Parliament be for the good of the Church it is most necessary to have the cheif Fathers of the Preists present But Sir Edward Coke assures me that this is the main end of calling a Parliament His words are these Though the State and defence of the Church of England be last named in the Writ yet is it FIRST IN INTENTION And what is first in intention is chiefly aimed at all other things that are handled are but as means to effect that It is not then incongruous but most consonant to the calling of Bishops to sit and Vote in Parliament 12. Besides if the honour of God and of holy Church be first in intention how shall the honour of God and of the Church be provided for how defended when the Fathers of the Church are discarded who know best what belongs to Gods honour who are most able to speake in defence of the Church to shew how she ought to be
power It is out of my element and I am tender to meddle with it I know t is large in a free and full convention when the Members constitutive are present But how large I shall leave it to the learned of the Law to define Yet this I dare say whatever their power be they cannot make that just which is unjust nor that truth which is a lie Ahab and Jezabel had power to over-rule the Elders and Nobles of Jezreel and to take away both Naboths vineyard and life without any cause at all You will not I hope justifie any such power or Act. 'T is true Naboth hath lost all at a blow but it was by tyranny not by Law Because there was no equity in the sentence And yet there were as good witnesses came against Naboth as any appeare against Episcopacy 7. But you have been at the bar of late and have learned a Law distinction which neither Scripture nor Fathers nor Scholmen ever taught you and this it is An ingagement may be gone in Law though not in equity And that an Order of Parliament will be valid in Law though injurious How valid in Law though injurious The learned in the Law deny that an Order of Parliament is valid in Law And some of their own creatures in their circuits have rejected some Orders from Westminster because they were contrary to Law But you my Masters that have been so forward with your purses bewar He speaks of summs of mony borrowed upon the publique faith for publique good For the Parliament may ordain release of the ingagement Here 's divinity without equity or conscience But it 's like the rest 8. Gone in Law saith this conscientious Preacher not in equity valid in Law though injurious Behold Law without equity a Law and yet injurious God blesse me from such Law and such Divinity I ever thought that Law and equity had gone together and that Law could not have stood with injurie Since as S. Austine speaks Jus injuria contraria sunt Law and injurie are contraries and can no more consist then light and darknesse And if with Thomas and the London Ministers Jus be that which is prescribed or measured by Law then either that is no Law which prescribes what is not right or else injurie shall be right because it is prescribed by Law I hope you are not of this mind 9. If the Fathers were not quite out of date I could tell you what S. Austine saith And yet why may not I make use of him as well as your fellow Ministers of London Behold then the very case Quid si a liquis condat jus iniquum What if any shall make an unjust Law a Law without equity Is not the case put right If it be so take his resolution Nec jus dicendum est si injustum est If it be unjust it is not to be named a Law And yet with you it shall be a Law though injurious Thus your case of conscience is resolved against conscience for all injurie if understood is against conscience Surely the Parliament is much beholding to you to stretch your conscience and their fringes so much against conscience For you justifie a power in them to do injurie and not onely so but a power to make Laws to justifie this injurie And yet in them this shall be no tyrannous invasion on any Societies rights because done by a Parliament That title is a salvo for all blemishes and injuries No tyranny no invasion if done by a Parliament as if they were infallible and could not erre impeccable and could not do amisse Or as if God himself did alter his own Laws that their alterations might be irreprovable 10. I must confesse the next is a very conscientious proposition of another die and this it is If there be no injury the King and Parliament may cancell any obligation Without peradventure they may But what makes that So there As ther 's no question of power in the Parliament to ordain an injurious Order or a Law without equity SO IF THERE BE NO INJURY c. What So and no otherwise Then have they no power at all to cancell any obligation because the Parliament hath no power to make a Law without equity If this do not follow let men of understanding judge And if you have no better argument to prove that it is lawfull for the King and Parliament to abrogate the immunities and to take away the lands of the Clergie you will never be able to approve the lawfulnesse thereof 11. What is according to Law true Law is lawfull and what is lawfull is according to Law If lawfull not injurious if injurious not lawfull not valid in Law since nothing is valid in Law that is injurious To what purpose then are those words The abrogation will be just as well as legall there will be no injury done Surely none where Law is of force for where Law is there can be no injustice countenanced But where your Law bears sway an order may be legal though injurious for your words are The order would be valid in Law though injurious 12. And as for forfeiture by miscariage the forfeiture in justice must fall upon him that miscarries that is upon the person not upon the Office for an Office duely settled can no more make a forfeiture then it can miscarrie Such an Office is Episcopacy which was duely settled by Christ himself And I hope you have not so far forgotten your selfe as to say that an Office immediately instituted by our blessed Saviour can run into a forfeiture by miscarriage What reason can you give why that should suffer that cannot erre that never offended This is none of Gods justice And it is well known to the wise that Bishops hold their lands revenues and immunities not as granted to their Persons but as annexed to the office for the continuall and comfortable maintenance thereof Our religious Predecessors had learned of S. Paul that no man feedeth a flock but he eateth of the milk of the flock And that it is the dutie of the Gentiles to minister unto them in carnall things of whose spirituall things they have been made partakers Indeed he makes a wonder that any man should doubt of it For how can the Office be maintained without means Surely though S. Paul did sometimes worke with his own hands that he might not be chargeable to new converts yet he telleth the Corinthians that He robbed other Churches in taking wages of them to do the Church of Corinth service Yea this Apostle justifies that he hath power to eat and drinke of their charge and to live upon their cost And that he wronged them when he did otherwise 13. We confesse that the Office was provided for publick good and that those which are of the Office neither hold nor ought to hold any thing but for