tangunt prosint nemini praesertim notabile afferant nâ—cumentum That they may be commodious for those whom they concerne and yet not be evidently injurious to others From these or the like grounds I find it resolved by the Sages of this Kingdom that the King may grant priviledges to any Corporation so they be not prejudiciall to some other of his Subjects 5. But wherein is the Kings Oath to the Clergie inconsistent with his Oath to the people Because his Majestie hath first say you taken an oath for the protection of the people in THEIR LAWS and liberties Their Laws The peoples Laws Who made them makers or Masters of the Laws Do the people use to make Laws in a Monarchie Behold all are Law-makers Who then shall obey None but the Clergie Thus the Clergie must obey the people and if obey then please For whom we obey them we must please And yet there is much danger in pleasing the people For If I should please men that is the common people I were not the servant of Christ The plain truth is the Laws are the Kings Laws so we call them and so they are and his subjects must observe them Otherwise he beareth not the sword in vaine The Liberties indeed are the peoples granted and confirmed unto them by the Soveraignes of this Realme But wherein will the latter Oath be a present breach of the former and so unlawfull One would think here were some great wrong offered to the people as if some immunities or means were taken from them and transferred upon the Clergie by this Oath But when all comes to all it is no more then this that One of the priviledges of the people is that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with the consent of the King to alter what ever in any particular estate is inconvenient to the whole I had thought that this priviledge you speake of had not been a priviledge of the people but of the Parliament that is of the Peers and Commons representees of the people met in a lawfull and free Parliament with the Kings consent Not of the representees of the people alone But you would faine incense the people a new against us under a pretence that all is for their good and for the maintenance of their priviledges because they are represented by the House of Commons Whereas the truth is you endeavour to devolve al upon that House for the erection of Pâ—ssbytery That so both Church and State may be Democraticall both settled under a popular government 6. Let us take a view of this passage and see what truth is in it One of the priviledges of the people is say you that the Peers and Commons in Parliament HAVE POWER TO ALTER what-ever is inconvenient How the Lords will take this I know not though of late they have been so passive Can they endure that their power should be onely derivative and that from the people Your words are plain one of the priviledges of the people is that the peers have power As if the Lords had no power in Parliament but what issued from the peoples priviledges Why then are they called Peers when they are not so much as Peers to the people but their substitutes if not servants Surely you lay the Lords very lowe And if it be one of the peoples priviledges that the Lords have power then is it also one of their priviledges that the Lords have no power that the people may take it from them when they please Cuius est instituere ejus est destituere they that can give power can also take it away if they see good This of late hath been usually vaunted against the House of Commons and you say as much to the House of Peers Whereas the peoples priviledges are but severall grants of the Kings of this Land proceeding meerly from their grace and favour Alas the people hath not so much as a vote in the Election of Peers neither have they liberty to choose Members for the house of Commons no not so much as to meet for any such purpose untill they be summoned by the Kings Writ So the peoples priviledges depends upon the Kings summons no such priviledge till then 7. And whereas you say that the Peers and Commons have power to alter what-ever is inconvenient You are much mistaken When by the Kings summons they are met in Parliament they have power to treat and consult upon alterations as also to present them to his Majestie and to petition for such alterations where they see just cause But they have no power to alter that is in the King or else why do they Petition him so to this day to make such changes good as they contrive Hoc est testimonium regiae potestatis vbique obstinentis principatum This a full testimonie of the Kings power in all causes and over all persons that the Lords Commons Assembled in Parliament are faine to Petition for his Royall consent and confirmation before they can induce an alteration The truth is the Power of making laws is in him that gives life to the Law that enacts it to be a Law not in them that advise it or Petition for it Where the word of a King is there is power it is his word Le Roy Le Vâ—lt that makes it a Law then t is a Law and not before No power makes it a Law but his For he doth whatsoever pleaseth him When it pleaseth him not when it pleaseth them many times therefore he rejects Bills agreed by both houses with his Roy ne veult the King will not have them to be Lawes The reason is given by that renowned Justice Jenkins because the Law makes the King the onely Judge of the Bills proposed I counsell thee therefore to keep the Kings commandment or to take heed to the mouth of the King and that in regard of the Oath of God That is saith the Geneva Note that thou obey the King and keep the Oath that thou hast made for the same cause This is agreeable to Scripture And the wisest of this Kingdome not long since acknowledged that without the Royall consent a Law can neither be complete nor perfect nor remaine to posterity A Law it is not it binds not till the King speak the word Yea the Kingdom of Scotland hath declared that the power of making Laws is as essentiall to Kings as to govern by Law and sway the Scepter Declar. of the Kingdome of Scotland p. 34. 8. But if this be the peoples priviledge that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power WITH THE CONSENT OF THE KING to alter what is inconvenient Whose priviledge is it I pray you for the Lords and Commons without the Kings consent to make alterations and abrogations with root and branch This is no priviledge of the people nor yet of the Houses Because as Justice Jenkins observes it is against
with the chief Priest the Priest of the first Order And is it not so now Have we not just cause to say to you Ye take too much upon you ye Presbyters ye sons of Bishops What Is it not enough for you that God hath separated you from the multitude that he hath taken you neer himself to do the service of the Lords house and to administer the Sacraments but you must have the Bishops office But you must be giving Orders as well as the Bishop Surely this is to assume that power to your selves which God never committed to any Presbyter while a Presbyter 24. Last of all I cannot but observe that when the Lord had punished these schismaticall and seditious persons the tumult ariseth afresh against Moses and Aaron they cry out upon them as murderers as if these two had slain the people of the Lord for thus they call that factious and damnable crue But the Lord decided the controversie and shewed manifestly who were His first by consuming the mutineers with the plague and secondly by causing Aarons rod when it seemed to be quite dead to revive even to bud and blossom and bear fruit in the Tabernacle Thus the mouthes of the rebellious Children were stopped and Gods Ordinance justified Oh that salvation were given unto Israel out of Sion Oh that the Lord would deliver his people out of Captivity Oh that we might see Aarons rod once more bud and blossom and bring forth Almonds Then should Jacob rejoyce and Israel should be right glad CHAP. XVII Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdom 1. IN this Treatise you blame those that seem to set up two Supremacies and yet you cannot see the same beam in your own eye You are of kin sure to those Lamiae those witches that were blind at home but quick-sighted abroad Thou that findest fault with another doest the same thing For do not you say plainly that there 's a Supremacie in the King and a Supremacy in the Parliament I hope you know your own language Clodius accusat It is an usuall thing for your confederacie to charge the King and his good Subjects with that which your selves are either guilty of or intend to induce 2. What two Supremacies two superlatives at the same time in the same Kingdom Is this possible What because there is summus and supremus because there are two superlatives of the same word shall we therefore have two Supremacies in the same Realm Is not this flatly against the Oath of Supremacy Wherein you and I and your great Patriots have sworn that the Kings Highnesse is the ONELY SUPREME GOVERNOUR OF THIS REALME and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countreys But the King hath been so long out of your eye that he is now out of your minde and the Parliament shall at least be his corrivall in the Supremacy Take heed take heed of perjury I can tell you of severall Acts of Parliament since the Reformation that lay a penaltie of fourty pounds upon every particular perjurie If His Majestie had all these forfeitures they would satisfie his debts and make him a glorious King after all these pressures 3. But you clip His Majesties wings though ye make him flie and tell us as you conceive that the Supremum jus Dominii the supreme right of Dominion which is above all Laws is not in the King To say it is in him is in this in our State a manifest error Why what 's become of the Oath of Supremacy Have we forgot that Was not that provided for this State In our State this is no error in yours it may be or else you are in a manifest error Certainly the members have sworn that the King is the ONLY SUPREME GOVERNOUR OF THIS REALM or State And that he is so as well IN ALL Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall If He be the onely Supreme how shall we find another Supreme or an equall to him within his own Dominions If He be so in all things and causes both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall what thing or cause is there wherein he is not the onely Supreme or wherein he hath any other Supreme joyned to him For certain these particles Onely and All are exclusive of any copartner 4. But you will chalk out a way whereby to elude or avoid this Oath and the restrictions therein There 's a supreme Parliament as well as a supreme King Or a Supremacy is in the Parliament and a Supremacy in the King An excellent Arithmetician he hath learned to multiply of one and one onely he hath made two Thus have they raised division out of unity and from hence are these distractions and divisions which are so repugnant to the weal of the people This is one of their new lights which is borrowed from their multiplying glasse that makes a molehill as bigge as a mountain and a Spider as large as a Sea-crab But when the multiplying glasse is layed aside the spider will be but a spider 5. Well let us see how you make good this twofold Supremacy The Supremacy or the Supremum jus Dominii that is over all Laws figere or refigere to make or disanull them at pleasure is neither in the King nor in the Houses apart but in both conjoyned Here then we are fallen back to one Supremacy And this Supremacy is not the Kings onely but it is the Parliaments as well as his This is to skip from Monarchy to Aristocracy Kingdoms indure no corrivals and Kings have no Peers But this man hath found one thing wherein the King hath Peers and consequently is not the onely supreme Governour of this Realm Strange how that Parliament and all since that time have been so mistaken as not to see their own right but to ascribe all to the King and that in a point of so high concernment Surely they wanted this young Preacher to bring them in a new light But I beleeve it will appeare that the Supremacie over all Laws to make or disanull them is in the King alone at the Petition of both houses and that those Parliaments knew full well 6. For satisfaction in this point I shall observe what Scriptures Fathers and some modern writers have resolved concerning Kings S. Petter plainly and fully ascribes Supremacy to the King Submit your selves saith he to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake Whether it be to the KING as SUPREME or unto Governors as unto them that are sent by him Kings are sent by God to them therfore we submit for the Lords sake All other civill Governours are sent by the King to them therefore we submit for the Kings sake that sent them Answerable hereunto are those passages in Tertullian that the Emperor is homo a Deo secundus solo Deo minor in Dei solius potestate a quo secundus post quem primus the man second to God and
good King ought to be a Protector and Defender of the Bishops and Churches under his Government Rex With a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my part and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdome by right ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under his Government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion Table where he makes a solemne Oath in sight of all the â—â—opâ—e to observe the premises and laying his hand on the Booke saith The Oath The Things that I have before promised I shall perform and keep so p 〈…〉 me God and the Contents of this Book The Contents CHAP. I. VVHether the King may lawfully consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy 1. CHAP. II. Whether the Kings Oath taken at his Coronation be an unlawfull Oath 4. CHAP. III. Whether Prelacy in the Church of England were an usurpation 9. CHAP. IV. Whether the King may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy if so that calling be lawfull 18. CHAP. V. Whether ye have not bound your selves by your Solemne League and Covenant to maintaine Episcopacy 22. CHAP. VI. Whether the King without impeachment to his Oath at Coronation may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy 31 CHAP. VII Whether the King may desert Episcopacy without perjury 37. CHAP. VIII Whether the Kings Oath to the Clergie be injurious to his other subjects and inconsistent with his Oath to the people 41. CHAP. IX How far forth and wherein the Clergie is subject to a Parliament and to what Parliament 52 CHAP. X. Whether it be lawfull for the King to abrogate the Rights of the Clergie 60. CHAP. XI Whether the Clergie and Laity be two distinct bodies or one body Politicke That Church-men in all ages had some singular priviledges allowed them 69. CHAP. XII Whether to sit and Vote in Parliament be incongruous to the calling of Bishops 78. CHAP. XIII Certaine light and scandalous speeches concerning Prince Preist tenderly touched 87. CHAP. XIV Whether the Lands of the Church may be forfeited by the misdemeanour of the Clergie 93. CHAP. XV. Whether it be lawfull to take away the Bishops Lands and to confer them upon the Presbytery 104. CHAP. XVI How far forth the King ought to protect the Church Bishops 114 CHAP. XVII Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdome 127 Mr. GEREES Case of Conscience SIFTED CHAP. I. Whether the King may lawfully consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy 1. I Find a Case of Conscience proposed by Mr. Geree and this it is Whether the King considering his O that Coronation to protect the Clergie and their Priviledges can salvâ conscientiâ consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy But why I pray you is the question proposed here when you have determined it before For doth not your Title page speak thus In this Case of Conscience it is cleared that the King may without impeachment to his Oath touching the Clergie at Coronation consent to the Abrogation of Episcopacy Thus you have full magisterially determined before the question be so much as proposed Is this the fashion first to resolve and then to argue the case This may be the course of Hereticks it is otherwise with good Catholicks But you are resolved to maintain that a Christian may swear and forswear without the least prejudice to his soul 2. And your practice is accordingly witnesse the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy which you with your great Masters have taken more then once And those of your perswasion have taken up Arms against their Soveraign Lord without impeachment to their Oath of Allegiance and maintain that The Parliament is subordinate to no power under Heaven without any breach of the Oath of Supremacie And your self like a good Preacher of Gods Word have taken the Oath of Canonicall obedience to the Bishop and yet endeavour the abrogation of Episcopacy and the extirpation of that Order from whence you had your Orders and without which you could have had no Orders 3. Me thinks the Smectymnuans should not endure this Proposition since with them a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Thus while you endeavour to ruinate Episcopacy you subvert the Presbytery according to their tenets I wonder much how your case hath passed so long unsifted and uncensured by the Divine Masters of your learned Assembly 4. But I shall take it for your best advantage as it is distinguished or as we say a distinct order from Presbytery I shall also take into consideration the severall motives which you produce for the Abrogation of Episcopacy 5. Whereof your first is this that there is no hope of the Kings or Kingdoms safetie without an union between our King and Parliament I must confesse with anguish of spirit as matters have been handled the King and Kingdom are driven into a great streight and an Vnion between our King and your Parliament hath been prayed for and sought for by all commendable or tolerable means The hope left us is onely in our God and Saviour whose custome it is to scatter the proud in the imagination of their hearts to pull down the mighty from their throne and to exalt the humble and meek Thus can he shew strength with his arm and do great things for us And this I hope in his due time he will do and reduce this Kingdom from irreligion and sacriledge and not cast off the innocent with the prophane blasphemers Oh that we might begge that blessing from Heaven to see a Parliament rightly regulated religiously minded and with-out any by ends of their own men of courage fearing God men dealing truly hating covetousnesse Such as will not be led by a multitude to do evil or to subvert the truth I am certain we should then have an Union a blessed Vnion between King and Parliament 6. But by you it seems that there is now no probable or possible means of reconciliation left in mans judgement unlesse the King yeeld to the extirpation of Episcopacy You should have added unlesse he lay down his Lands Royalties and just Prerogatives at his Subjects feet unlesse he abandon the wife of his bosome and become a stranger to the Children of his loins unlesse he sacrifice his friends to the malice of his foes and the ruine of whole families to their avarice unlesse he cast off the Service of God that most excellent form of Common Prayer and give up the houses and lands of God and all that is accounted holy to satiate their sacrilegious appetite 7. But in sober sadnesse do you beleeve that the Abrogation of Episcopacy is that they yawn at You are mistaken good brother the Episcopall houses and lands as also what ever belongs to Deans and
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
provided for Shall she not in their absence be layed open to the subtill foxes and mercilesse bores to wast and distroy her Yea by this means she is already distroyed So pious Justice Jenkins The incongruitie then is not to the Bishops calling but to the covetousnesse of bores and foxes 13. Another incongruity will follow upon this The whole Parliament is one corporate body consisting of the HEAD AND THE THREE ESTATES If one of the Estates be wanting it cannot be called a whole but an imperfect a maimed Parliament But the Bishops are one of the three Estates Suppose them to be the more feeble and lesse honourable Estate or Member yet this very Member is necessary and the body is but lame without it Take heed then that the excluding of Bishops be not incongruous to the Parliament I see not how it can be incongruous to the Prelates to suffer wrong since for this purpose they are called But it is incongruous to the Parliament to be without them since without them it is not a whole but an imperfect Parliament For I have read that Bishops were in all Parliaments and voted in them since we had any Yea that great Master of the Law justifies that every Bishop ought ex debito justiciae of due justice to be summoned by Writ to every Parliament that is holden But if they leave out the Bishops they begin with injustice and lay but an ill foundation for so great a Court of Justice And where injustice beares the sway there is little Justice to be hoped for So they are incongruous in the first stone or foundation of a Parliament 14. There is a Statute that no Act of Parliament be passed by any Soveraign of this Realm or any other authority what soever without the advice assent of the three Estates of the Kingdome viz. of the 1 Lords spirituall 2 temporall the 3 Commons of this Realme And all those are solemnly cursed by the whole Parliament that shall at any time endeavour to alter this Act or to make any Statute otherwise then by the consent of all these or the Major part of them This as the learned in the Law report is upon record in the Parliament Roles 15. And what comfort I beseech you can his Majestie have to call a Parliament without Bishops since he cannot assure himself of Gods assistance without them Cenwalch King of the West-Saxons was sensible that his Province was destitute of Gods protection while it was without a Bishop Indeed a good Bishop is with Gregory Metropolitan of Cesarea not onely the beautie of the Church and a fortresse to his flock but he is the safety of his Country It was the religious conceit of our country men heretofore that both King and Kingdome have by the Church a solid â— sure foundation for their subsistence And it was the usuall saying of King Iames No Bishop no King In Scripture the Preists are called the Charets and horsemen of Israel because by their prayers the Country prospered more then by force of armes And the Greek Fathers observe that the Bishop is therefore to pray for all because he is the Common Father of all be they good or bad 16. And as he can have little spirituall comfort without Bishops so without them he can have no temporall releife no Subsidies granted for his own supplies or for the defence of the Kingdome I am sure none have been granted him at Westminster since the expulsion of the Bishops Thus have you moulded up such a Parliament as was never known in this Realme since these great Councels of State were first assembled For though the Bishops were by his Majestie summoned according to justice yet were they afterwards turned out at the instigation of a strong tumultuous faction not suffered to vote in matters that concerned either Church or State Thus ye are become like the Princes of Judah that remove the bounds That is as the Genevians interpret ye have turned upside down all politicall order and all manner of Religion Therefore upon those that have done so the Lord will powre out his wrath like water which will surely overwhelm them as it did those desperate sinners in the deluge Thus I have manifested that it is not incongruous to the calling of Bishops to sit and vote in Parliament but to exclude them is incongruous to the being of a Parliament to the weale of the King and safety of the Kingdom 17. And yet as if what-you had delivered were ex tripode as sure as Gospel from barring their votes you deduce an argument for taking away their Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall If one be abolished why may not the other be removed As if because my cassocke is taken from me I must necessarily be stripped out of my gowne 'T is true if this be also done I must bear it patiently but my patience doth not justifie their action that do me the injurie Neither doth the former fact justifie the latter truly no more then Davids follie with Bathsheba can countenance the murder of Vriah The question is not de factâ— but de jure not what is done but whether it be justly done If the fact may justifie a right then may we maintaine robbing upon Salisbury Plain because it hath been done there more then once A wonder it is you had not framed your argument thus who knows not that the Parliament caused the Arch Bishop of Canterbury to be beheaded And then why may they not hang the rest of the Bishops if their lives prove inconvenient and prejudiciall to the Church But with Julian the Apostata ye had rather slay the Preisthood then the Preists 17. Indeed the removall of their Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction is no more against the Oath then the abolition of their Votes Both alike in respect of the Oath but if we consider the severall authorities from whence they are derived we shall find a difference because the most part of their Jurisdiction is the grant of God but their Voting among the Peers is by the favour of Princes grounded upon the right of Nature and that civill interest which every free denizon ought to have in some measure in disposing of his own and assenting to new Laws But suppose Princes may revoke their own favours can they without perill to their soules cut off that entaile which God hath settled upon his Church I beleeve no. But you will onely remove it not abolish it And removed it may be from Dorchester to Lincolne from Crediton to Exiter But the removall of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction from Bishops to Presbyters is utterly unlawfull since without sinne we may not alter the Ordinance of God who settled this Jurisdiction upon Bishops onely and not upon Presbyters as is demonstrated in the next Chapter CHAP. XIII Certaine light and scandalous passages concerning Prince and Preist tenderly touched 1. THere 's a great cry
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
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
Master GEREE'S CASE of CONSCIENCE SIFTED Wherein is enquired VVhether the KING considering His Oath at Coronation to protect the Clergy and their Priviledges can with a safe Conscience consent to the Abrogation of EPISCOPACY AUG de Trin. l. 4. c. 6. Contra rationem nemo sobrius contra Scripturas nemo Christianus contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit CYPR. Ep. 27 Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disposuit Dr. CORN BURGES Fire of the Sanctuary p. 68. Men now count it an high piece of zeal to direct their Directors and like Clock-makers to take the Church all in pieces at their pleasure By EDWARD BOUGHEN D. D. LONDON Printed in the yeare 1650. TO THE MOST EXCELLENT AND PIOUS PRINCE CHARLES KING of England Scotland France and Ireland Defender of the Faith and Guardian of the Church SIR IT may seem strange to some but my hope is not to Your Majesty that I make this Dedication at this time to Your sacred Person The matter of this Treatise is in Your behalf it justifies Your solemn Oath at Coronation the just necessitie of this Oath as also Your Crown and dignity and the goodliest Floure in that Crown Supremacy To whose hands then should I chiefly present it but to Yours The times affright me not from my faith and duty I remember well that during the Ecclipse of heaven and the King of heaven there was one that durst acknowledge our Saviours Kingdom and in the full assurance of his title preferr'd his petition to him as a King And shall I be ashamed to do the like I know You are my onely Soveraign here on earth I know You represent my Saviour in his kingly office though Your Crown be wreathed with thorns With all humility therefore I present this acknowledgement of my most loyall affections which are due to Your sacred Majestie from Your poore but most faithfull Subject Edward Boughen To the intelligent READER I Was intreated by a very good Friend to take Mr. Gerees Case of Conscience into consideration and to bestow some pains in disclosing the weaknesse and foulnesse of his arguing Truly I was willing to undeceive my seduced Countreymen and yee ded to his request The Treatise I finde to be small but dangerous It aims at the ruine both of Church and Kingdom It perswades the King that his Oath as Coronation is a wicked Oath and that he ought to break it And then wo be to his Soul and the Kingdoms safety Yea he affirms it to be Vinculum iniquitatis the bond of iniquitie Thus he hath knit up out most gracious Soveraign with all His religious Predecessors in the bundle of iniquity No sooner read I this but b my heart was hot within me and while I was musing upon this and the like blasphemies the fiâ—e was kindled within me and at the last I spake with my tongue Why should this Shimei blaspheme my Lord the King and slander the footsteps of those anointed of the Lord that have so long slept in peace Because he hath done this wickednesse the Lord shall return it upon his owne paâ—e And King Charles shall eblessed and his throne shall be established before the Lord for ever Consult I pray you with Dr. Cornelius Burges a feirce Assembly man and of great authority among them and he will tell you that God is tender not onely of the safety but also of the honour of HIS ANOINTED In so much that he hath made a law to all not to revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of the people Which Law saith he not onely prohâ—biteth imprecations and seditious railings which are an HELLISH IMPIETY though it be but in word onely â—e the Prince never so impious but even all rude bitter and unseemly speeches And Mr. Nathaniel Ward in his Sermon upon Ezech. 19. 14. preached before the Commons June 30. 1647. affirmes that besides the male administrations of Government by Magistrates themselves there is no readier way to prostiâ—ute it then to suffer vile men to BLASPHEME AND SPIT IN THE FACE OF AUTHORITY All this Master Geree hath done most undeservedly If then I shall cleare the Kings Oath from these foule imputations I shall prove Mr. Geree to be involved in the bond of iniquity And he that is so his heart is not right in the sight of God he is in the very gall of bitternesse Just in Simon Magus case I shall therefore take up S. Peters words and advise him to Repent of this his wickednesse to pray God if perhaps the thought of his heart may be forgiven him If you conceivâ—â— I have ventered upon some questions not so fit to be handled without my Profession I beseech you take notice that this Minister hath led me into these undesired and unpleasant pathes He that undertakes to answer a book is bound to confute all but what he approves Silence in such passages speaks consent Good Reader let true reason Scripture and authority guide thee and then thou shalt be sure to judge impartially Take notice that J G. stands for Mr. John Gerees Case of Conscience I D. for Jus Divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici Sir Robert Cotton for his Treatise that the Soveraignes person is required in the great Councels or Assemblies of the State His Majesties Oath published by Himself in an Answer to the Lords and Commons in Parliament 26. May. 1642. SIR will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirm to the people of England the Laws and Customs to them granted by the Kings of England you Lawfull and Religious Predecessors and namely the Laws and Customs and Franchises granted to the Clergie by the glorious King S. Edward your Predecessor according to the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospel established in this Kingdom and agreeable to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customs of this Realme Rex I grant and promise to keep them Episcopus Sir will you keep Peace and godly agreement entirely according to your power both to God and the Holy Church the Clergie and the people Rex I will keep it Episcopus Sir will you to your power cause Law Justice and Discretion in mercie and truth to be executed in all your Judgments Rex I will Episcopus Will you grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightfull Customs which the Commonaltie of this your Kingdom have and will you defend and uphold them to the honour of God so much as in you lieth Rex I grant and promise so to do Then one of the Bishops reads this Admonition to the King before the people with a loud voice OUR Lord and King We beseech you to pardon grant and to preserve unto us and to the Churches committed to our charge all Canonicall Priviledges and due Law and Justice and that you would protect and defend us as every
Chapters to Archdeacons and Prebendaries are the things they hunger and thirst after they will wipe your mouthes of all such morsels as their Ordinances for the sale of such Lands have fully manifested 8. And wheras you seem to be much troubled for his Majesty lest he should condescend renitente conscientia against conscience to gratifie you in this kind and to bring sin upon himself Which you perceive and in a manner confesse he must do if he do as you would have him for you say It would be sinfull to himself Thus you endeavour to perswade our Soveraign into sin upon pretence to sin how you can salve it we shall see hereafter In the mean space I must tell you that you trouble your self for the King blessed be God without cause for we cannot perceive that He is inclinable to gratifie you in this kinde Neither doth every reluctance of conscience make a grant sinfull but onely when my conscience checks me upon just grounds It is not the renitence or strugling of conscience but the pulling down of Gods Ordinance Episcopacy that makes the sin though I confesse the sin is the greater if it be done upon deliberation against conscience let the pretence be what you please If this indeed should prove to be the Kings case which God forbid then must it necessarily follow that it would be sinfull to him and so he should forfeit inward to procure outward peace and be represented to times in the glasse of conscience to adventure the heavenly to retain an earthly Crown Nothing more certain Wo then be to him or them who ever they be that plot how they may endanger the Kings earthly Crown that so they may deprive him of his heavenly inheritance He hath been tried as gold in the furnace he hath been enforced thorow fire and water but for all this with Gods blessing he shall arrive in the haven of happinesse 9. But there is an Oath that stands in the way which was taken at the Kings Coronation This hath been prest by some Learned pens with that probabilitie that by your own confession may stumble a right intelligent Reader But you are none of that number you stumble not but smoothly passe over such rubs and though they have not hitherto received any satisfactory answer yet now we shall have it in Print By your pains the Objâ—ctions shall be cleared which while they stand unansweâ—ed cast an ill reflection upon the King in condescending to abrogate Episcopacy I beseech you do you dream Who told you that His Majestie had condescended to this impious and Antichristian demand No no blessed be God he hath done Christ and his Church and himself that honour in the refusall of this Proposition that His memory shall be glorious in our Histories and his Name high in the book of life But for certain they will cast an ill a foule an infamous refâ—â—ction upon those who ever they be that shall presse him to this unchristian act This you and your Masters of the Assembly can never avert with all your Dutch devices and Geneva fallacies I say it now it shall be explained hereafter 10. But why am I so forward when the Kings Oath may be taken off two wayes either by clearing the unlawfulnesse of it or else by manifesting that though Episcopacy be lawfull yet notwithstanding that his Oath the King may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy Both these your wayes shall be severally taken into consideration and first for the unlawfulnesse thereof CHAP. II. Whether the Kings Oath taken at his Coronation be an unlawfull Oath 1. YOu say and say truly that the oath which is vinculum iniquitatis the bond of iniquitie is void the first day And your reason is firme for Qui jurat in iniquuâ— obligatur in contrarium he that swears to do that which is unjust is bound to performe the contrary Your argument hitherto is good and upon these very grounds we will joyne issue But how will you proove that his Majestie hath sworne to uphold that which is unjust or impious This shall be done by manifesting that the King hath sworne to maintaine that which is contrary to Christs Institution And what is that Episcopacy say you Your resolution is high and peremptory as if you were settled upon infall blegrounds which upon just try all will dissolve into sand And yet with you I readily acknowledge that If Prelacie in the Church be an usurpation contraâ—y to Christs Institution then to maintain it is to sin and all bonds to sin are frustrate 2. I hope you use no tricks but fairely without any fallacie according to the question proposed by Prelacie you mean Episcopacy properly and strictly so called Otherwise there are foure termes in your syllogisme Now if this proposition be firme upon the same grounds it will follow you cannot deny it that If Supremacie in the Parliament be an usurpation contrary to Christs Institution then to maintain it is to sin But Supremacie in the Parliament is an usurpation contrary to Christs Institution Ergo to maintaine it is to sin That Supremacie in the Parliament is contrary to Christs Institution is evident by St. Peter who placeth Supremacie in the King in these words Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be unto the KING as SUPREME or unto GOVERNOURS that are SENT BY HIM by the King And every rationall man cannot but discerne that there can be but one not two Supremes in the same Kingdome as you would have it But of this more fully in the last Chapter Secondly it followes If ordination by Presbyters be an usurpation contrary to Christs Institution then to maintain it is to sin But Oâ—dination by Presbyters is an usurpation contrary to Christs Institution To maintain it therefore is to sin The minor with Gods blessing shall suddenly be made good against the Presbyterian Jus divinum Thirdly If Episcopacy in the Church be no Vsurpation but Christs Institution then to endeavour the extirpation thereof is sin But Episcopacy in the Church is no usurpation but Christs Institution Therefore to endeavour the extirpation thereof is sin 3. That you your Assembly and Parliament have made and taken an oath to extirpate Episcopacy is too notorious to be denyed But if I shall prove that Episcopacy is not contrary to Christs Institution then shall I cleare the Kings oath from sin Secondly if I shall demonstrate that Episcopacy is the Institution of Christ then is your Covenant g vinculum iniquitatis the very bond iniquitie and you are bound in conscience publickly and penitently to retract it That the same Order cannot be Christs Institution and contrary to Christs Institution is so apparent a truth that a meer idiot may discern it But the Order of Bishops is Christs Institution and yet ye have sworne to up with it root and branch Much like to those in the Prophet
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
the Nobility and Clergie and a multitude of his leige people And shall not all these oblige him so much the more to be tender of this Oath Zanchius tels us that it is a more grievous sin to offend against a publick solemne oath then against one made in private What may we then think of an oath taken with such high Solemnity 8. This Oath was voluntarily freely taken without compulsion or perswasion so no excuse that way Indeed it was taken in truth in judgement and in righteousnesse In truth his sacred Majesty resolving truly to keep it In Judgement judiciously upon mature deliberation and in righteousnesse intending that every branch of this Oath should be justly and righteously observed in all his Courts of Justice How then can he infringe this Oath 9. He made this promissâ—ry Oath to a great body of this His Kingdome the whole Clergie of this Land and those not the meanest of his Subjects And not onely so but to holy Church his mother and to God the Father of us all How can he then disclaime this Oath which so obligeth his conscience before God that â—ad he bound himself by such a tye to high-way robbers or to his professed â—nemies he had been bound by the Law both of Nations and Christianity strictly to haue observed it without fraud or coven Talke not of a dispensation Nor life nor death nor principalities nor powers whether civill or spirituall can possibly discharge him of this oath no more then they can me of my oath of Allegiance And yet it is a point of your Religion to perswade to perjurie as if it would ease your consciences to have millions concurre with you in the same perfidiousnesse and end 10. Is perjurie a sin or no sin If it be a sin and an heinous sin how then can I commit this great wickednesse and sin against God Is it no sin If you be of that mind speake out shew your self in your true colours What Religion are you of I know not well little use hath your conscience made of Religion in this case Your eye is wholly upon the Parliament and the present necessity those members have wrought our good King and this whole Nation Necessity hath so far prevailed with you as rather to be forsworne then to forgo your present maintenance But our most gracious Soveraigne whom God ever blesse hath wholly fixed his heart upon God and his Word wherein we are charged not to sweare falsely by the name of the Lord no nor to forsweare our selves but to performe our oaths unto the Lord. Marke though the oath be made to the servant it must be performed unto the Lord because the caution is given to the servant in the Lords behalfe yea upon the Lords credit for by his name and upon his book we sweare to do it And if we do it not the Lord will not hold us guiltlesse Minus dicitur plus intelligitur by this one word much may be understood For the Lord will come against us in Judgement and call us to an account for our oaths Oaths therefore must be avoided lest we fall into condemnation For perjurie is a foule a dangerous a damnable sin Odious it is to God because it defiles his most holy name For this very sinne the land mournes I beseech God it become not disolate Sure I am a curse will enter into his house that sweareth falsely it will settle there till it have consumed the timber and stones thereof Or as the wise man hath it his house shall be full of calamities and the plague shall never depart from it Let Zedekiah be our evidence He took the Oath of Allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar but slighted it and rebelled against that his Soveraign Lord who had so highly honoured him and trusted him with a Kingdom But what became of him The Caldees came besieged Jerusalem conquer'd it took Zedekiah prisoner and slew his sons before his eyes This done they put out his eyes and in fetters carried him captive to Babylon Here was an end of the Kings of that Land descended from the Tribe of Judah Are not here the timber and stones of his house his strong men and the sons of his loins utterly consumed 11. Think not to excuse your selves or any other by some later Covenant this will not serve the turn Was the first sworn in truth and judgement and righteousnesse or was it not Doth it truly and justly agree with the Word of God at least not contradict it If so thou art bound in justice to observe it lest judgement fall upon thee For this is a true rule if Zanchius mis-guide us not Posteriores promissiones etiam juramento firmatae nihil de prioribus detrahere aut imminuere possunt Later aths cannot possibly make the former of no or lesse validitie Why then do you perswade the King to break his oath He that enticeth a man to perjurie under pretence of pietie and Religion what doth he else but affirm that some perjuries are lawfull Which is as much to say as some sins are lawfull Which is naught else but to conclude that some things are just which are unjust I appeal to men of understanding whether this proposition savours of pietie or discretion Think not then to ensnare prudent and conscientious men with such frivolous and senslesse pretences which favour strongly of absurditie if not of Atheisme CHAP. VIII Whether the King may desert Episcopacy without perjury 1. GIve me leave to passe over a few pages and to take that into consideration which follows next in reason though not according to your method We are now fallen upon a strange question too high to be proposed by any Subject But you have enforced me to make that a question which is harsh to loyall ears lest I may seem to avoid your subtill and sawcie cavils as unanswerable For do not you say that your second Antâ—gonist plainly â—ffiâ—ms that the King cannot desert Episcopacy without flat perjury His words are far more mannerly but I am bound to trace your steps and shall with Gods assistance manifest that His Majestie without violation to his Oath and to Religion may not desert Episcopacy and leave it naked to the subtill fox or the mercilesse swine 2. First according to your own confession his sacred Majestie hath sworn to almighty God in his holy place before a solemn Assembly to protect the Bishops and their priviledges to his power as every GOOD KING in his Kingdom IN RIGHT OUGHT to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under their Government 1. Good Kings protect Bishops and good they are in doing so there is no evill then in protecting Bishops 2. They ought to do it it is therefore their duty and to fail of this their duty when they may choose is sin 3. In right they ought to do it they do wrong therefore if they do it not
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
the Oath was to protect all his subjects in their severall places dignities add degrees and not to suffer them to oppresse or devoure one another to see justice done for them and upon them according to the Laws established and not to yeeld to any Law that may be distructive to the rights or liberties of any of his subjects 11. The intention of the Oath is to maintain the ancient legall and just rights of the Church and to preserve unto the Bishops due law and justice We desire no more and no man may with reason deny this to be the intention of the Oath The The words are plaine Sir will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirme the Laws Customs and Franchizes granted to the Clergie by the glorious King S. Edward your Predecessor c. And again Our Lord and King we beseech you to pardon and grant and preserve unto us and to the Churches committed to your charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice All this the King hath sworne to performe and hath acknowledged that by right he ought to do it And would you have him to be forsworne and to neglect that which by right he ought to make good Surely you would make an excellent ghostly father for the man of sin 12. Neither is this the peculiar opinion of us Church-men onely that great Oracle of the Law resolves that The King is bound to maintain and defend the rights and inheritance of the Church And he gives two reasons for it first because the Church is alwaies in her minoritie it is under age Seconly she is in Wardship to our Lord the King And then he addes Nec est juri consonum quod infra aetatem existentes PER NEGLIGENTIAM CUSTODUM SVORUM exhaeredationem patiantur seu ab actione repellantur Neither is it consonant to the Law nor yet to conscience that those who are under age should either be spoiled of their inheritance or barred from action at Law THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR GUARDIANS Especially Kings being by divine Ordinance made Guardians and nursing fathers to the Church Es 49. 23. 13. You see we have divine and humane Law for what we say we claime no priviledges long since by Act of Parliament abolisht We desire not his Majestie to contradict but to ratifie bis Oath and to maintain those Laws he found in force But as for you all your endeavour is to perswade the Laity that our weale is their woe and that the upholding of the Clergie in their due and ancient state would be certain ruine to the Commons As if our Priviledges were like Pharaohs lean kine ready to devoure the fat of the Laity as if our aime were to reduce Antichristian usurpation to subvert the ancient Laws Whereas every man may readily discern that these are but pretences The true end aimed at in these invectives and incentives is that the caninus appetitus the wilde ravenous stomachs of M. Geree and his fellow Presbyterians may be satisfied But at seven yeers end they will be as lank and hungrie as Pharaohs famished kine It was so with King Henry VIII and it will be so with all that tread in his steps 14. It s apparent then to make the intention of that Oath to be false and fallacious and under pretence that it may not be against legall alteration so to wrest it that it may be to the ruine of a great body of his subjects and those not the worst that it shall be against all Law and conscience for f that Law which is unjust is no Law That it shall be to the subversion of the true Religion and service of God to the distraction of his people and to the eternall dishonor of himself and the whole Kingdome makes his Oath in your sense utterly unlawfull And if unlawfull then is it not obligatory either in foro conscienciae or in foro justitiae either before God or any good man unlesse it be to do the contrary But if this Oath in the true and literall sense be not against legall alteration but against unjust oppression sacriledge and profanenesse manifest it is that it is both lawfull and obligatory and the King may not without violation of his Oath and certain danger of the pure and undefiled Religion passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy what ever His Houses of Parliament think or Petition or presse never so violently 15. But your opinion is that the King may passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy And what I thinke or what the King thinks it is no matter if His Houses of Parliament think it convenient he may do it It is wonder you had not said he must do it Indeed you say that which is equivalent for are not these your words He cannot now deny consent to their abolition without sin And if the King without sin cannot deny it then must he assent unto it Thus by your words it seemes he is at their disposing not they at his Indeed if a man may beleeve you the power is in the Houses and not in the King For do not you say that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with the consent of the King to alter whatsoever c. And againe There 's no question of POWER IN THE PARLIAMENT to over-rule it The power it seemes is in them consent onely in the King And here The King may passe a Bill when His Houses think it convenient Well he may and he may choose he may consent or dissent Cujus enim est consentire ejus est dissentire And so long we are well enough For the Kings Negative in Parliament is a full testimony of his Supreme power Hence is it that the Houses Petition for his consent which they need not do if the power were in the Houses Besides His Houses the Kings Houses you call them and so they are This also manifests that they are at his disposing and not He at theirs They must therfore wait his pleasure til he thinks it convenient His consent they may Petition for enforce they ought not since they are his subjects enforce it they cannot since he hath power over his own will And whatever you suppose it is in his power to consent or dissent when he sees it convenient and consequently to keep or not to keep his Oath His affirmative makes it a Law his negative denys it to be a Law For The King is the onely Judge whether the Bills agreed upon and presented be for the publick good or no And to take away the Kings negative voice is contrary to your Covenant it diminisheth the Kings just power and greatnesse and cuts off all Regall power Witnesse the Declaration of the Kingdome of Scotland p. 18. CHAP. X. Whether it be lawfull for the King to abrogate the Rights of the Clergie 1. THe question proposed is concerning Episcopacy but now you are fallen to the
But though S. Paul stand upon his privileges and e magnifie his office yet f he acknowledgeth himself to be Cesars subject and that at his tribunall HE OUGHT TO BE JUDGED 7. Our Saviour himself had severall Relations he was the Son of David and the Lord of David the Son of David according to his humanitie but the Lord of David in his Deitie As Lord of all he receives tithes and sacrifices h as a Subject he payes tribute to Cesar and when an arraigned person i he acknowledgeth Judge Pilate to have power against him Besides this he is a King a Priest and a Prophet a King to command a Priest to offer sacrifice and a Prophet to foretell what he sees meet Nay there is hardly a Citizen of London but hath a treble relation to severall privileges 1. to the generall Rights as he is a free denison of this Nation 2. to others as he is Citizen of London and to a third sort as he is free of this or that Company And shall the meanest Freeman enjoy his severall Rights when the Ministers and Stewards of God are cut out of all Are we dealt with as the Dispensers of Gods high and saving mysteries Nay are we so well dealt with as the lowest members of this Nation Is not this the way to lead in Jeroboams Priests to fill the Pulpits with the scum of the people and to bring the Priesthood into utter contempt O all ye that passe by the way behold and consider if ever the like shame befell any Nationall Church that is threatened to ours at this day But thus it comes to passe when there is no King in the Israel of God 8. If this distinction between Clergie and Laity be a branch of Popery how comes it to passe that those great Reformers and zealous enemies to Popery suffered the Clergie to continue a distinct Province of themselves and that they did not with Popery quite extinguish this distinction Why doth Q. Elizabeth call them a great State of this Kingdome if they be no State at all Why did King Edward VI. that vertuous Lady Queene Elizabeth and wise King Iames summon the Bishops to convene in Convocation as a distinct society and to vote in the House of Peers as Lords spirituall plainly by title distinguished from the Lords temporall Vndoubtedly say you all priviledges of the Clergie that are or were contrariant to the Laws of the Land were abolisht in the reign of Henry the eight They were so It follows therefore undoubtedly that these priviledges which were continued through so many Princes raigns that were enemies to Popery were neither Popish nor contrariant to the Laws of the Land And yet some of those times were not over favourable to the Clergie 9. That we are a distinct society or Corporation from the people is evident by the Coronation Oath by Magna Charta by severall Acts of Parliament and by Scripture itself The Coronation Oath observes the distinction of Clergie and People and assures us that they shall be distinctly preserved Magna Charta does the like and the Acts of Parliament distinguish the Kings subjects into Clergie and Laity allotting to each their severall priviledges allowing the people to take many courses which the Clergie may not This distinction is approved by Scripture where the Lord takes the Levites from among the children of Israel S. Paul assures us that Every High Preist is TAKEN FROM AMONG MEN. And the Scholiast tels us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is there taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Apostle had said he is set apart from men from the Common people This exemption or distinction which you are pleased to call a branch of Popery or of Antichristian usurpation is here justified by Gods owne word And Josephus that was well skilled in Moses writings and Judaicall Antiquities testifies that Moses did seperate the tribe of Levi from the communitie of the people He might have said that God himself did it for the text saith plainly that THE LORD SEPERATED THE TRIBE OF LEVI to beare the Arke of the Covenant to stand before the Lord to administer unto him and to blesse in his name From that time forward they were not numbred amongst the rest of the people the Lords they were and the rest of the tribes were strangers to their office The very light of nature taught the heathen to distinguish between Preist and people and to allow them distinct priviledges And the light of Scripture taught Christians to do the like hence is it that not onely in the Canons of the Church but also in the Imperiall constitutions this distinction between the Clergie and Laity is most frequent and familiar Otherwise what strange confusion must necessarily have overspread the face of the Church if this distinction had not been religiously preserved What diverse would not see these times have enforced us to feele 10. And yet for all this we say not that we are exempt from secular power neither set we up two Supremacies This will prove to be your Popish or Anarchicall doctrine yours I say that would so fain cast this aspersion upon us For do not you tell us that ther 's a Supremacie in the King and a Supremacie in the Parliament Are not here two Supremacies set up by you that so you may make the Parliament Law-lesse and subject to no power We detest and have abjured the Popes Supremacie and not onely that but all other Supremacies besides the Kings within these his Majesties Dominions and Countries For we have sworne that King Charles is THE ONELY SUPREME GOVERNOR of all his Realms over all persons in all causes But you induce the peoples Supremacie Wheras we know no Coordination but a Subordination of all persons severally and jointly to his Majestie and to his Majestie onely within all his Dominions 11. We protest before God and the world sincerely and from the heart that the King is major singulis major universis greater then any and greater then all the Members of his Dominions whether in or out of Parliament and that he is homo a Deo secundus solo Deo minor second to God and lesse then God onely To this our best Lawyers bear Testimonie even that the King is Superior to all and Inferior to none And our Acts of Parliament say the same Thus much in substance we have sworne and we unfainedly beleeve that all the world cannot absolve us of this Oath As therefore we hitherto have done so shall we still by Gods grace bear faith and true Allegiance to his Majestie his heirs and successors though it be to the hazard of our liberty of our estates and lives Yea we acknowledge our selves obliged to the Laws of the Land in all those things which concern the right and peaceable administration of the State To the King we pay first fruits and
Preists ought to be had among Christians Witnesse that Evangelicall Prophet whose words are these Ye shall be named THE PREISTS OF THE LORD as they are at this day Men shall call you the Ministers of our God Ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles and ye shall be EXALTED WITH THEIR GLORY This is one the other shall be from that royall Psalmist In stead of thy Fathers thou shalt have children whom thou mayest make PRINCES in all Lands Do not you go about to make the Word of God a lye while you endeavour to dis-inherit the Clergie of these privileges and honors But God shall be true he shall be justified in his sayings and every man shall be a liar Behold how these prophecies were fulfilled under the Gospēl When our Saviour sent forth his Apostles and Disciples to preach the Gospel and to dispense his heavenly mysteries he daines them with this honour to rank them for usage with himself He that despiseth you despiseth me and he that receiveth you receiveth me To intimate to all Christians that they ought to use his messengers as they would Christ in his own person For whether well or ill he will take it as done to himself Hence is it that the Galathians received S. Paul as an Angel of God even AS CHRIST JESUS Yea they were ready to pull out their own eyes to do him a pleasure And when this Apostle came to Melita he and those that attended him were courteously entertained honoured they were with many honors and enriched with gifts by the Prince of that Island and his people 18. Some it may be may conceive that these were but personall honors and that they belong to them onely whom Christ immediately ordained But the Scripture will teach us a better lesson For doth not our Saviour say He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me Now we know that our Saviour sendeth not onely by himself but by those also to whom he hath given power to send and ordain Thus by S. Paul he sent Timothy and Titus and we find S. Barnabas with S. Paul ordaining Presbyters in all Churches where they came This therefore is a generall rule those Governors who labour in the Word and Doctrine whether they be ordained by Christ or his Apostles or any other to whom this authoritie is duely given are WORTHY OF DOUBLE HONOR that is saith Primasius both in love and place Thus Titus by the Corinthians was received with fear and trembling and memorable obedience They honoured him as Theodoret speaks as their Father and reverenced him as their spirituall Governor These honors are due not so much in respect of personall worth as in regard of the office which they bear This appears by S. Paul who willeth the Philippins not onely to receive Epaphroditus their Apostle or Bishop with all gladnesse but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he chargeth them to hold SUCH AS HE WAS in honour and reputation All must be thus honoured but those most that are most worthy 19. Constantine the first Emperor that ever was christen'd had learned this lesson he therefore did reverence the Bishops ad imaginem quandam divinae praesentiae as if he had some resemblance of God before his eyes He kissed those Bishops skars that had suffered for Christs most holy Name He entertained divers of them at his own table and at their departure he bestowed upon them many goodly gifts Upon Bishops he conferr'd very many privileges and the highest Honors he had to bestowe He ordained that those Canons which were agreed upon by the Bishops and had received his Royall approbation should be of more sacred authority then any Law or sentence that should passe from his highest Judges and that none of his Princes should dare to infringe them To conclude he commanded the Governors of his severall Provinces to give reverence and honour to Bishops threatning no lesse then death to such as should revile or abuse them What reverence and esteem Bishops were of with his severall sons though differing in Religion the Church History manifests for these and all other privileges were inviolably preserved to the Church till that Apostata Julian ware the Crown But those pious and orthodox Emperors that succeeded him raised up the Church and made good her former privileges 20. The reason why good Princes were so carefull of the Church and Churchmen was because they were confident with Great Constantine that God gave a blessing to their affairs for the Bishops sakes And those two wise Emperors Leo and Constantine professe with Justinian that the peace and felicitie of their people as well for body as soul depend upon the harmonious consent of the Imperiall and Episcopall functions Mark that In Scripture the Prophets and servants of God are called the charet of Israel and the horsemen thereof because by their prayers they did more prosper their Countrey then by force of arms Yea by them God blessed his people These were the Church-priviledges and these the opinions the most Christian Princes had of Church-men And you cannot say that any of these Emperors had any dependance upon the Pope or any compliance with him But we are fallen into those times wherein it is accounted losse to bestowe cost upon Christ pietie to rifle the Church and good service to God to murder his Apostles and Priests Indeed what ever is good and commendable is now with the round brotherhood cried out upon as Popish By this time I hope it appears that these immunities which belong to the Church arise not from the errour of the times as you suppose but from the tenure of Scripture That 's the tenure we hold by CHAP. XII Whether to sit and vote in Parliament be incongruous to the calling of Bishops 1. SOmething an hard theme to treat upon and unpleasing to the times And yet I must say something to it lest I seem to desert the cause to blame our Predecessors of indiscretion and to acknowledge that weaknesse in our Bishops which the wisest of this Kingdom know to be far from them What Not contented to strip us of our rights lands and priviledges but you must twit us with the losse of the Bishops Votes as if they were neither fit to sit or vote in the House of Peers That this hath been done cannot be denied but how justly I shall not question for the honour I bear to my Soveraign Yet thus much is evident to every single eye that we have had many even and conscionable Parliaments wherein Bishops have voted what kinde of Parliament we have had without them some will make bold to speak hereafter But a word in private Were they not thrust out lest the King should have too many faithfull Counsellors in the House Were they not removed to make way for these civill broils The Incendiaries knew full well that those
publick good Is the Ministery Lawfull or no Was it settled by Christ or no Your London Ministers have concluded for the Divine right of Ministers or Pastors and Teachers and I know you subscribe to their doctrine There may not then be any forfeiture of the Ministery since the Ordinance of Christ cannot be forfeited by the miscarriage of man that 's out of all peradventure Of priviledges perchance there may be a forfeiture where they prove prejudiciall to the publick good But if and where never prove any thing unlesse you can justifie that these priviledges have been prejudiciall to this Church and State 14. Our religious predecessors began the Great Charter with Concessimus Deo First of all we have granted to God and by this our present Charter have confirmed for us and for our heires for ever that the Church of England be free and that it have all her rights entire and her liberties unhurt William the Conqueror began his raign with confirming the liberties and priviledges of the Church And he gives this reason for it Quia per eam Rex regnum solidum habent subsistendi fundamentum because both King and Kingdome have by the Church a solid foundation for their subsistence Had that Prince been alwaies of the same mind he had never defiled his hands with sacriledge nor plunged himselfe and issue into so deepe a curse For after he began to ransake Churches to rifle Monasteries and to expose holy ground to wild beasts and Church-lands to his pleasure he and his became most unfortunate He rips up the bowels of the Church his mother and sucks her blood and the son of his loines rebels against him beats him and draws blood from him The Conqueror turns God out of his inheritance and his sonne Robert endeavours to do the same to him What afterwards befell him and all his issue I shall not need to relate Mr. Spelman hath lately saved me that labour to him I remit you In whose treatise you may briefly see the lamentable end of all that great Conquerors posterity To this I shall adde wish all my countrie men to observe that in the strictnesse of Reformation Episcopacy was continued as most usefull for the Church 15. But though Episcopacy have not been prejudiciall heretofore it is likely now to prove so For unlesse they degrade themselves unlesse they will patiently part with their wealth and honour and lay down their Miters the Crown is like to runne an hazard and the whole Land be brought to nothing but misery I am sorrie to read these lines from a professed Preacher of the Word of God for so you stile your self And yet I am glad you deale so fairely with us as to give us notice what hath been the cause of your factious preaching the Countries and Citys tumults and this detestable and deplorable rebellion 1 The Bishops great wealth 2 their honour and 3 their Miters these three 1 Their wealth they are already stripped of 2 Their honour lies in the duâ— and 3 their Miters have not been seen many a faire yeer unlesse it be upon their armes We know no more what a Miter is then a Bishop knows what great wealth is by speculation meerly Few of them have gained so much by the Church as their breeding cost their parents And yet the Clergie is the onely profession repined at 16. You should have done well mutatis mutandis to have directed this passage to the Parliament with this small alteration I hope you will not be so tenacious of that wealth and honour you have gained in these tumultuous times as to let the Crown run an hazard rather then lay down this usurped power and indanger the whole Land to be brought to nothing rather then your selves to moderation O that they would bow down their ears in time and embrace this counsell then might they yet heal the sores of this shaking Land and save their own souls But the blame and danger are layed upon those that least deserve it that stood in the gap as long as possibly they could to avert Schisme Heresie Blasphemie Atheisme Rebellion bloodshed All which since the Bishops have been stripped of their honour and power have overspread the face of this Land 17. Suppose the Bishops were faulty shall God be turned out of his possessions because his servants are to blame Mr. Selden can tell you of a Charter of King Edgar which will teach you to distinguish between God and man between Gods right and mans fault Inviolabilis stet Monasterei Winton libertas Although the Abbot or any of the Covent through the incitement of Satan fall into sin let the liberty of Winchester Monastery stand inviolable because GOD who POSSESSETH the plentifull munificence of this privilege as also the place with the whole family of Monks and all the lands belonging to that holy Monastery NEVER COMMITTED SIN neither will in future times commit any Let therefore this LIBERTY or privilege be ETERNALL because GOD THE POSSESSOR OF THIS LIBERTY is eternall The same say all good men for though the Bishop be faulty God is not cannot be The possessions therefore and rights of the Church must stand inviolable The faults are the Bishops the lands are Gods Let not God suffer for the Bishops irregular behaviour Let the Bishop be deprived of his place and profits but not God of his lands Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter according to the Holy Ghosts prescription Let another a good man take his Bishoprick that Gods service may be duely celebrated his Name glorified and Christs flock faithfully provided for 18. But say we what can be said the Bishops are to blame and must be brought to moderation And how must this be done By being brought to just nothing For according to your doctrine Episcopy must be abrogated and their Lands alienated This we simple men take to be extirpation or annihilation But such discreet conscionable men as you are know it to be but moderation Should God return this moderation upon your heads the Presbyteriall Government would come to what it should be even to nothing 19. Well their wealth their honour and their miters are in fault and the Bishops must be corrected for not laying down all these at this blessed Parliaments feet to redeem the Kings Crown Good King he suffers for the Bishops obstinacy and they poore men have parted with all but what they may not part with namely their fidelitie to God and the King Have you not alreadie dis-roabed them of their honors Have you not plundred their houses and seized their Lands Have you not made them house-lesse harbourlesse not able to keep a servant What would you more But let me tell you your great Masters might have purchased better houses and lands at a cheaper rate This they will be sensible of when the accounts are cast up as well elsewhere as at London 20. The Bishops wealth honor and
keep it for him to his power and this Commander keeps this Towne till he have no more strength to hold it unlesse he force the Towns-men to armes against the priviledge which he hath sworne to maintaine Well what then If this Governour now surrender this Towne upon composition doth he violate his Oath Thus far Mr. Gerees question what think you of it What any man thinks is no matter Mr. Geree thinks none will affirme it And I think there be many that will affirme it and I am one of that number Good Lord to see how Mr. Geree and I differ in opinion His is but thought without proof but I shall give you reason for what I think and say 13. If this Casuist speake to purpose as he ought he speaks of a King of this Realme and no town within this Realme hath any such priviledge as not to bear armes against the Kings enemies or not to keep it for his Majestie to the utmost of their power The reasons are these First these are the Kings Dominions and Countries 2ly These Towns and Cities are part of these Dominions 3ly The inhabitants and Citizens thereof are his Majesties subjects 4ly All lands and tenements are holden either mediatly or immediatly of the King 5ly This Citie or Towne is the Kings otherwise how could he put a Commander into it and give him an Oath to keep it for him I speake of Towns within these his Majesties Dominions which in all writings are called the Kings Cities Counties and Towns 6ly It cannot be imagined that the Kings of this Realme would grant any priviledge destructive or dangerous to their owne safety And we must take notice that All Liberties at the first were derived from the Crown Adde hereunto the severall Acts of Parliament wherein the Peers and Comminalty confesse themselves to be bound and make faithfull promise to aide their Soveraigne at all seasons as also to assist and defned his or their rights and titles to the utmost of their power and therein to spend their bodies lands and goods against ALL PERSONS whatsoever But new Lords new Laws and these Statutes are out of date 14. By this time I hope you see that no towns-men have any such privilege as to refuse to bear arms in the Kings behalf But they are bound by their allegiance and the Laws of this Land to keep those Towns for his Majestie to defend them with all their might against his foes If then the inhabitants shall be backward the Commander ought to force them to armes and if he do it not he violates his Oath and the Towns-men their fidelity And now you may tell your freind that helped you to this supposition that he is no skilfull Apprentice at Law If then the Kings case be such in this particular his Highnesse may not recede from his Oath nor do any thing contrary thereto 15. Though this may seeme reasonable to sober men yet the onely objection as you 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 Though this be not the onely yet is it a just objection or rather a resolution which being rightly harkned to will preserve the King from sin in this particular For how ever you are so uncivill with his Majestie as to call it peremtorinesse in him to deny assent to the fall or abolition of Episcopacy yet such as are learned to sobriety know this to be Christian prudence and true fortitude not to fear them that can imprison him that can rob him of this earthly Crowne and slay his body but to stand in aw of him that can slay the soul that can deprive him of his heavenly Crown and cast him into the infernall pit Oh 't is a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of the living God we are not therefore to be threatned or frighted into sin These things you can presse violently in the Pulpit but now you are beside both Pulpit and text beside modesty and truth It is Justice Religion and courage not peremtorinesse to deny the least assent to sin That it is sin to yeeld to or confirme the abolition of Episcopacy is already manifested C. 4. 6. Since it is to destroy an Ordinance of Christ which cannot be done without sin 16. However then he may indanger his own Crown not save their Mitres yet he shall be sure by denying assent to save his own soul for without consent no sin and without sinne no damnation A woman ravished is free from fornication because she assents not but is really enforced and yet he that commits that sin upon her must die for it This is the Kings case right if he yeeld not this is a rape upon his power no sin in his person since no assent Hence is it that Idolatry and Oppression in Scripture are charged upon Kings because their assent makes a Law Without the Kings affirmative every Ordinance imposed upon the people is not Law but Tyranny since it is not legall but arbitrary Our brethren of Scotland say as much Take their words There can be no Law made and have the force of a Law without the King Declaration of the Kingdom of Scotland p. 19. 17. That it is in his Majesties power or not in his power to deny assent to the abolition of Bishops is most certainly true But we must learn of you to distinguish between a naturall and a morall sense and then we shall find both true that he can and he cannot deny consent In a naturall sense he may but in a morall sense he may not In a naturall sense he may because the will cannot be inforced In a morall sense it is not in his power because he cannot now deny consent without sinne So it is and it is not in his power or rather as S. Austine speaks In potestate est quod in voluntate esse non debet That is in our power which ought not to be in our will The King then hath it in his power to yeeld or not to yeeld because he may do which he pleaseth The book of God stands by and adviseth him to do that which is right in the sight of God proposing blessings if he do so and menacing curses if he shall do any thing contrary to Gods revealed will And all this while it doth but instruct perswade him to do what he ought and may when he will This then being in the Kings power he must take heed he incline not to sin 18. I cannot but resolve that to forsake the naturall sense if good is to be unnaturall To renounce the morall sense is against good manners and the morall Law If therefore both senses may be kept we are to preserve them both safe With confidence therefore I speake it that it is not onely in his power but it is his
dutie to be Master of his negative voice and to deny consent If he deny consent he does his dutie observes his Oath If he yeeld assent he breaks his oath and failes of his dutie And this will prove no lesse then sin I have already demonstrated that Episcopacy is agreable to the word of God and that it is the Institution of Christ himself It is sinne therefore to abolish it or to consent to the abolishing thereof You neither have nor can justifie the contrary out of holy writ or from the ancient and Apostolike Church And yet the Observations upon the Ordinance for Ordination have been extant in Print above these three years But you and your Assembly Rabbines take no notice of it because you have not what to say against it 19. But though you have neither Scripture Councels nor Fathers for the abolishing of Episcopacy yet you have reason grounded upon policy to worke his Miajestie to yeeld to this abolition For say you he cannot now deny consent without sin It seemes then he might without sin deny consent heretofore but not now And why not now as well as heretofore Because say you if he consent not there will evidently continue such distraction and confusion as is most repugnant to the weale of his people which he is bound by the Rule of Government and his Oath to provide for Thus sin shall vary at your pleasure sin it shall be now that was none heretofore That shall be sin in King Charles which was vertue and piety in Queen Elizabeth and all their religious ancesters 20. Where no Law is there is no transgression Before then you prove it to be a sin you must prove it to be against some Law either of God or man Not against the Law of God that 's already proved Not against the Law of man since no man can sin against that Law to which he is not subject The Laws are the Kings he gives Laws to his subjects not his subjects to him and we know no Law of his against Bishops Indeed the Laws of this Land are so far from the extirpation of Bishops that the fundament all Law of this Kingdom approves of them They then that are enemies to Bishops are enemies to the fundamentall Law of this Kingdom And what is fundamentall is in and of the foundation If then a Law be made to extirpate Bishops it grates upon the foundation it is against the fundamentall Law of this Realme it contradicts that Law of Laws the word of God Besides we are assured by that learned in the Law Justice Jenkins that it is against the Kings Oath and the Oaths of the Houses to alter the Government for Religion But an alteration of this Government must necessarily follow upon the abolition of Episcopacy Yea with Bishops not onely the Church and Religion will be ruined but the very Government and Laws of the Kingdom will be so confounded that the learned in the Law will not know where to find Law They must burn their old books and begin the world upon the new model All this will amount to no small sin it will be to the shame of this Land to the ruine of those two noble professions Divinity and Law and to the common misery of the people 21. These reasons premised I shall justly return your own words upon your self in this manner It is not in the Kings power to consent to the abolition of Episcopacy because he cannot now yeeld consent without sin For if he consent there will evidently follow 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 I say so and true it is because it is evident to every discerning eye that there are as many and those more considerable that are cordially for Episcopacy and Common Prayer as are against them Indeed they are not so factious so mutinous and bloody as the other What multitudes are there in this Kingdom that mourn and grieve to see Religion so opprest so trampled on and almost breathing out her last In truth it is palpable that these seditious and irreligious courses have ingendred and propagated and will continue such distraction and confusion in Church and State as is most repugnant not onely to the present but to the eternall wedl and salvation of his people both which he is bound to provide for but more especially for the later 22. And whereas you say Such distraction and confusion will continue unlesse Episcopacy be abolished if seems you are resolved to continue these distractions But God knows and your words testifie that it is not the calling or the office of a Bishop that is offensive it is their honour and their wealth which you aim at these with their revenues must be shared amongst you of the Presbyterian faction and then all shall be well Till then we must look for nothing but fire and sword Hence it evidently appears that neither Episcopacy nor the Kings dissent but your ambition and avarice have been the true cause of these distractions and combustions Such a sedition as this there was in the time of Moses about the Priesthood because every man might not sacrifice as when and where he pleased Because Corah might not wear a Miter and go into the most holy place as well as Aaron And yet who dares say that the Priestood was the cause of those uproars 23. That insurrection was against Moses and Aaron against Prince and Priest but against the Prince for the Priests sake because the Prince would not endure that every one should meddle with the Priests office or strip him of his means and honour That conspiracie was linsie-woolsie loomed up of Clergie and Laitie Korah the son of Levi was the ring-leader and with him two hundreth and fiftie of his own Tribe To these were joyned Dathan and Abiram great Princes and men of renown such as were eminent in blood and of the tribe of Reuben And was not the crie the same then that is now Moses and Aaron Prince and Priest ye take too much upon you seeing all the congregation is holy every one of them and the Lord is among them Wherfore then lift ye your selves above the congregation of the Lord The Prince and Priest did but their duty and yet are obbraided with pride God raised them to their places and they are charged to raise themselves But Moses justly retorts upon them what they had falsly cast upon him Ye take too much upon you ye sons of Levi. What Is it not enough for you that God hath separated you from the multitude that he hath taken you neer himself to do the service of the Lords tabernacle but you must have the Priests office But you must be offering incense as well as the High Priest The Priest of the second Order would needs be equall
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
and power If then it be not lawfull for the King neither is it Lawfull for his great Councell to take away the legall rights of others against Law And therefore not the legall Rights of Bishops Deanes and Chapters or any other of the Clergie For by the Laws of the Land we have as firme an interest and as true a freehold in those possessions wherein to we are admitted or inducted as any other of his Majesties subjects have in theirs Boast not of your power power must attend upon Justice not go before it nor over-rule it Iâ— Justice take place it is a judiciall a just power but if power over sway Justice the Government proves tyrannicall 23. As for the power of making Laws we must know that by the Common Law which is guided by the light of nature and the word of God that power is acknowledged to be in the King Who is legâ—â—us superior as Fitz harbert speaks above the Law But the Soveraignes of this Realme to reitifie the tender care they have of their peoples welfare and the desire they have to injoy their love have so far condescended in the Stature Law that they will not henceforth do so without the advice assent of the Houses This is not to give them a Supremacie but to admit them to advice This is the way to win the most refractary to submit to those Laws whereto they have given consent either in person or by proxy Besides what is concluded on with good advice by Common consent and hath the opprobation of diverse wise learned and religious persons gives better satisfaction to all in generall then what is done by one alone be it never so well done And yet to this day the power of ordeining establishing and enacting Laws is reserved wholly to the Crowne Most of these Statute Laws are as so many Royall legacies bequeathed to this Nation by the severall Soveraignes and Fathers of this Countrey Not a Liberty or priviledge not any Land or tenement but is originally derived from the Crowne Such hath been the goodnesse and bounty of our Princes to us their unworthy subjects All we have is from them and now we take all from them Is this gratitude We serve God and the King alike we are resolved to seize upon all that is called sacred And I have learned that not onely the Kings house but his very lands are called in Law Patrimonium sacrum the holy Patrimony Is not this that sacra fames that sacred hunger which is so greedy of all that is called sacred 24. Brand not us poore Clergie-men with foule and fained aspersions delude not the People with false forged suggestions Whose legall priviledges or rights have we invaded or sought after When did we ever desire or perswade his Majestie to do the least injurie to people or Parliament Your own conscience clears us in the generall And your own profession is that you cannot but have a better conceit of the major part of the Clergie at this time that they will not be so tenacious of their wealth and honour as tâ— let the Crowne run an hazard If then we will and have parted with that which is justly ours rather then in the least manner we would prejudice the king or wrong our own consciences certainly we cannot perswade the king to make any ingagement to us against the Laws and legall rights of others If any particular person have offended in this kind we make no Apologie for him upon just proofe let him have a legall censure This Kingdom cannot but take notice that we have been so far from incroaching upon others that we have parted with uâ— own rights though not with Gods We have deserted all we had to preserve a good conscience This is truly cedere jure suo to part with our own that we may not faile that trust which is committed to us We justifie Gods right and lose our own 25. We confesse that the king is bound to maintain the legall priviledges of people and Parliament but not so as to destroy Gods rights or the priviledges of his Ministers That be farre from him Suum cuique the true Princely justice is to be just to God and man to give God what is his and impartially to his subjects what is theirs as also what truly belongs to them in their severall places and professions His Majestie knows full well that the liberties of the Subject the priviledges of Parliament and rights of the Clergie have long consisted and prospered together Take away the Vine and the Elme will beare no fruit take away the Elme and the Vine will fall to the ground and be trod to durt 26. That the King hath been alwaies ready to confirme needfull not wanton not malicious not destructive Bills cannot be denyed by any of his impartiall conscionable subjects The quarrell raised against him is because he will not suffer Gods inheritance and the Churches patrimony to be devoured because he will not endure Gods service and all Religion to be trampled on because he end eavours to releive his poore people the Clergie against whatsoever greivance they suffer or threatned to be enforced upon them The same favour he alwaies hath and is at this time forward to afford to all his good people and loyall subjects Yea even to those that are neither good nor loyall 27. But before I take my leave of your Case of Conscience I shall resolve you what a pious designe you have ventered on and what a rock you have run your self upon You will I hope like the better of it because it comes from that Law you most delight in The Statute saith when a man secular or Religious slayeth his Prelate to whom he OWETH FAITH AND OBEDIENCE it is Treason If then it be Treason to slay the Prelate what sin is it to murder Prelacy certainly by how much the sin is greater to destroy the species all mankind then one particular man by so much is the Treason more heinous more abominable to kill Episcopacy then any one Bishop whatsoever And yet this you have endeavoured to the utmost of your power For this I shall leave you to the Law and to those whom the King shall send for the punishment of evill doers Pray we therefore for the safety of our Soveraigne and that he may with speed be restored to his throne for these times have made us sensible with Rabbi Chanina that were it not for fear of him alter alterum vivus devoraret one would devoure another quicke 28. Thus I think by this time I may safely conclude that it is sufficiently cleared that neither as a king nor as a Christian may his Majestie in Justice or conscience ingage himselfe or yeeld consent either to the extirpation of Episcopacy out of this Church of England or to the abrogation of the just priviledges of his Clergie or to the