now comes a precious one He believes it well appears That supremacie over all Laws to make or disanul them is in the King alone at the Petition of both Houses Ridiculum caput for it s as much as to say it s in the King alone with the help of others a notorious Bull. That power is in a man alone which he can execute without the concurrence of others but this the King cannot do without the Houses manifesting their consent and desire by Petition Besides have you forgot the statute your self quoted pag. 85 That no Act of Par liament be passed by any Sovereign of this Realm or any other authority whatsoever without the advice and consent of the three Estates of the Kingdom c. Oportet te esse memorem But you will come to Scriptures Fathers and moderne Authors as Parag. 6. ' Peter ascribeth supremacie to the King 1 Pet. 2.13 14. But that is clearly as I have said as Supream Magistrate to whom others are subordinate and this admonition must be with limitation too where Kings are supream You do not think that the Apostle doth level all Kings and give them all one equal supremacie No the Apostle had no power nor would not attempt to alter the constitution of Nations Now Grotius will tell you some Kings are not supream Those of Athens were under the power of the people those of Lacedemon under the Ephori See Grot. de jure bel pac lib. 1. cap. 2. parag 8. The sentences out of Fathers which you quote parag 6 and 7. speak of absolute Monarchs which you ignorantly or flatteringly say ours is but our King denies it calling our government a mixture of all the three and a regular Monarchie Collect. of Declar. c. pag. 320. 321. And that sentence cited by you out of Grotius will confute you That 's the supream civil power cujus actus alterius juri non subsunt Whose acts are not subject to another mans censure For those acts that any do by the Kings authoritie are the Kings acts and the Parliament hath power to disanul these acts and punish these agents as the King informeth Collect. of Remonstr pag. 321. to shew the compleatness of our government Our Law indeed saith the king can do no wrong that is he cannot work but by Agents and the law takes no notice of him in it but of the Agents to punish them But you proceed Parag. 8. I â—â—ow say you you relye more upon the laws of the Land then upon the Word of God But I believe therein you speak against your conscience what you produce that the king is the supream Head is no more then what I ascribe to him to be supream Magistrate and in that he is alone and the head one and therefore the Bull of two Supremacies you speak of is but a Calf of your own fancie What you say Parag. 9 10. 13. Touching the Parliament being subjects and petitioning to him as subjects and that Bills are not in force without him I confess but these onely denie that supremacie in the Parlament which I never asserted but do not assert the supremacy in the king to make or un-make laws without them Therefore all this is trifling Par. 11. You ask What supremacie can be in that Court that cannot lawfully Convene till the King summonthem There is this The supremacie of a Court as you confess to be the supream Court that is there is no appeal from them but appeals from all Courts to them and you know they can reverse decrees in Courts which the King cannot he can pardon not reverse sentences They can reverse Verdicts but not pardon offenders You add Parag. 12. The King is to regulate them for the time I acknowledg it this Parliament onely excepted by a particular Statute made in this Parliament with the Kings assent And for the manner The king himself saith they are free and have priviledges of their own For the great Lawyers judgement you speak of in Richard the 2. time That if any in Parliament proceed upon other Articles or in other manner then is limited by the King c. they are to be punished as Traytors I wonder you will mention it sith that great Lawyer was flattering Tresilyan who by such ill Counsel helpt to over-throw his Sovereign and in a Parliament held in the 13 year of Richard 2. was for this by the Lords in Parliament condemned to be hanged drawn and quartered which was presently executed on him as our Historians shew Your Collections Par. 14. were disproved before what you say ' for the Kings regulating Courts of justice You mistake the Law is their rule and that regulates them which if they transgress he may punish them but the law they are sworn to follow against any private instructions of his that 's clearly known You sum up your arguments Parag. 15. But they are all short of your conclusion for they conclude not against the Parliaments being a supream Court which is all I assert and you confess in the following page Nay in this page parag 17. and what you have parag 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Are superfluous For they onely concludet he King to be supream Magistrate but exclude not the Parliament from being the supream Court you say but yet it is the Kings Court I deny it not I denie him onely to be above it in the capacitie of a Court though it sit by his writ Therefore all you do here is but lis de lana caprina meer trifling And as captious a conceipt is that that you conceive not They have power to make and alter laws at pleasure for there is great danger in altering laws without urgent cause Who doubts it What need you prove it But to make up want of proof in things to be proved Who knows not that wisedom and moderation in Law makers is to regulate that power that they may put forth upon any that they put it not forth but upon just occasion Parag. 22. You infer If the King cannot do any thing against the legal rights of others so nor Parliaments True they ought not to over-rule or alter the rights of other but for the publike good but for that they may you know there were many had legal rights in offices in Star-Chamber and yet for publike good the King condescended to a Bill of abrogation Parag. 23. You tell us ' The King is above law That is say you Common-law But this is your fiction for the King saith he is a regular Monarch that is regulated by laws so in a sence under them The common custom of our Nation is that actions may be commenced against the King at the Common-law therefore you speak against experience in saying that the king is above the Common-law which appears also in that the Judges of the Common as well as Statute-law are sworn not to denie or delay justice to any for any Letter or Prohibition of the king And though his taking
promotion which was competible but to a few So the second inconvenience pressed parag 13.14.15 is avoided also parag 16. All the inconvenience you say that Master Geree presseth is that we are not subject to the Parliament But how far forth we are and are not we shall hear anon Parag. 17.18 You tell me I speak much of a first and ' second oath I answer if that be an error I was led into it by my first Opponent that distinguish'd between oath and oath and the oath to maintain the priviledges of the Clergie he saith expresly is taken after the oath to the whole Realm neither do I see any thing in your Analysis of the oath here or the delineation of the oath in the beginning of your Book that invalidates the expression of my Opponent in realitie though in some formalitie it doth For there I see that the King had particularly and distinctly engaged himself to the whole Realm before he came to the Bishops which are the onely part of the Clergie about whom our controversie is and what he last promises to them confirmed by his oath must not contradict what he hath promised to the other which promise must be understood to have a prioritie in order in the bond of the oath as well as in the bond of the promise Parag. 19. You speak of sending us to Magna Charta to know who the People and Commons of this Kingdom are c. whith only fills up so much paper being nothing to the question in hand But Parag. 20. You reckon up the Priviledges of the Church as you have gleaned them out of Magna Charta and Sir Edward Cook in number 8. The second is that no Ecclesiasticall person be amerced according to the value of his Ecclesiasticall benefice but according to his lay-tenement and according to the quality of his offence The latter clause is reason the former a priviledg without reason and prejudiciall to the Civill state and gives many Ecclesiastical persons leave to sin impunè The fourth That all Ecclesiasticall persons shall enjoy all their lawfull jurisdictions and other rights wholly without any diminution or substraction whatsoever I pray you if the Kings Coronation-oath engage so to the confirmation of this priviledg that the king cannot consent to allow it by Act of Parliament how can that act be justified that enables the Crown of England to appoint what persons else they will to execute all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in this kingdom If that statute were lawfully made notwithstanding this oath why then may not another statute be made against their standing sith by the former they may be made unusefull and yet the former you brag you have engaged your selves to maintain in your oath of supremacie Parag. 9. The fifth priviledg you name is that a Bishop is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of justice in causes Ecclesiasticall Whence I gather that by our law a Bishop is a kings creature no Apostle for he was the immediate Officer of Christ though subject in doing or suffering to the Civill Magistrate though heathen You conclude that it is provided by act of Parliament that if any judgment be given contrary to any points in the great Charter it shall be holden for nought c. True unless it be upon some particular statute of a latter Parliament with the king enacting things to the contrarie Parag. 21. You say that I go forward as if it were certain that this to the Clergie was a severall oath from that to the people I answer I disputed upon my opponents proposals and learned opponents do not use to make their cause worse then it is nor indeed doth he for though the king swear but once yet he ptomiseth the things he sweareth severally and the promise of this to the Bishops in question is last and therefore in competition must give way to other engagements neither do the statutes for confirmation of Magna Charta binde the hands of succeeding Parliaments Whose hands as the leaaned Chancellor Bacon observes cannot be bound by their Predecessors if they see reason of alteration a supream and absolute power saith he cannot conclude it self Hist of H. 7. p. 145. CHAP. X. PARAG. 3. Shewing that the Clergie are equally under the Parliament as well as Laytie in answer to Doctor Boughen's 9. Chapter I Now come to answer your ninth Chapter which is an angrie one which makes me think that you were sorely puzled My Dilemma is They are subject to the Parliament or they are not He answers subject they are to the Parliament consisting of head and members not to the members alone without the head for we are subject to the members only for the heads sake Truly this grant is all that I desire or need for the Parliament I propose the Dilemma about is that which consists of head and members united to which if they be subject then may these joyntly determine of any of their priviledges in their own nature alterable as they do of those of the people Indeed the King and Parliament ought not to take away any priviledges that are for edification but such as prove impediments rather but of that they are to be Judges in the application of their power and that 's all needfull to be said to parag 1 2 3 4 5. And yet I leave it with confidence to the judicious Reader as also what I have said in the former Paragraph touching a former and latter oath But whereas you ask Parag. 6. with what face I can say that the Kings oath to the Clergie is inconsistent with his oath to the people parag 6. I wonder with what face you can aver it when as I directly say it must not and therefore take off an interpretation of it that would make it inconsistent whereas you say the nation is weary of the Presbyterian government in three years it s but a piece of none-sence sith this three years except a little liveless shew in the City of London and some few places more the truth is and our miserie is that we have been under no Ecclesiasticall government at all Parag. 7. You mention my words if the oath had such a sence when the Clergie were a distinct Corporation on which you spend your judgment if you know what sence is Truly Sir you are the worst at picking out sence that ever I knew of a D. D. My meaning is plain if the oath had a sence to exempt them from power of Parliament it must be when they were a distinct Corporation under another Supremacie which now you disclaim Parag. 8. You mistake in saying I am zealous in distinguishing you and your Priviledges I answer to the distinction brought by my opponent that it is not such but that the Priviledges of Clergie and People I mean such as are alterable are equally under Parliamentarie power for alteration on just grounds And the kings oath to you is as obligatorie as to the people in the right
words of the oath The only objection as I 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 Answ If the king should be peremptorie in denyal what help would this be to them Such peremptoriness in this circumstance might indanger his Crown not save their Miters Besides though it be in his power to deny assent to their abolition in a natural sence because voluntas non potest cogi yet is it not in his power in a morall sence because he cannot now deny consent without sin for if he consent not there will evidently continue such distraction and confusion as is most repugnant to the weal of his people which he is bound by the rule of government and his oath to provide for CHAP. XI Shewing that the King is not bound to protect the Bishops honours with the lives of his good subjects in answer to Doctor Boughen's 16. Chapter I Proceed to the answer of your 16. Chapter entituled how far forth the King ought to protect the Church and Bishops You begin it is confessed to my hand that the King is engaged to his power to protect the Bishops and their Priviledges as every good King ought in right to protect the Bishops and Churches under their government It is confessed that these are the expressions of the oath as it is set down by the Reviewer but you should conceive that I propose these two clauses as limitations of the kings engagement that is 1. To his power 2. only so far forth as in right he ought and I do not say the engagement is put upon him by the Author as you ignorantly suggest but that these are the expressions of the oath delivered by the Author but he is not in right bound to protect their priviledges against an orderly alteration by act of Parliament if any appear inconvenient to the whole body for that is not right Parag. 2. You confess the King is not bound further to exercise his power in protection of Bishops then he can do it without sinning And I after prove he cannot so protect them as to denie a Bill in that circumstance of affairs he and the land were in without sin what you answer to my proof will be seen in the sequel of this Chapter How I have answered your proofs that he cannot let fall Bishops without mischief to his people c. in your eighth Chapter let the Reader judge In that you say parag 3. That the Kings interposing the power he hath vexeth my confederacy Is I doubt your wilful ignorance for the frame of my Book might clearly enough hint unto you that I neither was of nor liked any confederacie against the King Neither have I as you say parag 4. Confest that what the King hath done is right Right it is indeed upon his principles But I do not think the King is bound in right to maintain Bishops in statu quo in the state wherein they were and he is willing now to regulate them by their Presbyters But whatever I confess in justification of the King is not as you say the justification of an enemy unless he that pleadeth prayeth suffereth for the King and his just and Kingly libertie be his enemy because he is against the usurping power of Bishops Parag. 5. If after all this he must perforce let the Bishops fal you and your schism have much to answer for Still a Slanderer it s none of my schism to force the King to let them fall for though I prove he may let them fall and that it is for the advantage of the Church that they should fall yet I was alwaies against forcing him to it for I think it is much more reason that his conscience should be left free in its determination then my own or any private mans in as much as God hath set him in so high a degree of eminencie in his Kingdoms But that you say the sword was never drawn on the Kings side to maintain Religion established They never learn'd to fight for Religion It is an ignorant speech misbecoming a D. D. For what juster cause of War or more weightie then to maintain Religion establish'd It s true we may not fight to set up a Religion which is true against the laws and authoritie of the land where we live that were against the direction to Christians under Heathen Emperors Rom. 13.1.2 But to joyn with authoritie to maintain Religion establish'd supposing it true with the last drop of our blood is the most glorious quarrel and so I doubt not but the Royal partie learned though not from you yet from better Divines For your clinch about good subjects It s frivolous for the War costs blood on both sides and the King loseth on both sides for all are his subjects and I doubt not but he hath good Subjects on both sides in regard of meaning and intention though its true one side must needs be in a grand error Parag. 6. You confess it is an hard case for one man to engage his life for the maintenance of anothers priviledges But who did so Not a man say you engag'd himself but by the Kings command which you after prove and state the question us you please But this is but to shuffle and alters the state of a question to elude the force of an Argument which you cannot answer That which I said was it was not equal for the King to engage by his command the lives of some to maintain the priviledges of others which I spake upon this supposition That if the King had condescended in point of Episcopacie the War would have been at an end Laws restored to exercise c. For both City and the Scotish Nation would have closed with him and for this cause alone viz. to maintain power of Bishops I say it would not have been equal to have engaged the lives of others nor were they willing as I have been informed Nobles nor others It may be the King thought condescention in this would not have set him and his people in quiet possession of their rights but I cannot but wish that it had been tryed that nothing lawful had been omitted by which there was any hope to have saved a great deal of misery that his Majestie his Royal relations and the whole Nation hath suffered But Par. 7. You deny them to be others priviledges and affirm them to be the peoples because they reap spirituals from them But truely I must tell you that the people reaped but little in spirituals from many of the Bishops who seldom preached themselves and rob'd many people of their spirituals by silencing their Ministers and though there were no Bishops in England the people may reap spiritual things from the Clergie as plentifully if not more then ever they did as well as without them they do in other reformed Churches But what you add That in
without calumniating though never so irrationally I say in answer who ever they be that hinder the Ministers of God from any part or dutie of their calling required of God usurp upon them and they that maintain them in that maintain them in usurpation this is a truth without derogation from any authoritie and so I close this second chapter CHAP. IV. PARAG. I. Wherein it is cleared that Episcopacy is not to be upheld by our Protestation and that there may be ordination without it in answer to Doctor Boughen 's fourth chapter Case of Conscience Resolved BUt though this way of invalidating the Kings oath be most satisfactory to some yet to those that are not convinc'd of the unlawfulness of Episcopacie it will not hold and so it would cast the resolution of this doubt about the oath upon another question touching the unlawfulness of Episcopacie which is a larger field I shall therefore endeavour to shew that though for argument sake it be granted that Episcopacie be lawful yet notwithstanding that his oath the King without impeachment may in this circumstance consent to abrogate Episcopacie To answer this passage you descend cap. 4. but there begin with such notorious trifling as I never saw in a man pretending to learning For Parag. 1. You infer if Episcopacy be lawful then the Kings oath is not vinculum iniquitatis egregiam laudem c. who knows not that on that supposition the oath is lawful You adde but mine own conscience began to check me for this because I say it is only satisfactory to some You are mistaken sir The reason why I disputed the oath on a second bottom was because though I thought you and men of your affection might interpret the Kings oath to maintain Episcopacie in that usurping height wherein it stood that by his oath you might keep up your own absurd c. oath yet I perceived that his Majestie and other impartial Judges might interpret Episcopacie in a more moderate way as it is now come to pass his Majestie offering to bring Episcopacie to that tenor that they shall do nothing without their Presbyters and with such moderation many count it lawful nay few count it unlawful therefore I disputed the case under the second notion though Episcopacie were lawful understanding as you may perceive by the scope lawful only not necessarie yet the King might consent by Bill to abrogate it After having spent parag 2. in impertinent slander according to your custome parag 3. You ridiculously descant upon two phrases satisfactory and not hold though being applyed to divers persons your own conscience tells you there 's no incongruitie in them And then you tell what pity it is that I have to deal with learned and rational men and not with Ignoramus and his Dulman Sir to ease your passion I have to deal with both In my first attempt with the first which I ingeniously acknowledg in this second with the latter which I have in part and shall more clearly evince and that in the next Paragraph For I having said that the King without impeachment of his oath might in this circumstance consent to abrogation of Episcopacie You ask what I mean by circumstance whether the Kings oath or Episcopacie and run on in a childish descant unworthy of paper when any but a Dul-man may see plainly enough what I mean by in this circumstance that is according to the grounds of the question in the former page In this state of the nation that no hope of safety without union between King and Parliament no hope of union without abrogation of Episcopacie for the Houses had abrogated it and the sword was in their hands Next Parag. 5. You confess the King may abrogate what is lawful I thank you Doctor you have given me the question for if the King may abrogate what is lawfull then the reason why the King cannot consent to abrogate Episcopacie is not his oath in your judgment but because it is an ordinance of God and more then lawful Well now let us try it there prove Episcopacie to be the ordinance of Christ I will yield you the cause This you say Parag. 6. You have proved already cap. 2.6.7.8 And I there have shewed the weakness and sophistry of your proofs and shall do it more hereafter But you proceed Parag. 7. That Episcopacy is the onely order to which Christ hath given power to ordain Presbyters and Deacons c. What you deliver here is apparently false for first Christ gave power immediately to Apostles to do it and the Apostles to the Evangelists this power they exercised in Ecclesiis constituendis in constituting Churches And these extraordinary officers dying and their extraordinary offices ceasing as almost all confess what parts of their office were of perpetual use as praying preaching administring Sacraments and the use of the keys were left to those ordinary Officers Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 And under them are comprized all ordinary teaching Ministers without any distinction from God the distinction that followed after was but humane for order and to avoid accidentall inconveniences as Ambrose and Jerome witness most plainly and unanswerably unless men set themselves nodum in foirpo quaerere let the reader view the places in Bilson where he brings them to prove the Presbyteries were of preaching not of lay-Elders against lay-â—lders and let his view be impartial and I doubt not but he will approve what I assert You proceed no Bishop no Priest no Priest no Lords Supper Now indeed you reason like a Catholique but a Roman Catholique for just so Bellarmine and others of that leaven argue against Protestant Churches to un-Church them with whom though you may joyn yet all those that according to their profession are true Protestants and imbrace other reformed Churches as dear sisters will not thank you but disdain you and your assertions that do obliquely un-Church the most of them And that which our Divines answer to them shall stand good maugre your teen and skill For they holding and proving that a Bishop and Presbyter differ not by Gods law but humane And knowing that Presbyters are the Pastors meant Ephes 4.11 And that those Pastors are the successors of the Apostles to exercise all perpetual acts of ministerie whereof ordination being one they must needs by divine law be invested with it The Bishop you plead for was but primus Presbyter a chief Presbyter elected to guide and govern the Presbyterie in acts of government For all antiquitie acknowledgeth the Presbyterie did govern with him and ordain with him Now if the Presbyters elect one to be President though not for life why shall not their act be as valid as if the Presidencie were for longer continuance Sure while learned Bilson gathers from the Presbyterians grant of a President in the Prebyterie by Divine law or light of nature though not the same man perpetually that their Presidens differ not materially from those Bishops that the Fathers