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
lesse then God onely That he is in the power or under the Command of God onely from whom he is the second and after whom he is the first Optatus saies as much Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem There is none above the Emperor but God alone who made him Emperor And what the Emperor was in the Empire the same is the King of England within his own Dominions For the Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in subjection to no Realm but IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT TO GOD AND TO NONE OTHER Hence is it called an Empire and the Imperiall Crown of this Realm 7. The Greeke Commentators are so full for obedience to Kings that they will not yeeld that an Apostle may be freed from this subjection This doctrine S. Paul justifies I stand saith he at Caesars Judgment seat WHERE I OUGHT TO BE JUDGED And after this appeal he resolves that no man not the President himself may judge him or deliver him to be judged by any other Nay after this the President himself might not release him So King Agrippa Had not this man appealed to Caesar he might have been set at liberty Are not these strong evidences of the Kings Supremacy That learned Grotius gives a sure rule whereby to know on whom the Supremacy is settled That saith he is the Supreme civill power cujus actus alterius juri non subsunt whose actions are not subject to any other mans censure or Law But such is the King Qui sub nullo alio sed sub solo Deo agit who lives in subjection to none but to God onely For who may say unto him what doest thou When therefore David had sinned he cries out unto the Lord In te solum peccavi against thee onely have I sinned thou onely canst call me to account Hence is that resolution of all the learned of this Church in the time of King Henry VIII among whom were Bishop Carnmer and Bishop Latymer Although Princes do otherwise then they ought to do yet God hath assigned NO JUDGES OVER THEM in this world but will have the judgement of them reserved to himself And the judgement of the great Lawyers in France is this Rex solus THE KING ONELY IS THE SUPREME LORD of all the Subjects aswell Lay as Ecclesiasticall within his own Dominions All other men live under judgment cum deliquerint peccant Deo peccant legibus mundi and when they offend they sinne against God and against the Laws of the Land 8. But I know you relye more upon the Laws of this Land then upon the Laws of God and upon our Lawyers rather then the Fathers and out best Divines I shall therefore transgresse my profession shew you what their opinion is This Realme say the Statutes is an Empire whereof the KING IS THE SUPREME HEAD and consisteth of the Spiritualty and Temporaâ—ty OVER WHICH THE KING HATH WHOLE POWER AND JURISDICTION Are you of this Realm or are you not Iâ—â—on be then are you either of the spiritualty or temporaâ—ty And if of either then wholly under the Kings power The whole power is his Why seek you to rob him of it Of this Realme the King not the Parliament is the Supreme head One head not two He that makes two Supremacies makes a Bul and he that seâ—â— two heads upon one body frames a monster 9. Indeed they are so far from having any Supremacy that they are Subjects as well in as out of Parliament When King Edward the Confessor had all the Earles and Barons of the Kingdome assembled in Parliament he cals them all his leige men My Lords you that are MY LEIGE MEN. Perchance you may say the King calls them so but that makes them not so You shall therefore have their own acknowledgement in Parliament thus We your most loving faithfull and obedient SUBJECTS REPRESENTING THE THREE ESTATES OF YOUR REALME of England Thus the whole Parliament united into one body False therefore is that proposition that the King is Major singulis sed minor universis greater then any and lesse then all the Inhabitants of this Realme For here the representative body of the three Estates of this Kingdome assembled in Parliament in their highest capacitie acknowledge themselves to be the Queens Subjects and her most obedient Subjects because to her they thus assembled did justly owe both subjection and obedience which none that are supreme can owe. And these are due to his Majestie à singulis ab universis from one and all from every one singly and from all joyntly 10. Secondly when they are assembled in Parliament they Petition as well as out of Parliament This is evident by the Acts themselves wherein we read that our Soveraigne Lord the King by the assent aforesaid and at the PRAIER OF HIS COMMONS The same words are repeated 2 Hen. 5. c. 6 9. And in Queen Elizabeths time the Parliament humble themselves in this manner That it MAY PLEASE YOUR HIGHNESSE that it may be enacted c. I might come down lower but I shall satisfie my selfe with Sir Edward Cokes report who assures us that in ancient times all Acts of Parliament were IN FORME OF PETITIONS Mr. Geree himselfe acknowledgeth they should be so now The King saith he may passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy when HIS HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT think it convenient and PETITION FOR IT Either then the Houses have no Supremacy oâ— else they humble themselves too low when they Petition His Majestie But this Supremacy of Parliament is one of the new lights that were lately wafted into this Land in a Scottish Cookboate 11. Thirdly what Supremacy can there be in those that may not lawfully convene or consult till the King summon them and must dissolve and depart when the King command The Writ it self runs thus prelatis Magnatibus nostris QUOS VOCARI FECIMUS To the Prelates and our Nobles WHOM WE HAVE CAUSED TO BE CALLED And Sir Robert Cotton out of Elie Register tels us that Parliaments were assembled at first as now Edicto Principis not at their own but at the Kings pleasure And Sir Edward Coke assures me that None can begin continue or dissolve the Parliament but BY THE KINGS AUTHORITY And let me tell you that if his Majestie shall withdraw himself from Parliament it is not for your great Masters to inforce him to return but to pray his presence and to inform his Majestie that if he forbear his presence among them fourty dayes that then by an ancient Statute they may return absque domigerio Regis to their severall homes This is all they ought or may do 12. Fourthly whereas according to your words the Parliament is to regulate all other Courts the Court of Parliament is to be regulated by the
Oath is for the maintenance of Episcopacy and your endeavour is for the abrogation of Episcopacy According to your sense therefore by Prelacy I understand Episcopacy which you have vowed and covenanted to extirpate Whether upon just grounds or no shall be now enquired For the Office is either good or bad lawfull or unlawfull necessary or indifferent If in it self bad and utterly unlawfull God forbid but we should joyne in the extirpation of it If indifferent it is in the breast of authority to allow or disallow it But if simply lawfull and good and necessary for the being and continuation of a Church then it is not in the just power of man to discard it or cast it off And yet you resolve that the Kings Oath to uphold Episcopacy is sin If sin then it necessarily followes that Episcopacy in it self is naught and utterly unlawfull Thus in the first place you condemne all the Kings and Queens of this Kingdome that have taken this oath Secondly you condemne those many Saints of God that have discharged this Office of Episcopacy Thirdly You condemne all those Fathers and Councels which justify a necessity of Bishops And last of all you condemn the whole Church of Christ which from her Infancie hath been governed by Bishops Is not this to blaspheme the footsteps of the Lords anointed Is not this to question the actions of those Saints to whom the Faith was first delivered Is not this to vilifie the Spouse of Christ and Christ himselfe who hath suffered the Church to erre so foully from the beginning 2. But how shall it be proved that Episcopacy is so bad that it is a sin to defend it An universall Proposition must have an universall Proofe Exparticulari nonest syllogizari A particular makes no proofe but for that particular whereof it treats Iâ— I manifest that Monarchy or Aristâ—cracy hath been aâ—used in such a State or Nation by such or such a Prince or Peeres do I therefore justifie that it is a sin to defend Moarchy or Aristocracy Oâ— if I shall make it appeare That some Parliament men have abused that trust which is committed to them is therefore a Parliament naught This follows not but hereby I manifest that they who at that time sat at the helme in that place did abuse that which in it self is good Is the Apostleship naught because Judas abused himself and that Is Episcopacy bad because Gregory VII of Rome George of Cappadocia or Paulus Samosatenus abused their place and function Far be it from me to argue or conclude in this manner I have learned to distinguish between the office and the Officer The Office may be simply good and the Officer extremely bad This then is no argument against Episcopacy though perchance you may prove that Episcopacy hath been ill managed 3. But view we your own words which are the minor of your conditionall Syllogisme which are these And truly as Prelacy stood with us in England ingrâ—ssing all ruledome in the Church into the hands of a few L. Bishops I think it may be cleered to be an usurpation And truly I think not So you and I are of two severall opinions But truly your thinking shall be cleered â—y this one argument That power that dispoiles any of Christs Officers of any Priviledge or duty indulged or injoined them by the word of God that power is an usurpation against the word But this Prelacy did as it stood in England Ergo English Prelacie was an usurpation against the word of God 4. How properly you speake and how strongly you argue let the intelligent judge That you and others may be sensible of the strength of your argument under favour of Parliament I shall invert it thus That power that despoiles any of Christs Officers of any priviledge or duty indulged or injoined them by the word of God that power is an usurpation against the Word But this the Parliament doth as it stands now in England Ergo the English Parliament is an usurpation against the word of Gâ—d I hope you know your own argument though it alter a terme it alters not the forme The Major you say is cleer of it self it needs no proofe as you conceive The difficultie is in the Minor and that I make good thus out of your own words Presbyters are by Christs warrant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their own congregations as well as preach But the Parliament hath banished many hundreds of us from our own congregations and barred us from preaching therein Ergo The Parliament hath despoiled many of Christs officers of their priviledges and duties indulged and injoyned them by the Word of God You cannot deny us to be Christs officers since we are Presbyters That we are Presbyters is acknowledged by your great Masters who grant all those to be Presbyters who have been ordained by a Bishop jâ—yned with other Presbyters And so I am sure we are 5. Let a review be taken of the soliditie of your former argument and then we shall finde you offend in limine in that Major which is so clear of it self For do not you say thus That power that despoils any of Christs â—fficers of any priviledge or duty indulged or injoyned them by the Word of God that power is an usurpation against the Word Had you said That power that wrongfully or causelesly despoils any of Christs officers c. you had said something You have not it seems learned to distinguish between justly and unjustly but we must And yet this Proposition is clear of it self if we take your word But Gods Word and yours are two Gods Word saies Non est potestas nisi à Deo There is no power but of God but you say that there is a power which is an usurpation against the Word of God But how can that be usurpata which is data both usurped and given That it is given by God our Saviour testifies S. Joh. 19. 11. Indeed this power may be abused and the abuse of this power is an usurpation The office is from God the abuse from our selves But you cannot or will not distinguish between the office and the abuse If all â—ffiâ—es must be discarded because the officers have done a misse what office will remain in this Kingdom I fear not one 6. We read that Pasâ—ur the High Priest set Jeremie the Prophet in the stocks for preaching the truth which the Lord had commanded him to preach And yet who dares say that the High Priesthood in the old Law was an usurpation We know that the office of a King is Gods own ordinance and yet we dare not say that the power of Jehoiâ—kim King of Juda was an usurpation against Gods Word when he slew Vrijah the Prophet But we may safely and truly justifie that he abused his power And so did King Zedekiah when he imprisoned Jeremiah for prophesying what the Lord had
beare in the Church Let Salmasius speake They at that time were mamed Apostles revera erant EPISCOPI JVRE EODEM ET ORDINE QUO HODIE HABENTUR qui Ecclesiam regunt Presbyteris praesunt and indeed were BISHOPS IN THE SAME RIGHT AND OF THE SAME ORDER WHEREOF AT THIS DAY THOSE ARE ACCOUNTED Who govern the Church and rule Presbyters But this very Office was none of those which were extraordinary and to continue for a season onely no no in Beza's judgement it is quotidianum munus an Office of daily use of necessity therefore it must be perpetull in the Church And yet the duties of that Office were such quibus sustinendis non alius quilibet e vulgo pastorum par fuisset as none of the vulgar Pastors no ordinary Presbyters were meet to undertake And what are these Even to redresse what is amisse and to ordain Presbyters These are matters of moment and require more then ordinary discretion For this cause S. Paul left Titus at Creete and for this very end he sent Epaphroditus to Philippi though at that time there were in that Citie many Bishops Phil. 1. 1. If then there needed no ordination but every man without orders might have discharged Presbyteriall duties or if the Presbyter-Bishops of that Citie might have set that Church in order and therein ordaine Presbyters Why did S. Paul send Epaphroditus to Philippi to do those things which might either have been left undone or at least have been done as well without him Surely S. Paul imposeth not needlesse businesses upon any 16. Bishops there were you will say before in that Church if then it belong to the Episcopall Order to ordain and reforme in the Church what is amisse why was Epaphroditus sent thither Take notice I beseech you that those Bishops were but Presbyters or Presbyter Bishops which Order never had the power either of Ordination or Jurisdiction S. Paul therefore sends unto them Epaphroditus an Apostle-Bishop who could performe both This you see acknowledged by your most able and subtill advocate 17. Well let it be what it will lawfull or unlawfull t is all one in this exigent or distresse that his Majestie is put to notwithstanding that his oath the King say you without impeachment may in this circumstance consent to the Abrogation of Episcopacy His Majesties oath now falls in question and I shall be willing fairely and calmely to consider wherein and how far forth a Christian King is bound to keepe or breake his Oath CHAP. VI. Whether the King without impeachment to his Oath at Coronation may consent to the Abrogation of Episcopacy 1. THis question hath two branches The first Whether a Christian King be bound to keep his Oath The second Whether he may notwithstanding his Oath consent to the Abrogation of Episcopacy His Majesties Coronation deserves also to be looked upon since an oath deliberately and solemnly taken deserves the more seriously to be thought on and will draw from God the heavier doome if despised or slighted 2. By your own confession it is evident that an oath against Christs Institution is vinâ—u um iniquitatis an impious oath and ought not to be observed but to be cut off with shame and sorrow since all bonds to sin is frustrate Confesse we must that an oath against God revealed will or honour is a bond to sin and therefore no sooner made then void and to be abhorred Such is your Covenant against Episcopacy And had the King either through misunderstanding ill advice or fear taken that irreligious Covenant he had been obliged by your confession to have made it frustrate since it is a bond to sin because it is against Christs Word and Instituition as is manifested c. 2. 4. 3. But an oath taken in truth and righteousnesse and judgement because it is of such things as may justly and lawfully be performed yea because God approves ratifies this oath is vinculum aequitatis necessitatis such a bond as equity and conscience bind us necessarily to performe to the utmost of our power But such is his Majesties Oath at Coronation concerning the Church the Spouse of Christ 4. No unrighteousnesse can ye shew in it the lawfulnesse of Episcopacy as also their just right to govern Presbyters is sufficiently justified c. 4. No untruth for our Soveraigne hath sworn to maintaine an Ordinance of truth of Christ himself And sub paenâ judicij upon paine of judgment he is bound to make good this his Oath so justly taken least he fall into the hands of God and so into eternall judgement For Justice requires that every man much more a Christian and a King keep his Oath made upon such grounds though it be with hazard both of Crown and life and all that may be indangered upon earth 5. Consider I beseech you how in an oath we call God to record and we make him not onely our witnesse but our suretie that we will with his blessing performe what we have vowed or sworne in his name And not onely so but we call upon him to be our Judge and the Revenger of our perfidiousnesse if so we wittingly depart from this Oath With what face then can we fall back and wilfully incurre perjury Is not this as Philo Judaeus hath it to make God a shelter for our wickednesse and to cast our sin upon him That so to the infamie of Christian Religion we may â—oder up a faire repute before men Is not this to cast aside not onely a fore-head but all conscience and the fear of God Oh saith S. Austin What blindnesse can equall this to hunt after a little vaine glory by deceiveing man while in thy heart thou sleightest God the searcher of all secrets As if his error who thinks thee good were comparable with thine who seekest to please man with a show of good whilest thou displealest God with that which is truly naught 6. But this is no new thing to you that have dispenced so long so often so variously with so many Oaths of Supremacie Allegeance and canonicall obedience That have done so many strange acts contrarie to your faith and subscription Take heed in time lest not onely your oaths but your own hand-writing arise in judgement against you for casting off the Book of Ordination For renouncing the Booke of Common-Prayer For disclaiming the Articles of the Church of England with those three Creeds the glory and hope of all good Christians Thus you and your brethren are become Apostata's and renegadoes to all Religion and piety gracelesse faithlesse perjured men God of his mercy give you a sence of these sins that so you may in time repent and make some satisfaction to the Church of Christ by an open confession and by a full detestation of those presumptuous and crying sins 7. This Oath his Majestie took solemnly before God in the house of God in the presence of
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
that this word which we here translate devoted or dedicated signifiâ—s properly destroyed quia destructio imminet usurpanâ—il us illa because destruction hangs over their heads that usurp them Jos 7. 1. c. We translate this word accuesed and â— cuâ—se fell upon Achan openly for medling with the accursed or devoted silver and gold and a costly garment God made Aâ—â—maâ— example of his justice to all posterity that so the dreadfull end of him and all his might strike a terrour into the hearts of all covetous persons that they medle not with that which is dedicated to the Lord. 5. Achans fault was that he clancularily stole it and dissembled and put it among his own stuffe But what you do shall be in publike enacted by Parliament and they shall not be seized to private or civill interest Your purpose is to have them diverted or settled upon your selves and your fellow Presbyters who are no private or civill persons Oh no you are the men by whom the work of the Ministery is cheifly performed And yet I cannot but observe that here is a diversion and what is diverted runs not in the right channel it is enforced another way But this you say will not be to ruine but to rectifie the devotion of former ages and turn pompe into use and impediments into helps There needs no proofe for this Ipse dixit Mr. Geree hath delivered this in the Pulpit It is enough so it come from him who is so well skilled in devotion and able to rectifie former ages But I am none of your credulous followers my faith is not pinned to your sleeve Indeed to deale plainly with you I am of another mind and suppose I have good reason for it 6. That revenues were very anciently settled upon the Church can be no new thing to them that are skilled in Councels Fathers and Church History But who were these lands settled upon To whose trust were these committed That Constantine settled revenues upon the Bishops is too too evident to be denyed That the Bishops had houses and lands long before Constantines time is manifest by the Councell of Angur Can. 15. As also by that of Paulus Samosatenus whom the Emperor Aurelian ejected out of the Episcopall house after he had been deprived of his Bishoprick of Antioch by a Councell of Bishops In S. Cyprians time and writings we read that the Church was endowed with means A little higher we may go in our own country we find King Lucius in the yeer of grace 187. settling possessions upon the Church 7. Neither were these means very small as some conceive S. Austine was a Gentleman well desended and had a faire estate left him And yet he professeth that the possessions of his Bishoprick of Hippo were twenty times more then the lands of his inheritance And yet his was none of the richest Bishoppricks in Africk Such was the devotion of former áges 8. Of these revenues the Bishops had the profits they did uti frui rebus Ecclesiae as S. Austin speaks tanquam possessores Domini they were Gods trustees and yet as possessors and Lords they disposed of the Church goods At his See the government of the lands and oblations belonged to him but to some of his Clergie he committed the charge both of the one and of the other But so that once a yeer at least he had an account from them as from his Stewards At his charge as it were the Presbyters and other Clerks of that Church were fed and clad Indeed the lands and goods of the Church were so at the Bishops disposing that the Steward might not distribute any of them as he thought meet but as the Bishop directed him This was not onely by custome but by Canon that the Bishop have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power to dispose the goods of the Church upon the needie And if it happened that any of the lands were alienated or sold in the vacancie it was in the succeeding Bishops power to ratifie or make void the sale 9. Neither did the Bishops innovate any thing therein they followed the steps of the prime and Apostolick Church as is to be seen Apost Can. 41. and in the Acts. There we read that the Christians who were so charitably minded sold their lands or houses and layed the prices thereof not at the Disciples not at the Presbyters but at the Apostles feet After this indeed the Disciples choose out men of honest report full of the holy Ghost and of wisdom that might dispose of these legacies to such as were to be relieved by the Church Stock But this they did not of their own heads but at the Apostles directions who reserved this power to themselves The text justifies it Whom we may appoint over this businesse So the Apostles Hence is it that S. Paul commanded Timothy Bishop of Ephesus to take care that the Presbyters be well provided for Let the Presbyters that rule well be counted worthy of double honor of double maintenance And to what purpose was this charge to Timothy unlesse he were to provide for the Presbyters of his Church I am certain that it is most consonant to common sense Nature and Scripture that parents provide for their children and not children for the parents And is it not reason that he who sets the Presbyters on work should pay them their wages But Bishop Timothy was to set them on work Those things that thou hast heard or learned of me the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be ABLE TO TEACH others And charge them that they teach no other doctrine then this But if they do what then withdraw thy self from them That is eat not with them let them not come to thy table allow them no maintenance What counsell the Apostles gave others without question they observed themselves But S. Paul commands that we eat not with open and notorious sinners and S. John that we receive not deceitfull Preachers into our houses The same rule then they observed themselves For in those times the Bishop and his Presbyters did usually live in the same house and eat at the same table In those times the Bishops provided for the Presbyters but our start up Presbytery will so provide that the Bishops shall have just nothing left them to relieve their own wants all must be for Mr. Presbyter 10. And why so Because there are many defective Parishes in England which want suffiâ—ient maintenance to supply their Parochiall Pastors with But from whence comes this defect or want of maintenance Surely not from the Bishops not from their greedinesse and wretchlesnesse but from that detestable sacriledge as Beza and you call it which was by Parliament acted and ratified under the reign of King Henry VIII At the dissolution of Abbeys the Appropriations of Tithes were taken into
King For the time that is already manifested to be at his Majesties pleasure And for the matter that is prescribed and limited by the King super praemissis tractare to consult and advise upon such things as the King nominates and prescribes And if credit may be given to Iohn Speede he tells us that the great Lawyers Judgments in King Richard II. time concerning orderly proceedings in Parliaments run thus That after the cause of such assembly is by the Kings Commandement there declared such Articles as by the King are limited for the Lords and Commons to proceed in are first to be handled But IF ANY SHOULD PROCEED VPON OTHER ARTICLES AND REFVSE TO PROCEED VPON THOSE LIMITED BY THE KING till the King had first answered their Proposals contrary to the Kings Command such doing herein contrary to the rule of the King ARE TO BE PUNISHED ASTRAITORS And he cites the Law books for what he saies Truly I am the rather induced to beleeve what Speed delivers because Sir Edward Coke gives us the reason why and how far forth the King relies upon his Parliaments The King saith he in all his weighty affairs used the advice of his Lords and Commons so great a trust and confidence he had in them Alwaies provided that both the Lords and Commons keep them within the Circle of the Law and Custom of the Parliament The reason why the King useth their advice is because he hath a great trust and confidence in them But alwaies provided that they keepe themselves within the Circle of the Law and Custome of Parliament But how if they deceive the Kings trust and abuse his confidence How if they break the Lawfull Circle and transgresse the Customs of Parliament How then What Speede hath recorded I have shewn you But what the King may do in this case I shall leave to the Masters of the Law to determine 13. Last of all the King regulates their consultations For in his breast it is whether their Bills shall become Laws or no. Observe though the advice and assent be theirs yet the power of Ordaining Establishing and Enacting is in the Soveraigne The Statute books shall be my witnesses THE KING by the advice assent and authority aforesaid HATH ORDEINED AND ESTABLISHED And again BE IT ENACTED BY THE QUEENS MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTIE with the assent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Commons c. Hence is it that they are called The Kings Laws And the King is called the head of the Law because from him it is derived from him the Law receives both life and force His breast is the Shrine or deske wherein all the Laws are stored up and preserved If any man make question of this present experience will satisfie him For do not the Houses at this day Petition His Majestie to make that a Law which they have voted Take their own words in that high Message sent to Holdenby house in March last We the Lords and Commons assembled in the Parliament of England c. Do humbly present unto your Majestie the humble desires and Propositions agreed upon by the Parliaments of both Kingdoms respectively Vnto which WE DO PRAY YOUR MAJESTIES ASSENT And that they and all such Bills as shall be tendered to your Majestie in pursuance of them or any of them may be ESTABLISHED AND ENACTED FOR STATUTES AND ACTS OF PARLIAMENT by your Majesties Royall assent Which words though very high do manifest that there is neither Majesty nor Supremacy nor power in this or any other Parliament to make or repeale Laws It is at the Kings pleasure to establish and enact them for Laws and Statutes or not This our neighbour Scotland sees and confesseth that Regall power and authority is chiefly IN MAKING AND ENACTING LAWS Declarat of the Kingd of Scotland p. 18. 14. From hence it appears first that there is no Supremacy in the Parliament without the King Secondly That the Supremum jus Dominii the supreme right of Dominion which is over laws to establish or disanull them is in the King alone For a Bill not established is of no force it is no Law 3ly that the King is the supreme Magistrate as you are pleased to call Him from whom all power of execution of Laws is legally derived And 4ly if the power of execution be derived from the King much more is the power to regulate For he that gives them power by his Commission to put the Laws in execution he gives them rules in the same Commission whereby they must be guided and sets them bounds which they may not passe If they transgresse either the King hath a legall power to revoke their Commissions and to dispose of them to whom and when he pleaseth Hence is it that all Courts and the Judges of those Courts are called the Kings Courts and the Kings Ministers of Justice And when we are summoned to appear in any Court of Justice the Processe runs Coram Domino Rege before our Lord the King because the Kings person and power is there represented And though His Majestie be over-born and against all Law and reason kept from his Courts of Justice yet in all Writs you are fain to abuse his Name though he be no way accessary to these lawlesse and illegall proceedings How these Courts have been regulated since His Majesties forced departure this Kingdom is very sensible and laments to consider it God amend it 15. Upon these grounds I argue thus They that are Subjects they that are suppliants they that owe obedience to an higher they that cannot lawfully convene or consult till they be called by another they that must dissolve their meeting at anothers command they that are to be regulated by another they that can onely advise perswade entreat but not enact a Law have no Supremacy But the whole Parliament sever'd from the King are Subjects are suppliants they owe obedience to an higher they cannot lawfully convene or consult till they be called by His Majestie at his command they are to dissolve their meeting by him they are to be regulated and without him they cannot enact a Law The Major is evident to every intelligent eye The Minor is demonstrated Sect. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. I must therefore upon these premises necessarily conclude that the Parliament in that sense you take it hath no Supremacy 16. That nothing may be wanting I shall give you the resolution of our Sages at Law concerning the Kings unseparable and incommunicable Supremacy that so all mouthes may be stopped Bractons resolution is this Rex habet potestatem jurisdictionem super omnes qui inregno suo sunt The King hath power and jurisdiction over all within his own Kingdom Plowden saith as much The King hath the SOLE GOVERNMENT of his Subjects Here is no man no Societie of men exempted all under the King and solely under the King Where then is the Parliaments
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