two Supremacies for so it was before Henry 8. and so it s exprest in my Case and where I pray you is such a distinction exprest to be continued since Henry the 8th You cannot shew it nor doth any thing that you bring Parag 8. or 9. conclude it distinct they were but not so distinct but still they and their priviledges were under the power of the same Supremacie as your self confess Parag. 10 11. where your insinuation against me of seting up two Supremacies is but a flash for I shall shew in the last Chapter that the Supremacie I give to the Parliament is not absolute but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and two such are not inconsistent neither doth such respective Supremacie make the Parliament lawless or subject to no power and for your closing question Where then are the two Supremacies that you erect I answer I affirm it was so but now it is abolisht and so I charge not you with it but infer that being equally under one Supremacie that one Supremacie hath equal power over the priviledges of both which was the thing to be proved Neither do I deny what you affirm parag 12 13. That there are two distinct jurisdictions in our Land under the same head Neither do I denie de facto but a Bishop by the standing laws is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of Justice in causes Ecclesiastical But the querie is whether this be so unalterable that the King and Parliament may not put it to a companie of Presbyters Which you have not yet disproved Whether covetousnes and ambition be more amongst Prelates then Presbyters whom you accuse God must judge But whether they be not like to rest more among those that would ingross all then among those that would have jurisdiction and maintenance divided men may easily judge For what you say parag 14. of Timothy and Titus I formerly proved them to be Evangelists and what they had extraordinarie to be ceas'd what they have ordinary to rest in Pastors who are Presbyter-Bishops the highest ordinarie Officers For that saying of Cyprian Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur I would have you reconcile it with that 1 Cor. 3.11 Other foundation can no man lay then that which is layd Jesus Christ We acknowledg de facto in Cyprians time that the acts of the Church were ruled by the Bishops but that as Jeroms tells you was by humane custome not Divine disposition nor was it without Presbyters as you would have it who therefore are as far from the government of his times as we what you quote after may be but the heat of a Bishop to whom we oppose Saint Ierem on Titus 1. and Phil. 1. What you cite out of Ignatius is spoken as upon search I finde onely of that Bishop as he then stood Orthodox in opposition to some cursed weeds or Hereticks of the devils planting but when the Bishop was an Heretick as you know in many places it often fell out would they have been blessed or cursed that held with the Bishop think you For what you add touching the privileges of Clergy For the most part you falsly calumniate me that I seek to ruine them you know I call the alieanation of their means Sacriledg neither do I envie any of their just priviledges but this is that which I have in hand whereas there be two sorts of priviledges some Divine some humane I question onely whether those humane priviledges separable from the offices appointed by Christ in his word such as the Monarchie of one above all other may not upon advisement for the good of the Republique admit of alteration as well as Laypriviledges Therefore you slander me grosly in objecting that I would take away all honour from the Ministery that the Scriptures by prophesie or precept have given to them But you on the contrarie egregiously abuse the Scripture in applying what the Scripture saith by way of honour or priviledg of the Ministerie that is of Apostles Prophets Evanglists and Presbyter-Bishops which onely are the Scriptures Bishops to a few Diocesans Creatures whom the holy page never knew And so you-sleight the generalitie of Pastors to exalt a few Lord-Bishops Constantines affection was pious to the Ministers of Christ But the Bishops he honoured so were men of another condition then those you plead for they lorded it not in the Church without the joynt help of their Presbyters in government And further if there were not some error of the times in some of the honours which he gave how came they so quickly to fall together by the ears for Primacie And to give occasion to that observation That when their Chalices were wooden the Bishops were golden but the Bishops became woodden when their Chalices became golden Sure the general abuse gives occasion to suspect some error in expression of those affections But I hope I have said enough to let the intelligent Reader see how far that assertion that I maintain to prooure peace and safetie to Church and Kingdom ready to perish by an unnatural war is from detracting from any just or useful respect commanded from the people to the Ministers if faithful though the meanest Pastours which I know and people will finde God will reward as done to himself But one thing is not unworthy notice in parag 8. Where you say Paul willeth the Philippians to receive Epaphroditus their Apostle or Bishop and also chargeth them to hold such in reputation Consider I pray you had not the Philippians then other such as Epaphroditus else why doth he give them charge of others of like quality And may you not thence see that Epaphroditus was no singular Bishop but such an one as might have other Presbyters his fellows in like honours Case of Conscience Resolved VVHo knows not that one of the priviledges of the Clergie was for the Bishops to sit and vote in the House of Peers yet that is abolisht as incongruous to their calling And then why may not the removall of their Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be consented to as well if it prove inconvenient and prejudicial to the Church The abolition of the one is no more against the oath then of the other CHAP. VI. Answering Doctor Boughens explanations for the removall of Bishops out of the House of Lords in his 12. chapter I Proceed now to examine your 12. Chapter spent most upon the Theam whether it be incongruous to the calling of Bishops to sit and vote in Parliament And here you are very passionate but I must first tell you your passionate follie falls more foul on King and Parliament then me for I do but render the reason given by them in effect in the very statute * Anno 17. Car. R. An act for disabling all persons in holy Orders to exercise any temporall jurisdiction or authority The words are these whereas Bishops and other persons in holy orders ought not to be intangled with secular jurisdiction the office of the
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
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