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
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
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
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
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