quis juret Deus tamen qui conscientiae testis est ita hoc accipit sicut ille cui juratur intelligit What art soever a man use in the words of his Oath God who is witnesse of the conscience takes the Oath in that very sense wherein the party takes it to whom we swear Otherwise we shall not onely deceive others but we shall cheat our selves into equivocation wherewith of late we have so justly charged the Jesuites and for which the Fathers most deservedly heretofore condemned the Helcheseites Valentinians Priscillianites and the followers of Origen Truly I am much afraid we are fallen into such times as Roger Hoveden complains of under K. Steven wherein it was accounted a noble act to lye and forswear and a manly deed to betray their Lords and Masters 9. And is not this which is wrought against the Clergie a tyrannous invasion What Law is there to countenance what of late yeares hath been done against us Where is the orderly alteration you speak of Hath not all been done by tumults and insurrections Have not divers of the Peers been assaulted and many of the Commons vilified and terrified by a seditious faction that so they might bring them to their own bend How many have been inforced to flye with all secrecy from Westminster because they would not passe their Voâ—es against Law and conscience Was it orderly to frame Petitions at Westminster against the Bishops and Orthodox Clergie and then to gleane hands in the Countrey from factious spirits to your own Petitions Was this an orderly alteration without any pretence of Law to deprive us of our freeholds to plunder our houses to imprison our persons and to thrust into our Benefices men with unwashed hands Felt-makers Blacksmiths Taylors and I know not whom And yet all this hath been done by our great Masters in Israel 10. By your own confession the King hath taken an oath to protect the Clergie and their rights against violence and a tyrannous invasion But how shall he protect us that is not able to secure himself This it seems was his dutie and with Gods assistance in his power when his sacred Majestie took the Oath His duty still it is though he be robbed of his power And when God shall restore him to his power he is bound to discharge this dutie For you confesse that his Majestie is ingaged to his power to protect the Bishops and their priviledges And if he breake this solemne Oath in his own person with what conscience can he punish perjurie in others 11. An orderly alteration or Legall waies of change who condemnes But we justly complaine that no such alteration hath been endeavoured For that is not orderly which is illegall neither can that be imagined rationall which is wrought by violence or forced upon a King He is to be ruled by the word of God and right reason which is the life of the Law not to be over-awed or over-swayed by a faction 12. That it is rationall for a King to undertake to protect the Clergie against violence you acknowledge and it is no more then all the Kings Ministers are bound in conscience to performe The King hath done it blessed be God to the utmost of his power Whether the Kings Officers and those he hath put in trust have done their dutie wi 〈…〉 be answered for at an higher barre In right reason the Oath should have no other sense Thâ—â— sense then it hath and we desire that sense may be made good by Parliament and we restored to our free-holds according to reason and Law and satisfaction made us for our losses â—nd illegall imprisonment â—ill an orderly and Legall change be made CHAP. VIII Whether the Kings Oath taken to the Clergie be injurious to his other Subjects and inconsistent with his Oath to the people 1. YOu Object and we confesse that this oath to the Clergie must not be intended in a sense inconsistent with the Kings Oath to the people How Inconsistent with the Kings Oath to the people What All blind but Mr. Iohn Geree and his confederacy King and subject Preist and people composers approvers takers all dimme-sighted How came you to spie this foule mistake Surely this is one of your new lights for both these Oaths as you please to call them have happily stood and may long stand together There was a time when the devill had found a device to set God and Caesar at odds but our Saviour set them to rights Give saith he unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs unto God That difference being reconciled that Arch enemie of man hath found out a late device to raise a quarell between Clergie and people as if the Liberties of the one could not consist with the Rights of the other But we have learned of our blessed Master to set these also at one and beseech his Majestie to give unto the people what belongs to the people and to the Clergie what belongs to the Clergie We desire nothing that is theirs and we are certaine that no good man will repine at what is iustly Gods or ours 2. It is Gods command to give every man his due And if any Law be made contrary to this it is no Law The reason is because all power iâ— from God and under God That Law then that God hath made man may neither abrogate nor alter it is onely in the Lords breast to do it Indeed what is settled by man may be changed or abolished by man But man must be carefull that the Law be just Lex enim non obligat subditos in foro conscientiae nisi sâ—t justa No Law binds a subject in case of conscience unlesse it be just Indeed it bindâ— them not to performance but to submission Though they be not bound to performe what is injoyned yet must they submit to what shall be inflicted since resistance is damnable Ro. 13. 2. 3. Since then it is onely the just Law that binds us to obedience it will not be a misse to set down what Laws are just and what not That a Law be just saith Thomas three ingredients are requisite first Power in the Law-maker 2ly the end that it be for the common good and 3ly the forme namely that all burthens and taxes be equally evenly layed upon the Subjects not more upon one then upon another but proportionably upon every man according to his estate Laws so qualified are just because impartiall 4. From hence we may safely conclude that those Laws are unjust where in the first place the Imposer wants authoritie 2ly When burdens are imposed that are not for the common good but for private interest gaine or glory 3ly When taxes or subsidies though for the publick good be unequally layed Or in the last place when Laws contradict Gods written Word For all Laws ought to be so framed vt illis quos
hearted Englishmen observe this that are lovers of their Countreys liberties 21. We have seen what the King hath granted sworn as also in what order and that the Oath is but one And yet Mr. Geree goes forward as if it were certain without question that this to the Clergie were a severall Oath from that to the people Confidently therefore he presseth it that the King cannot afterwards ingage himself Whereas he ingaged himself alike to his people at the same instant that he would preserve the priviledges both of Clergie and Commonaltie because both his people Now why His Majestie should be bound to maintain the priviledges of that one estate rather then of the other I cannot conceive Especially when I consider that the priviledges of the Clergie are granted to God without whose blessing nor privilege nor people can be preserved The King then herein non câ—â—sit jure suo hath not yeelded up the Clergie or his right to any other neither can he with a safe conscience do so But since Magna Charta hath been so often confirmed even by 32. severall Acts of Parliament the Parliament in that sense you take it hath parted with that right it had by these severall Grants and Confirmations and we ought in justice to enjoy our priviledges and they to maintain them unlesse they mean to affront and subvert so many Acts of Parliament and that main Charter and honour of this Kingdom As if they onely had the judgement of infa 〈…〉 ibilitie which Scotland denies Declarat of the Kingdom of Scotland p. 19. CHAP. IX How far forth and wherein the Clergie is subject to a Parliament and to what Parliament 1. THe net is prepared the snare layed danger is at hand and yet we must not forsake or betray the truth in time of need The noose layed by our Church adversary is this The Clergie and their priviledges are subject to the Parliament or they are not To this we must say yea or nay and the man thinks he hath us sure enough But the man is mistaken one mesh is not well made up and I must tell him that we are subject to the Parliament and we are not Subject we are to the Parliament consisting of head and members but not to the members without the head not to the members alone since we are subject to the members meerly for the heads sake and in those things onely wherein he subjects us to them Set apart the head and we are fellow members fellow subjects For Iowe no temporall subjection to any or many Subjects but onely for the Kings sake Though the Parliament be a great a representative an honourable body yet it is but a body And that body with every member thereof owe obedience and service to the head not one to another I say nothing if I prove it not by Scripture Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake Whether it be to THE KING AS SUPREME or unto Governors AS UNTO THOSE THAT ARE SENT BY HIM by the King As if he should say Submit your selves to the King for the Lords sake and to other Governors for the Kingâ— sake For Kingâ— have their Commission from God but all State Governors from the King and Iowe them no subjection beyond their Commission If then it shall please the King to give the members of Parliament power over us we must submit either by doing or suffering Either by doing what they shall command or by suffering what shall be inflicted on us 2. Subjection is not due to them as they are great or rich men but as they are the Kings Ministers This is evident because all Commissions breath and expire with the King Upon death of the King follows necessarily the dissolution of Parliament None of us that are meer Subjects have at such a time power one over another but onely by advice none of us authority but onely as this or that man hath gained esteem by his wisedome and integritie Onely the Preisthood never dyes because Christ ever lives from whom the Preist hath his Commission But all other subordinate powers expect a new Commission from the succeeding Prince This experience taught us upon the death of Queen Elizabeth 3. Though this be truth yet no truth can charge us that we claime exemption from secular power You see we acknowledge our selves subject to the King as also to those Ministers that he sets over us But as these may not exceed their Commissions given by the King neither may the King exceed his Commission granted him by God The Kings Commission is like the Preists ad aedificationem non ad destructionem for upholding the Church and service of God not for the ruining of either And the King may not grant a larger Commission to his ministers then himselfe hath received from the King of Heaven His Commission is to be a nursing father to the Church not a step-father to preserve to her all her rights and dues to see that she be provided with necessaries and to protect her against her profaine and sacrilegious enemies Surely if our Soveraigne hath intrusted the Parliament with any power over the Church and Church-men it is but with some part of that wherewith God hath enriched him and no other 4. Well if we be under Parliamentary power it cannot rationally be conceived to be the meaning of the King so to subject us to the Parliament as to forget or renounce his hath by destroying the priviledges of the Clergie which he hath swoâ—ne to preserve against or in dishonour to that power to which they are legally subject How far we are legally subject to this Parliament I know and how far we are or may be under Parliamentary power I have alreadie declared The power we are legally subject to is his Royall Majestie and it is not it cannot be the meaning of the Kings oath to preserve our priviledges against his own power or to exempt us from his Iurisdiction Let the world judge whether your or our priviledges and principles be distructive of legall power We are bound by Canon faithfully to keepe and observe and as much as in us lieth to cause to be observed and kept of others all and singular Laws and Statutes made for restoring to the Crown of this Kingdome the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiasticall AGAINST ALL USVRPED and forraign POWER Marke that it is not onely against forraign but it is against usurped and all usurped power Shew me if you can one such loyall Canon or resolution from any Presbyteriall Assembly This Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall is by the Lawes and Statutes restored to the Imperiall Crown of this Realme and not upon the Parliament because it is by Gods Word settled upon the Crowne 5. This authority in causes Ecclesiasticall was in the godly Kings amongst the Jews Christian Emperors in the primitive Church and hath been exercised by 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
King For the time that is already manifested to be at his Majesties pleasure And for the matter that is prescribed and limited by the King super praemissis tractare to consult and advise upon such things as the King nominates and prescribes And if credit may be given to Iohn Speede he tells us that the great Lawyers Judgments in King Richard II. time concerning orderly proceedings in Parliaments run thus That after the cause of such assembly is by the Kings Commandement there declared such Articles as by the King are limited for the Lords and Commons to proceed in are first to be handled But IF ANY SHOULD PROCEED VPON OTHER ARTICLES AND REFVSE TO PROCEED VPON THOSE LIMITED BY THE KING till the King had first answered their Proposals contrary to the Kings Command such doing herein contrary to the rule of the King ARE TO BE PUNISHED ASTRAITORS And he cites the Law books for what he saies Truly I am the rather induced to beleeve what Speed delivers because Sir Edward Coke gives us the reason why and how far forth the King relies upon his Parliaments The King saith he in all his weighty affairs used the advice of his Lords and Commons so great a trust and confidence he had in them Alwaies provided that both the Lords and Commons keep them within the Circle of the Law and Custom of the Parliament The reason why the King useth their advice is because he hath a great trust and confidence in them But alwaies provided that they keepe themselves within the Circle of the Law and Custome of Parliament But how if they deceive the Kings trust and abuse his confidence How if they break the Lawfull Circle and transgresse the Customs of Parliament How then What Speede hath recorded I have shewn you But what the King may do in this case I shall leave to the Masters of the Law to determine 13. Last of all the King regulates their consultations For in his breast it is whether their Bills shall become Laws or no. Observe though the advice and assent be theirs yet the power of Ordaining Establishing and Enacting is in the Soveraigne The Statute books shall be my witnesses THE KING by the advice assent and authority aforesaid HATH ORDEINED AND ESTABLISHED And again BE IT ENACTED BY THE QUEENS MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTIE with the assent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Commons c. Hence is it that they are called The Kings Laws And the King is called the head of the Law because from him it is derived from him the Law receives both life and force His breast is the Shrine or deske wherein all the Laws are stored up and preserved If any man make question of this present experience will satisfie him For do not the Houses at this day Petition His Majestie to make that a Law which they have voted Take their own words in that high Message sent to Holdenby house in March last We the Lords and Commons assembled in the Parliament of England c. Do humbly present unto your Majestie the humble desires and Propositions agreed upon by the Parliaments of both Kingdoms respectively Vnto which WE DO PRAY YOUR MAJESTIES ASSENT And that they and all such Bills as shall be tendered to your Majestie in pursuance of them or any of them may be ESTABLISHED AND ENACTED FOR STATUTES AND ACTS OF PARLIAMENT by your Majesties Royall assent Which words though very high do manifest that there is neither Majesty nor Supremacy nor power in this or any other Parliament to make or repeale Laws It is at the Kings pleasure to establish and enact them for Laws and Statutes or not This our neighbour Scotland sees and confesseth that Regall power and authority is chiefly IN MAKING AND ENACTING LAWS Declarat of the Kingd of Scotland p. 18. 14. From hence it appears first that there is no Supremacy in the Parliament without the King Secondly That the Supremum jus Dominii the supreme right of Dominion which is over laws to establish or disanull them is in the King alone For a Bill not established is of no force it is no Law 3ly that the King is the supreme Magistrate as you are pleased to call Him from whom all power of execution of Laws is legally derived And 4ly if the power of execution be derived from the King much more is the power to regulate For he that gives them power by his Commission to put the Laws in execution he gives them rules in the same Commission whereby they must be guided and sets them bounds which they may not passe If they transgresse either the King hath a legall power to revoke their Commissions and to dispose of them to whom and when he pleaseth Hence is it that all Courts and the Judges of those Courts are called the Kings Courts and the Kings Ministers of Justice And when we are summoned to appear in any Court of Justice the Processe runs Coram Domino Rege before our Lord the King because the Kings person and power is there represented And though His Majestie be over-born and against all Law and reason kept from his Courts of Justice yet in all Writs you are fain to abuse his Name though he be no way accessary to these lawlesse and illegall proceedings How these Courts have been regulated since His Majesties forced departure this Kingdom is very sensible and laments to consider it God amend it 15. Upon these grounds I argue thus They that are Subjects they that are suppliants they that owe obedience to an higher they that cannot lawfully convene or consult till they be called by another they that must dissolve their meeting at anothers command they that are to be regulated by another they that can onely advise perswade entreat but not enact a Law have no Supremacy But the whole Parliament sever'd from the King are Subjects are suppliants they owe obedience to an higher they cannot lawfully convene or consult till they be called by His Majestie at his command they are to dissolve their meeting by him they are to be regulated and without him they cannot enact a Law The Major is evident to every intelligent eye The Minor is demonstrated Sect. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. I must therefore upon these premises necessarily conclude that the Parliament in that sense you take it hath no Supremacy 16. That nothing may be wanting I shall give you the resolution of our Sages at Law concerning the Kings unseparable and incommunicable Supremacy that so all mouthes may be stopped Bractons resolution is this Rex habet potestatem jurisdictionem super omnes qui inregno suo sunt The King hath power and jurisdiction over all within his own Kingdom Plowden saith as much The King hath the SOLE GOVERNMENT of his Subjects Here is no man no Societie of men exempted all under the King and solely under the King Where then is the Parliaments
Supremacy Not in this kingdom it must be looked for some where else 17. Secondly Ea quae sunt Jurisdictionis pacis ad nullum pertinent nisi ad regiam dignitatem Those things which concerne Jurisdiction and Peace belong to none but onely to the Royall dignity The same he affirmes of restraint and punishment These then belong not to the Parliament since that cannot chalenge Royall dignity Where then is their Supreme power All power almost consists in Jurisdiction ordering of Peace and punishing offenders And all these are flowers of the Crown Yea the power of the Militia of eoyning of mony of making Leagues with forreigne Princes the power of pardoning of making of Officers c. All Kings had them the said Powers have no beginning If then all these and many more are peculiar to Soveraignty what is left for the Parliament Why surely if you will to be the Kings Supreme or chief Councell and his capitall Court This they are and this is an high honour to them being rightly used 18. Thirdly Omnis sub Rege ipse sub nullo Every one is under the King but the king is under none but God onely The Supremacy then must needs be in the king who is superior to all but the God of heaven And over the Supreme there can be no earthly superior To admit a comparative above the superlative in the same kinde is a solecisme not onely in Grammar but in reason and Religion Yet though no superior there may perchance be an equall to this supreme There may so but not within his own Dominions Rex enim non habet parem in regno suo The King saith the Statute hath no Peer in his Land And if Justice Jenkins may be heard he tels us that the Houses in Parliament confesse the King to be above the representative Body of the Realm They are not therefore his equals and so have no Supremacy When I can be perswaded that any or all the Members of the Body are equall to the Head then I shall be apt to beleeve that there may be two Supremacies in a Kingdom But I am confident that a wife may as safely admit of two husbands as a Kingdom of two Supremes For the king is Sponsus Regni that Husband who by a Ring is espoused to this Realm at his Coronation But a Ring is superstitious and husbands are grown out of date The onely thing in request is liberty to take or leave what and whom we please 19. But the Parliament is the supreme Court by which all other Courts are to be regulated what say we to that This I say that the Parliament is Curia capitalis the supreme Court of this Kingdom and yet his Court it is whose Courts the rest are It is therefore called Curia Regis and Magnum Concilium Regis The kings Court the kings great Councell yea and the kings Parliament Sir Rob. Cotton justifies it from the Parliament Rowles Henry IV. began his first Parliament Novemb. 1. The King began his second Parliament Jan. 20. And of Henry VII thus It is no doubt but he would have been found as frequent in HIS GREAT COUNCELL OF PARLIAMENT as he was in the Starre-Chamber And this very Parliament how oft have they called themselves The kings great Councell They are so and they are no more But why am I so carefull to heap up instances Your self call it His the Kings Parliament p. 2. and His Houses of Parliament p. 8. 20. If then in your sense we take the Houses without the King there is no Supremacy in them either severally or joyntly since they are but Subjects and the representative body of Subjects And under this consideration they cannot regulate other Courts unlesse the king give them power to do so But take the Houses with the king and then it is most true that there is a Supremacy in the Parliament and that it hath power to regulate all other Courts But this Supremacy it hath by and from the king and from no other We therefore professe with that learned Mr of the Law that the Parliament is the HIGHEST AND MOST HONORABLE AND ABSOLUTE COURT of Justice of England CONSISTING OF THE KING the Lords of Parliament and the Commons The Lords are here divided into two sorts viz. SPIRITUALL AND TEMPORALL When such an Assembly meets and each House and the Members thereof keep themselves within their proper limits I dare be bold to say that this Court is assembled as it ought for provision for support of the State in men and money and well ordering of the Church and Common-wealth and determining of such causes which ordinary Courts nesciebant judicare were not skilfull to determine These are the causes of such Assemblies 21. But truly when they are thus assembled I do not conceive that they have power to make or disanull all Laws at pleasure but upon just and necessary occasion For there is great danger in altering Laws without urgent cause Innovation in government makes an alteration in State sudden alterations are not for the safety either of bodies naturall or bodies politicke Observe what the mirror of his time K. Iames speaks We are not ignorant of the inconveniences that do arise in Government by admitting Innovasion in things once settled by mature deliberation And how necessary it is to use constancy in the upholding of the publik determinations of State For that such is the unquietnesse and unstedfastnesse of some dispositions affecting every yeer new formes of things as if they should be followed in their unconstancy WOULD MAKE ALL ACTIONS OF STATE RIDICULOUS and contemptible Whereas the STEDFAST MAINTAINING OF THINGS BY GOOD ADVICE ESTABLISHED IS THE WEALE OF ALL COMMON-WEALTHS There is often danger seldom pleasure in the change of Laws Truly since the Laws-have been neglected and varietie of Ordinances have supplied their roome We have been fed with the bread of tears we have had plentiousnesse of tears to drinke We are become a very striffe unto our neighbours and our enemies laugh us to scorne 22. That the King in Parliament doth usually make or alter Laws as the necessity of the times and common good of his Subjects require is no rare thing Yet this ought to be done with much care and deliberation that so nothing be enacted which may be justly greivous or destructive to his leige people Sithence according to your determination He cannot lawfully make any ingagement to any against the Laws and LEGALL RIGHTS of others Your reason is because that were not Cedere jure suo sed alieno a parting with his own but with other mens rights The same reason will hold against the Parliament Suppose we should grant what we may not that the King and Parliament are equals it follows necessarily that whatsoever is unlawfull for one is unlawfull for any other of the same ranke
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
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
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
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
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
Rights of the Clergie As if this were a sound and unanswerable argument It is lawfull for the King to abrogate the Rights of the Clergy Ergo It is lawfull for him to abrogate Episcopacy It is for all the world as if one should say It is lawfull for the King to take away the Rights of Lawyers Ergo he may also take away Judicature Yet all men would say that this were flat tyrannie since without Judicature no man can compasse or enjoy his own with peace 2. But I shall return your argument so upon you as shall concern you more neerly It is lawfull for the King to abrogate the Rights of the Clergie it is therefore lawfull for him to abrogate Presbytery How like you this Is it not your own argument changing terme Episcopacy into Presbytery Ye have strooke out the former set up the latter in the place of Episcopacy And your scholers by the same argument may live to root up thut too if any lands be annexed to this great Diana of Geneva Thus you have made a rod to scourge your selves with 3. But you will say that though it be legall for the King to take away the Rights yet he may not destroy the Order And why so Because the Rights are granted by man but the Order was settled by God And what God hath ordained is not lawfull for man to abrogate I must return you the same answer since t is sufficiently justified C. 4. 5. That the Order of Episcopacy is the immediate institution of our B. Saviour and Ministeriall root from whence all Orders spring Though then this be the usuall way of cleering this your assertion and you conceive it to be a sound resolution yet learned men see that you have said just nothing unlesse you confesse that the Order of Presbyter may likewise be exâ—iâ—pated by Royall authority 4. But return we to the Rights of the Clergie and take notice upon what grounds you suppose it lawfull for the King to abrogate those Rights which he hath vowed so solemnly to maintain The King say you is sworne to maintaine the Laws of the Land in force at his Coronation Yet it is not unlawfull for him after to abrogate any of them upon the motion or with the consent of his Parliament I am glad that you acknowledge it to be the Kings Prerogative to maintaine the Laws of the Land and that it is not unlawfull for him to abrogate any of them with the consent of his Parliament If he be bound by Oath either he hath power to maintain these Laws or not If he hath not power it is a senselesse Oath If he hath power where is it What is become of it Hath he resigned it We know the contrary Hath he forfeited it To whom To his subjects He can no more forfeit his Regall power to his subjects then a father the right of fatherhood to his children He is no more a King upon condition then a father is a father upon condition His power he hath not from the people but from God Per me Reges regnant by me Kings reign saith God And I hope God speaks no untruth His substitute the King is for He sits on Gods not on the peoples throne and King he is for the Lord in his stead 5. If you object misdemeanours or bearing armes against His Parliament your self say that He is sworne to maintain the Laws of the Land The Laws Liberties and Properties were all at stake they were trampled upon by his faithlesse but potent Subjects This enforced him to take up that sword which he ought not to beare in vaine but to execute wrath as the Minister of God upon them that do evill upon such as plunder his good subjects and turn them out of house and home For the King is made by God the Supreme Governor for the punishment of evill doers as also for the praise of those that do well But suppose the King were a tyrant as bad as bad may be yet we ought from our hearts to give him all due honour so Beza and not to rob him of his just power If he sin it is against God onely and to him onely he must account not to his Subjects 6. Well bound he is by Oath to maintain the Laws while they are Laws As yet then the rights of the Church are safe and the King is bound to maintain them But how long are these Laws in force Till they are abrogated BY JUST POWER IN A REGULAR WAY They are your own words and we subscribe them But the just power is in His Majestie by your own confession both to maintain and to abrogate Laws And the regular way say you is at the motion or with the consent of HIS PARLIAMENT But with all our loyall Predecessors we say at the petition or humble suit not at the motion of His Parliament And His it is his they are all though Members of Parliament since the Parliament is His. They are not then a Parliament of themselves at their own choice or disposing nor yet without him His they are I am sure they should be so I would to God they were so The King is the fountain of honour and power within his own Dominions And who may say unto him What doest thou Why doest thou honour this man and not that Why doest thou call a Parliament at this time and not at that Impius est qui Regi dixerit inique agis He is impious that saith unto the King thou dealest unjustly or unequally So the Fathers read that place No obbraiding no controulling of a King He can do no wrong So the Law 7. His the Kings they are when they are met and set in Parliament His great Councell Magnum Concilium Regis His Houses His Parliament And therefore called so that they may Parlar la ment speak their minds freely for the generall good Him they may entreat not controul advise not command perswade not enforce Suppose the King grants them power and authoritie he grants them none either over or against himself this he cannot do This were to set the Members above the Head and to make his Subjects superior to himself This were to despoil himself of the power of the Sword But this he may not do since God hath made him supreme and given him the charge of the Sword And His Majestie may not invert that order which God hath set neither may he repeal Gods ordinance or make it void God hath laid the charge upon him and he cannot with a safe conscience decline it or neglect it 8. Observe I beseech you though Pharaoh set Joseph over his house and over his people to rule and arm them at his pleasure though Joseph were so made Ruler over all the land of Egypt yet without him no man might lift up his hand or foot within that land
I will not say that you are Hereticks in this and in other your new-forged doctrines invented to subvert Monarchy and Episcopacy But I shall tell you S. Austins opinion and so leave you to the opinion of the world He in my conceit is an heretick saith that Father who FOR ANY TEMPORALL COMMODITIE and chiefly FOR HIS OWN GLORY AND PREFERMENT doth either raise or follow false and new opinions And are not pelf honour and preferment the cause of all these fidings and seditions in Church and State If these times speak it not I am deceived As for your opinions it hath been sufficiently manifested that they are both false and new 9. Be your opinions what they will their immunities and rights must down or you will fail in a Dilemma The Clergie say you either hold their rights and immunities by Law or otherwise This is not to be denied But what follows upon this If by Law then the Parliament which hath power to ALTER ALL LAWS hath power to alter such Laws as give them their immunities and those Laws altered the immunitie ceaseth and so the Kings ingagement in that particular If not by Law it is but an usurpation You say it and we grant it For truth it is that we claim no rights and immunities but what the ancient and Christian Laws of this Realm have confirmed unto us by Act of Parliament 10. You say that the Parliament hath power to alter all Laws What if a man should say that this assertion is not true I conceive it were no blasphemie Indeed it is a blasphemous position to broach the contrary None but an Atheist dares justifie that the Parliament or any mortall Soveraigntie hath power to alter either the Law of God or the Law of Nature And yet these are Laws And who but an enemy to his Countrey and a friend to confusion dares affirm that the Parliament hath power to alter the Monarchicall or fundamentall Laws of this Kingdom I am sure Justice Jenkins resolves that by the Law of the Land a Parliament cannot alter any morall Law 11. Give me leave to propose your own Argument in terminis in behalf of the City of London The Citizens of London either hold their rights and immunities by law or otherwise If by law then the Parliament which hath power to alter all Laws hath power to alter such Laws as give them their immunities and those Laws altered the immunity ceaseth If their immunitie be not by Law it is an usurpation without just title which upon discovery is null How like you this my rich Masters of London Hath not Mr. Geree set you in the sleep way to ruine But ye may perchance have a confidence that the Parliament will not serve you so Be of that minde still The power it seems is in their hands how they will use it towards you I cannot say How they have used it towards us and towards our good Soveraign ye know And can ye look to fare better Remember what our Saviour saith The servant is no greater then his Master If they have persecuted me they will also persecute you As they have used your Lord and King they will use you The courtesie ye are like to find is that which Vlysses had from Polyphemus to be their last breakfast 12. Well upon the alteration of the Law the immunitie ceaseth and so the Kings ingagement in that particular An Ordinance of Parliament hath absolved many a subject from his Oath of Allegeance and now we shall have a Law to absolve the King from his Oath of protection But I am sure no Law can absolve him from a duty inherent to his Crown And such is the duty of protecting his Subjects from oppression and the Church from sacriledge You cannot therefore possibly absolve him from this ingagement Besides it was never conceived that an Ordinance was of sufficient force to alter a Law The Kings ingagement therefore stands as yet in this particular 13. But suppose there were such a Law as you-speak of could it be just I have learned from your London Ministers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law is so called in Greek from rendering to every person what is just meet equall In very deed as the great Lawyers speak Jus idem est quod justum aequum The Law is nothing else but that which is just and right If it be otherwise it is not jus but injuria an injurie but no right You are pleased to acknowledge our privileges to be our rights How then can they be taken from us without injuriâ—â— And it is not lawfull with the supreme Judge for any Prince or Court to deal injuriously with the meanest that are subject to them Justice it is to give to every man his own Injustice then it must needs be to spoil any man of that which is his either by the Laws of God or man Suppose us to be in equall balance with our fellow Subjects and that we have no other right to our lands and privileges but by the Laws of the Realm what reason can be given why we should not peaceably enjoy what is ours by the Law of the Land as well as the rest of our fellow Subjects We have the same right and why not the same protection CHAP. XIV Whether the Lands of the Church may be forfeited by the misdemeanour of the Clergie 1. VVE shall have reason to work us out of our rights and Law to turn us out of the Kings protection But such reason and Law as may with much ease and more equitie be returned upon your selves Your reason is this because these rights were indulged to the Clergie for the personall worth of present incumbents If therefore their successors forfeit them by their ill demeanour these rights may be taken from them This is easily resolved not so easily proved For the truth is these rights were not given to particular persons but to a succession of Bishops and Priests and other Officers for Gods service Or rather these lands and privileges were given to God and the Church for the maintenance of these offices My unworthinesse makes not the office the worse neither can my wickednesse make a forfeiture of Gods inheritance I may with Abiathar justly be deprived of my place and the benefits thereof but the place and the rights thereof fall not into a Premunire a good man even Zadok succeeds this traitor Abiathar and enjoyes not onely the office but all the profits that belonged thereto This was Solomons justice he knew how to distinguish between the faultie Priest and the faultlesse office But you are a rooter if a twig be in fault up with bâ—aiâ—h and root This is your justice But it is far from the juâ— Judge of all the world to root up the righteous with the wicked And surely we ought to endeavour to be righteous and just as our heavenly Father is just 2. Have you
power It is out of my element and I am tender to meddle with it I know t is large in a free and full convention when the Members constitutive are present But how large I shall leave it to the learned of the Law to define Yet this I dare say whatever their power be they cannot make that just which is unjust nor that truth which is a lie Ahab and Jezabel had power to over-rule the Elders and Nobles of Jezreel and to take away both Naboths vineyard and life without any cause at all You will not I hope justifie any such power or Act. 'T is true Naboth hath lost all at a blow but it was by tyranny not by Law Because there was no equity in the sentence And yet there were as good witnesses came against Naboth as any appeare against Episcopacy 7. But you have been at the bar of late and have learned a Law distinction which neither Scripture nor Fathers nor Scholmen ever taught you and this it is An ingagement may be gone in Law though not in equity And that an Order of Parliament will be valid in Law though injurious How valid in Law though injurious The learned in the Law deny that an Order of Parliament is valid in Law And some of their own creatures in their circuits have rejected some Orders from Westminster because they were contrary to Law But you my Masters that have been so forward with your purses bewar He speaks of summs of mony borrowed upon the publique faith for publique good For the Parliament may ordain release of the ingagement Here 's divinity without equity or conscience But it 's like the rest 8. Gone in Law saith this conscientious Preacher not in equity valid in Law though injurious Behold Law without equity a Law and yet injurious God blesse me from such Law and such Divinity I ever thought that Law and equity had gone together and that Law could not have stood with injurie Since as S. Austine speaks Jus injuria contraria sunt Law and injurie are contraries and can no more consist then light and darknesse And if with Thomas and the London Ministers Jus be that which is prescribed or measured by Law then either that is no Law which prescribes what is not right or else injurie shall be right because it is prescribed by Law I hope you are not of this mind 9. If the Fathers were not quite out of date I could tell you what S. Austine saith And yet why may not I make use of him as well as your fellow Ministers of London Behold then the very case Quid si a liquis condat jus iniquum What if any shall make an unjust Law a Law without equity Is not the case put right If it be so take his resolution Nec jus dicendum est si injustum est If it be unjust it is not to be named a Law And yet with you it shall be a Law though injurious Thus your case of conscience is resolved against conscience for all injurie if understood is against conscience Surely the Parliament is much beholding to you to stretch your conscience and their fringes so much against conscience For you justifie a power in them to do injurie and not onely so but a power to make Laws to justifie this injurie And yet in them this shall be no tyrannous invasion on any Societies rights because done by a Parliament That title is a salvo for all blemishes and injuries No tyranny no invasion if done by a Parliament as if they were infallible and could not erre impeccable and could not do amisse Or as if God himself did alter his own Laws that their alterations might be irreprovable 10. I must confesse the next is a very conscientious proposition of another die and this it is If there be no injury the King and Parliament may cancell any obligation Without peradventure they may But what makes that So there As ther 's no question of power in the Parliament to ordain an injurious Order or a Law without equity SO IF THERE BE NO INJURY c. What So and no otherwise Then have they no power at all to cancell any obligation because the Parliament hath no power to make a Law without equity If this do not follow let men of understanding judge And if you have no better argument to prove that it is lawfull for the King and Parliament to abrogate the immunities and to take away the lands of the Clergie you will never be able to approve the lawfulnesse thereof 11. What is according to Law true Law is lawfull and what is lawfull is according to Law If lawfull not injurious if injurious not lawfull not valid in Law since nothing is valid in Law that is injurious To what purpose then are those words The abrogation will be just as well as legall there will be no injury done Surely none where Law is of force for where Law is there can be no injustice countenanced But where your Law bears sway an order may be legal though injurious for your words are The order would be valid in Law though injurious 12. And as for forfeiture by miscariage the forfeiture in justice must fall upon him that miscarries that is upon the person not upon the Office for an Office duely settled can no more make a forfeiture then it can miscarrie Such an Office is Episcopacy which was duely settled by Christ himself And I hope you have not so far forgotten your selfe as to say that an Office immediately instituted by our blessed Saviour can run into a forfeiture by miscarriage What reason can you give why that should suffer that cannot erre that never offended This is none of Gods justice And it is well known to the wise that Bishops hold their lands revenues and immunities not as granted to their Persons but as annexed to the office for the continuall and comfortable maintenance thereof Our religious Predecessors had learned of S. Paul that no man feedeth a flock but he eateth of the milk of the flock And that it is the dutie of the Gentiles to minister unto them in carnall things of whose spirituall things they have been made partakers Indeed he makes a wonder that any man should doubt of it For how can the Office be maintained without means Surely though S. Paul did sometimes worke with his own hands that he might not be chargeable to new converts yet he telleth the Corinthians that He robbed other Churches in taking wages of them to do the Church of Corinth service Yea this Apostle justifies that he hath power to eat and drinke of their charge and to live upon their cost And that he wronged them when he did otherwise 13. We confesse that the Office was provided for publick good and that those which are of the Office neither hold nor ought to hold any thing but for
and these disasters shall end in a Crowne of glory His memory shall be honoured in our Annals and his posterity flourish in these thrones Amen Amen CHAP. XVI How far forth the King ought to protect the Church and Bishops 1. IT is confessed to my hand that the King is ingaged to his power to protect the Bishops and their priviledges as every good King ought in right to protect defend the Bishops Churches under their Government Reason requires no more and Religion requires so much For by that God whom we serve Kings are made Guardians and nursing fathers to the Church and by the same God this ingagement is put upon them Not by man not by the Author as you seem to intimate nor yet by the Bishops One of the Bishops indeed in the behalfe of his brethren and the whole Clergie humbly beseecheth his Majestie to protect and defend to them and to the Churches committed to their charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice The King with a willing and devout heart premiseth to be their protector and Defender to his power by the assistance of God And afterwards at the Communion table he makes a solemne Oath upon Gods own book to observe the Premises This ingagement then is not put upon the King but with a willing heart he takes it upon himselfe acknowledging that he ought to do so if he be a good King Yea saith Sir Edward Coke the King is bound and sworn to the observation and keeping of Magna Charta His Majestie then is but intreated to do what he is sworne and bound to do And since sworne and bound he may not with a safe conscience give them up to the wild boares of the forrest to root up the plants or suffer the wild beasts of the field to devour this Vine which the Lords right hand hath planted 2. That the King is bound no further to exercise his power in the protection of the Church then he can do it without sinning against God is most undoubtedly true and it were not the part of a Christian to desire more For we know that the King receives his power from God which is to be used not against but for God Not to protect the Church to his power is to break his Oath it is to desert that trust which God hath committed to his charge and is not this to sin against God In the discharge of this dutie he is so far from being injurious to the rest of his people that if he should forbear it it would prove the greatest mischeife that can be imagined to his people and to their posterity in their soules in their estates and a perpetuall infamie to this Nation I need not prove it now it is already done Cap. 8. Sect 10. 11. c. 3. That his sacred Majestie hath interposed his Authority for the Bishops put forth all the power he hath to preserve them is that which vexeth your confederacy And yet you cannot deny but that every good King is bound in right to do so What we ought to do is our bounden duty and what we do in right is justly done Oh that this had been done in the right time Indeed he is not onely bound but he finds it more then necessary to protect and preserve them for in protecting them he protects himself his throne and his posterity Alas he was strook at thorough the Bishops sides His wise Father descried this long since No Bishop no King What the Father spake his Sonne our good King hath found true by woefull experience His Crowne hath sunke with their Miters 4. Well by your own confession what our gracious King hath done is right and what good Kings are bound to do to the extent of their power Thus our good King is justified by his enemies as our Saviour was by Judas If his Majestie have endeavoured to do that which is right what are they that have hindered him from doing it Have not they done wrong How can they excuse themselves before God or man that have so manacled our betrayed Soveraigne that he cannot do what good Kings are bound in right to do Is this to be good Is this to be just Then have all the Saints of God been utterly deceived 5. If after all this He must perforce let the Bishops fall you and your Schisme have much to answer for that have driven him to this necessity You seem to pitie his good subjects who with their blood have endeavoured to support Episcopacy Their swords were not drawn to maintaine this Government or the Religion established they never learned to fight for Religion What they did was done in submission to his Majesties just commands and to manifest their allegiance But if these be good that have indangered their lives to uphold Bishops what are they I beseech you that have spent their blaod to root them out Surely in justifying the former Mr. Geree hath condemned the latter and when the waspes find it he must look to his eares 6. I must confesse it is an hard case for one man to ingage his life for the maintenance of other mens privileges But who did so Not a man ingaged himself but the Kings command the Oath of Allegiance and the Laws of the Land ingaged every good Subject to assist his Soveraign to the utmost The King according to his Oath endeavoured to maintain the Laws of the Land to protect the Members of both Houses driven from Parliament to support the Bishops and to suppresse those seditious and sacrilegious persons which plotted and covenanted the ruine of Religion root and branch Though much the greatest part of the Nobility Gentrie and learned in the Law were deservedly moved to see Majestie dethroned and blasphemed Religion spurned at and vilified the Fathers of the Church scandalized and persecuted the Laws of the Kingdom and liberties of the Subject sleighted and trampled on yet not a man of these took up the Sword till he was commanded by him to whom the Laws of the Land and the Word of God have committed the power of the Sword This may not be called backwardnesse or unwillingnesse but pious discretion which ever waits upon the Soveraigns call When therefore His Majesty had set up his Standard I may truly say the governors of our Israel offered themselves WILLINGLY among the people they did the King service to the utmost Had there not been a back-doore to let in a forrein Nation to divide the Kings forces had not some of the Nobles of Judah conspired with Tobiah held intelligence with him and acquainted him with Nehemiahs secrets there never had been so many Thanksgiving dayes nor so much boasting that God prospered the cause God suffered David his own chosen servant his anointed and a man after his own heart to be hunted as a Partrige upon the mountains to be frighted from his throne and to live like a
forlorn man and yet in his good time he restored him to his Scepter in peace and subdued the people to him 7. And whereas you term them others privileges as if they concerned no man but the Clergie I dare boldly say they concern every man as he is a member of this Church and Realm If we have sown unto you spirituall things is it a great matter if we reap your carnall things And if we reap not your carnall things how shall we sowe unto you spirituall things This is worthy of consideration unlesse you have layed aside all care of the soul Have we some privileges that the Laity have not They are not ours alone they are every mans that enters into Orders And Orders are indifferently proposed to all of all families whatsoever so they be sufficiently qualified High and lowe noble and ignoble have reaped the benefit of these privileges I have known some of high birth in Orders and some of good rank that have taken Sanctuary under a Priests coat And we read of a young man of the tribe of Judah of the most remarkable family that was glad to turn Priest and to serve by the yeer for ten shekels of silver a double suit of apparell and his victuals If then our Calling suffer all families suffer in it and with it 8. But what if the Laws of the Land what if Magna Charta do oblige all men to stand up for the due observation of these privileges If so then must every man readily acknowledge that all good Subjects are bound to obey His Majestie when he commands that which the Law requires View we then the words of that Great and justly magnified Charter which are these Reserving to all Arch-bishops Bishops Earls Barons and all persons as well Spirituall as Temporall all their liberties and free customes which they have had in times past And all these customes and liberties aforesaid which we have granted to be holden within this our Realm as much as appertaineth to us and our Heirs we shall observe And ALL MEN of this our Realm as well SPIRITUALL AS TEMPORALL as much as in them is SHALL likewise OBSERVE THE SAME AGAINST ALL PERSONS Mark that are we not all both spirituall and temporall bound to maintain each others privileges as much as in us lies 9. I know you will return that Abbots and Priors are provided for by the same Law and yet they have since been taken away by Act of Parliament I confesse it but I shall desire you to observe in the first place how they prospered that were the contrivers and procurers of that Act. 2ly I cannot but take notice that you with your Master Beza call that dissoâ—ution detestandum sacrilegium detestable sacrilege and such as was cried out of all the Christian world over It is not therefore to be drawn into president 3ly consider I pray you that they who did so are stiled Enemies of our Soveraign Lord the King and his Realm 4ly that great Councell of Chalcedon consisting of above 600. Bishops resolves that no Monastery consecrated with the Bishops liking may be turned to a secular dwelling And those that suffer any such thing are lyable to the Canonicall censures 5ly you will I hope make a difference between our Saviours institution and mans invention Bishops are of our Saviours own institution but Abbots and Priors are titles and orders of mans invention And yet hospitalitie and alms and other works of charity for which these fraternities were erected failed much with them How those means were imployed I shall not enquire but I am certain that good and pious men have wished that the abuses had been pruned off and that the lands had been disposed of according to the Doners intentions This indeed had been pietie not sacrilege 10. How oft have the Kings of this Realm ingaged themselves to observe Magna Charta and to maintain the rights and liberties of the Church Are not these the words of the Statute We take the Prelates and Clergie with their possessions goods and chattels INTO OUR SPECIALL PROTECTION AND DEFENCE The Princes of this Land have bound themselves strictly to keep this Great Charter and have provided that if any other shall do or procure to be done any thing contrary to this Charter it is to be accounted void as soon as procured Take the words of the Charter We have granted unto them the Spirituall and Temporal persons of this Realm on the other part that neither we nor our Heirs shall procure or do any thing whereby the liberties in this Charter shall be infringed or broken But suppose they shall make any such grant through ignorance wilfulnesse or evill counsell shall it be of force The Law saith no. For it follows immediately And if any thing be procured BY ANY PERSON contrary to the premisses it shall be holden OF NO FORCE NE EFFECT You and your great contrivers what have ye laboured for all this while What have ye fought for what have ye shed so much blood for For wind nothing but wind For all the Westminster Orders and Ordinances contrary to this Charter shall be holden of no force ne effect You had best then keepe your paper for a more necessary use 11. And yet you tell his Majestie that it is not equall to ingage the lives of some to uphold the honour of others Is it equall then I beseech you to ingage the lives of some to destroy the honour and estate of others All this while you have been on the destructive part all for rooting up what the Lords right hand hath planted and for alienating the Lords inheritance And that ye might effect what ye have subtilly projected ye have ingaged the lives of many who were very unwilling to uphold the honour of some at Westminster that had overlashed ran themselves upon dreadfull rocks I would to God the Commons of this Kingdome would lay it to heart how cruell ye have been to many thousands to be indulgent to a few to uphold the honour of a few Consider how many thousands in England and Ireland have been plundered sequestred imprisoned maimed and murdered because they would not submit to the illegall unjust and irreligious decrees of the men at Westminster A compleat Mercurius Rusticus will make after ages stand amazed and their hearts bleed within them to consider that such a Nation as this so blessed with peace and plentie should be so miserably deluded as to undoe themselves willfully and sheath their swords into one anothers bowels to save a Lord and five Members from tryall by Law 12. That you may perswade us some way or other that the King ought to give up the Bishops and their lands since he hath hitherto protected them to the utmost of his power you argue by supposition Suppose say you a King put a Commander into a City and give him an Oath to maintaine the priviledges of it and
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
take it well that you complain so much of one lay Chancelour in a Diocese and yet enthrall them to so many lay Elders Parochiall Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Say not that there be preaching Elders joyned with them least it be returned upon you that the lay Chancelour is but the Bishops Officer in such cases of Judicature as belong to his profession and to the Bishop he is accountable But you can endure no loy Judges over you on any hand And whereas you charge the lay Chancelorship with usuâ—pation contrary to Gods direction I am certain ye have made use of it against Gods direction For how many of you have been instituted into Benefices by lay Chancelours Quâ— jure comes not now to be scanned Thus ye can abuse them and yet use them But I shall turn you over to the Doctâ—rs of the Commons them it concerns they are well able to argue the case with you and to wash off these aspersions 18. Your first argument is I hope sufficiently confuted in the eye of indifferent and judicious men I shall not therefore any longer insist upon it but observe at how low a rate you value authority Nor Bishop nor King nor your Idolized Parliament shall be a Power but an usurpation against God and his Word if they deny you any priviledge indulged or debarre you any dutie which ye suppose to be injoyned you by the word If they sequester you from the Pulpit or from ruling in your congregations farewell my great Lords and Masters at Westminster And when they have sold the Bishops and Chapters lands they shall no longer be a Parliament but an Vsurpation because they have despoiled you of those lands which ye lay claim to and which they ought to have disposed of to supply you and your predicant brethren with such maintenance as your selves hold sufficient CHAP. IV. Whether the King may consent to the abrogation of Epiâ—copacy if so that calling be laâ—full 1. SAving your argument in the first place this is certain â—f Episcopacy be lawfull then the Kings Oath at Coronation was not as you would have it vinculum iniquitatis a bond of iniquitie And hereupon it follows quod non obligatur in contrarium that he is not bound to break this oath Take this by the way You must then seek some other way to cleere it to us that it is lawfull for his Majestie to wave this oath But your own conscience seemes to check you for your former resolution you therefore confesse that this way of invalidating the Kings is most satisfactory but to some 2. Surely if to some it be satisfactory those some are such that are either very weak or wilfully blinded with avarice Whose gaine is godlinesse But the end will prove thâ—t Godlinesse is prâ—fitable to all things That is as the Geneva Note hath it he that hath faith and a good conscience is promised to have all things necessâ—ry for this life and to injoy life everlasting This would be seriously layed to heart 3. But though your former argument seem satisfactory to some yet to some it will not hold namely to those that are not câ—nvinced of the UNLAWFULNESSE OF EPISCOPACY What so satisfactory and yet not hold Alas alas what creatures have you to deale with Pitie it is that you have to deale with learned and rationall men and not with Ignoramus and his Dull man What shall now become of your Case of Conscience Why It will cast the resolution of this doubt upon another question From one question to an other And what 's that The lawfulnesse of Episcopacy This is a large field that you are not acquainted with And yet to satisfie the conscience of your Reader you have already concluded that Episcâ—pacy is an usurpation against the word of Gâ—d and therefore sinfull and unlawfull How Conclude first that Episcopacy is unlawfull and then grant it to be lawfull But this is granted onely for argument sake That is because your argument is so loose that it proves just nothing againâ—â— Episcopacy For a firme demonstration admits of no contradiction it leaves no doubt behind 4. Well be it lawfull yet not withstanding that his Oâ—th thâ— King without impeaâ—hment may in this circumstance consent to the abâ—â—gâ—tion of Episcopacy What mean you by circumstance Is the Kings Oâ—â—h or Episcopacy or the abrâ—gaâ—iâ—n of Episcopacy but a circumstance A circumstance is that which is not substantiall or essentiall to the point in question but comes in upon the by at most for illustration The question is Whether the King notwithstanding his oath may consent with a safe conscience to the abrogation of Episcopacy All these then I take to be essentiall to the question unlesse a safe Conscience be with you and with your brethren but a circumstance And yet it is such an ingredient that a man may neither swear nor consent to nor act but what he may undertake with a safe conscience For if our heart if our conscience condemn us God is greater then our heart and knoweth all things His Majesty I make no question hath sadly thought on this 5. That he may abrogate that which is lawfull you say and we deny not since God hath given Kings a power nt onely over things indifferent but even in such things as are lawfull and honest and in their kind necessary for the preservation of a Common-wealth This is evident in Jonadab the sonne of Rechab who commanded his posterity that they should neither drink Wine nor build House nor sow seed nor plant Vineyard nor have any And yet as lawfull and necessary as these things were they obeyed their fathers voice God approves of their obedience and crowns it with a blessing And what a father is in his own familie that is a King at least within his own Dominions 6. But here the case is different for the question is concerning Christs own Ordinance and Institution which the King hath sworne to maintaine This then being lawfull and legally sworne the oath may not in any wise be dispenced with Nay if we say that the King or any authoritie upon earth may alter or abolish any one Ordinance of our Saviour we contradict our selves and complie with the Papists What reason bring we against the halfe Communion but Christs own institution who commanded it to be deliver'd and received in both kinds And Calvin deservedly reproves Bishop Cardiner for attributing this power to a King Now if Episcopacy be our Saviours institution then may no humane power root it up least they that do it be rooted out of the land of the living But that this very order which we now call Episcopacy is Christs own institution is already proved cap. 2. 6. 7 8. 7. Besides if this be the onely Order to which Christ hath given power to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons who shall confer these Orders when Bishops are taken away and utterly extinguished
This right is grounded upon Scripture for God saith Erunt Reges nutritii tui Kings shall be nursing Fathers and Queens shall be nursing Mothers to the Church Who then dares say they ought not or shall not 3. Besides what is done in right is injurious to no man since jus and injuria right and wrong cannot consist in the same action under the same consideration And yet no right is done but it is displeasing to the adverse partie God did right in protecting Moses and Aaron against Korah and his confederates He did right in destroying those factious and rebellious persons and yet this was displeasing to all the congregation of the children of Israel And shall God or the King forbear to do right because the multitude murmure at it This be far from the Lord and his Vicegerent A Judge is sworn to do right If then he do not right to the utmost of his understanding he is perjured And the more eminent a man is in place the greater the sin You know to whom it was said Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme the childe that is born unto thee shall surely dye And of Jerâ—boam it was said z Go tell him thus saith thâ— Lord God of Israel For as much as I exâ—â—ted the frâ—m â—mâ—â—g the people and made thee Prince over my people Israel and yet thâ—â— hast done evill above all that were before thee and hast casâ— me behind thy 〈…〉 Therefore behold I will bring evill upon the house of Jeroboam c. 4. Secondly the King hath sworn to be the Protectâ—r and Defender of the Churches under his Government and this you will confesse the King ought to do But the King doth not protect the Church unlesse he protect the Bishops since without Bishops the Church must needs crumble away and come to nothing The Bishop is the ministeriall Spouse of the Church how then can the Church be protected if her husband be taken from her or stripped of his means Just as our wives are maintained with the fift part Fed with an Ordinance with words but where 's the fift part which of our wives have had that justly payed them 5. The Bishop is under Christ the Father of the Church Destroy the Father and how shall the Children be provided for Nay who shall beget children of the Church when she is void of an Husband And the Bishop is the onely Husband of the Church take â—way the Bishop and the Church is a Widow if you will beleeve the Councell of Chalcedon I have heretofore manifested that none but a Bishop can ordain either Priest or Deacon And Zanchius determines that the Church may not want Ministers who are to administer these externall things the Word and Sacraments Remove the Ministers that have this power derived unto them from Christ and the Sacraments must fail and consequently the Church For what is the Church but a Congregation of Christians wherein the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments duly administred ACCORDING TO CHRISTS ORDINANCE But according to Christs Ordinance none may administer the Word and Sacraments but Bishops Priests and Deacons Take these away and what becomes of the Sacraments Take away Baptisme and according to Gods ordinary and revealed way we cannot become Christians we cannot be born anew of water and of the holy Ghost And when we are become Christians take away that food of life the Lords Supper and we must needs famish for unlesse we eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood in that blessed Sacrament we have no life in us Hence is that of Calvin The light and heat of the Sun meat and drink are not so necessary for the cherishing and sustaining this present life as the APOSTOLICALL and Pâ—storall OFFICE is for the PRESERVATION OF THE CHURCH on earth If then it be proved that Bishops properly and strictly so called be of the same office and order with the Apostles then have we Calvins acknowledgement that the Church cannot subsist without Bishops 6. Indeed it cannot if we beleeve S. Cyprian for he saith that we ought to know Episcopum in Ecclesia esse ECCLESIAM IN EPISCOPO that the Bishop is in the Church and the CHURCH IN THE BISHOP it stands and fals with him What then becomes of that Church where there is no Bishop Si qui cum Episcopo non sint in Ecclesia non esse We must also know saith that blessed Martyr that they which are not with the Bishop are out of the Church Thus the Bishop is in the Church causaliter causally but the Church in the Bishop virtually The fountain is in the brook causally and the brook in the fountain virtually because from the fountain the Rives derives his being from thence it is derived and fed Damne up the fountain or divert his course and what becomes of the river Thus is it between the Bishop and the Church Hence I infer that the matter of the Oath is lawfull I conclude therefore with the Author of the Review that His Majestie is bound in Religion and conscience to protect the Bishops with their Churches and priviledges Unlesse it be so that you can bring him a new Christ who will ordain another way to heaven 7. But say you it is a ground laid down by this Author that no oath is obligatory beyond the intention of it That is according to the common plain and literall meaning thereof otherwise we know no intention of an oath We must therefore look back to the intention of the first framers thereof as also to the good and securitie of those to whom and for whose sake it is takâ—n n. That the intention of this oath and the framers thereof is against a tyramous invasion on the rights of the Clergie as also to protect them against violence no question at all is to be made and you do well to acknowledge it So far then the King is to protect them to the utmost of his power And hitherto by the assistance of God he hath done it and my trusâ— is in Jesus Christ that he will strengthen our good King to live and dye in this pious and Princely resolution 8. This Oath is to the Clergie the King then must have an eye upon them and their intention who so humbly begge his protection and to whom he makes this oath Expectationem enim eorum quibus juratur quisquis decipit non potest esse non perjurus For he that deceives their expectation to whom he swears cannot but be perjured This S. Austin proves at large in the preceding Epistle wherein he wonders that any man should be of such an opinion as to conceive that a man might incur certain perjurie to avoid uncertain danger losse or death It is a rule therfore in the Canon Law Quacunque arte verborum
yet Joseph is not king Pharaoh keeps his throne and therein is he greater then Joseph who still is but Pharaohs deputy though Lord of all Egypt And though he be a father to Pharaoh yet is he still at his command Thus is it with the Parliament of England though they are put in highest trust by the King yet are they still at his disposing either to be adjourned prorogued or dissolved at his pleasure and are at his command in all things lawfull and honest To this great Councell we are no further to submit then in those things they are sent for by the King and so far forth as they have commission from him S. Peter saies the same Submit your selves unto THE KING AS SUPREME or unto Governors AS UNTO THEM THAT ARE SENT BY HIM by the King So far forth and in such things for which they are sent I owe them obedience but no further 9. How far forth the King is sworn to maintain the Laws of the Land and upon what grounds they may safely be repealed we have alreadie seen Now we are called upon to descend to the Rights of the Clergie whereof your resolution is this by way of consequence So the King by his Oath is bound to maintain THE RIGHTS OF THE CLERGIE while they continue such But blessed be God such they do continue the King therefore by Oath is bound to maintain them 10. But say you if any of their Rights be abrogated by just power he stands no longer ingaged to that particular Why I beseech you do you leave out something here that you held necessary for the abrogation of the Laws of the Land Before it was that the Laws might be abrogated by just power in a regular way But here you grant that the Rights of the Clergie may be abrogated by just power But what 's become of the regular way Was it forgotten or left out on set purpose Surely there is a my fiery in it for your argument ought to procede thus By what means the Laws of the Land may be abrogated by the same means may the Rights of the Clergie be abrogated But the Laws of the Land may be abrogated by just power in a regular way Ergo The Rights of the Clergie may be abrogated by just power in a regular way Thus the Syllogisme stands fair for the form and the Major or Minor Proposition must be denied by the respondent otherwise he is at a non-plus and convinced But your conclusion is So or Ergo the Rights of the Clergie may be abrogated by just power But this so is faultie and so is the Syllogisme because the minor terminus is maimed in the conclusion it comes not in whole as it should do The reason why is plain because you are not able to set down a regular way wherein or whereby those Rights you aim at may be abolished 11. And what wonder that you can finde no regular way for the Clergie and their rights since you have put them clean out of the regular the right way And when ye will find the regular way God knows for plain it is that ye are out of the way Ye wander this way and that way like men in a Maze or mis-led by an Ignis fatuus by Jack in a lantern No rule at all you have to be guided by but onely this that the Book of Common Prayers must down and Episcopacy shall not stand So farewell heavenly devotion and all true faith and farewell Church If this be not to be possessed with the spirit of giddinesse and impietie I know not what is 12. But I pray you give me leave before I passe further to tell you that Just power goes alwayes in a regular way And when it leaveth that way it ceaseth to be just unlesse inforced by such necessitie as cannot be provided for in a regular way That power onely is just which doth nothing wittingly but what is just and distributes to every man and societie their severall dues If it do otherwise we cannot call it just unlesse we desire to incur that sentence of the Almighty He that saith unto the wicked Thou art righteous him shall the people curse Nations shall abhor him 13. Well be it just or unjust be it never so much cursed at home or abhorred abroad you are resolved to justifie the Abrogation of the Rights of the Clergie What A Clergie-man and a Preacher of the Word of God and altogether for ruine and destruction Surely you are not a Preacher of that Word which S. Paul taught for he professeth that authoritie is given to men of our calling not for destruction but for edification Shew me one Preacher in the word of God besides Corah and his confederates that ever spake or wrot any thing against the Rights of the Clergie You cannot possibly unlesse you bring in Judas with his Ad quid finding fault with that cost which was bestowed upon our Saviours person Indeed no man so fit for your turn he robbed and betrayed the head and you the body But you know what censure is passed upon him for it This he said because he was a theife and did carrie the bag He did and you would It is private not publick interest that stirres up ambitious and greedy spirits against Christ and his Vicegerents I can shew you S. Paul magnifying his office and justifying the priviledges therof But you are none of S. Pauls followers Demetrius and Alexander silver-smiths and Copper-smiths are your good Masters and with them I leave you 14. But what are these Rights that you are so eagar to have abrogated Every subject in his severall place and degree hath right to his lands to his goods to his liberties and privileges and so hath every Clergie-man unlesse we of the Clergie be no longer subjects but slaves Would you have all these or onely some of these abolished A question it was at first but now I see what they are First Episcopacy 2ly The Clergies priviledges immunities 3ly the Bishops Ecclesiasticall or sole Jurisdiction in so large a circuit 4ly The Bishops great revenues Thus the Rights of the Clergie are precisely inventoried that so neither root nor branch may scape their fingers Episcopacy we have already taken into consideration now let us take a survey of the rest 15. But first let us observe the course you propose to strip us of these Rights Your method is subtil and your expressions at first view seeme moderate you put us in equall balance with the rest of our fellow-subjects Thus you argue It is not unlawfull to abrogate ANY of the Laws of the Land It is not therefore unlawfull to abrogate ANY of the Rights of the Clergie Thus far your argument seemes to proceed fairely But how comes it to passe that out of this Any of the Kingdome you conclude against All the Rights of the Clergie For what have
the Clergie besides their Orders priviledges and immunities besides their Jurisdiction and revenues And yet all all these you expose to the mercie of a Parliament But in good sooth do you think that if it be lawfull for a Parliament to alter or abolish any particular Laws of the Land that therefore it is lawfull to take away all that the Clergie have or should have Indeed this is something answerable to the proceedings of these times It would sound very harsh if it were thus resolved It is lawfull for King and Parliament to abrogate any of the Laws of the Land It is therefore lawfull for them to abolish all the Laws of the Land And yet this is your manner of arguing As if a particular included the generall as if any were equivalent to all Which is apparently false for universals are of a far larger extent then these individua vaga uncertain notions Though all comprehend any yet any comprehends not all For lawfull it is not to subvert the fundamentall Laws therefore not all This were to raze the foundation of the Kingdome Were this justified of any particular Corporation or body politick besides the Clergie it would not be indured Oh how would the Citizens of London storme if we should conclude thus It is lawfull to take away any of the Laws of the Land and therefore it is lawfull to take away all the Rights of the City of London Yet let wise men judge if this be not your argument right But the Clergie is become the asse of the times it must bear all or sink under the burden 16. But you say that this is to be done by just power in a regular way Well and good But can that be a just power which deals unjustly For Justice gives to every man his own according to Gods Command Render to every man his due The Law of God we confesse to be the Supreme Law Whatever then is done against the Law of God cannot be just Yea though it be done by a Law no Act can justifie it since a Law contrary to Gods Word is no sooner made then void I speak to Christians But with you the Law shall be valid though injurious To the injuriousnesse of this Law I shall submit because a subject but never acknowledge any validitie therein because a Christian 17. By a just power we see this cannot be done how then shall it be done in a regular way A regular way as you conceive you have set down wherein any Law of the Land may be abrogated And that is upon the motion or with the consent of the Parliament How comes this to passe Because the Parliament consists of the head and the representative body of the whole Kingdome And who are these First the King who is the head 2ly the Lords spirituall and temporall and 3ly the Commons But the Parliament is maimed of late 1. The House of Commons represents the greivances of the Countrey 2. The House of Lords advise his Majestie with their counsell and propose for the common good what they conceive meet 3. It is in the Kings power to assent to these proposals or to disassent to make them Statutes or no Statutes And that the Crown may receive no detriment the King hath the Judges of the Land his Councell and other Officers of State present to prevent such mischiefes The Lords take care of their Lands and honors that they be not damnified by any new Law The Knights and Burgesses by the severall Counties and Corporations are intrusted with such things as concern their generall or particular good And all are to take care for the good of the Church the common mother of us al. In these things every man doth or ought to provide that all things be so done for the Common good that if it be possible nothing be done to the prejudice of any 18. And reason for it for as by one Spirit we are all baptised into one body spirituall or mysticall so by the goodnesse of God we all are under one King incorporated into one body politick But the body is not one member but many Indeed if it were all one member where were the body And God hath so tempered this body together that every member hath need one of another and those which seem to be most feeble are necessary All this was done by the great wisedome of God that there might be no divisions or distractions in the body but that the members should have the same care one for another Thus God hath knit us together with the bonds of a mitie and necessity that we might love one another sincerely But Charity is so farre from doing wrong that she seeketh not her own Which is thus to be understood according to S. Austins expression Quia communia propriis non propria communibus anteponit Because Charity prefers the Common good before her own private interest and not her own private interest before the Common good Where this love is ther 's the Common-wealth But what state is that Kingdom in where they that are intrusted by the publick seeke their own and indeavour with might and maine to make that theirs which is none of theirs Where under pretence of the Common good they ingrosse all into their own clutches Is not this the crying sinne the grand Monopolie of these times 19. The regular way to abrogate any of the Rights of the Clergie or Laity is at their own motion or consent made and delivered by their representatives in Parliament or Convocation Henry VIII with Cromwell and the rest of his blessed Councel after banishment of the Popes power knew not which way to make a title to Monasteries with their lands and goods but onely by grant and surrender of the Abbots With them therefore he labours by his great and active servant Cromwell who prevailes with some by promises and large annuities with other by violence and the sword as is manifested by Master Spelman in the Preface to his ever honoured fathers book De non temerandis Ecclesiis The Statute therefore 31. Hen. VIII C. 13. tells us that These Grants Surrenders c. were made FREELY VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT COMPULSION to the King his Heires and Successors What ever the truth be this was the onely legall pretence they could devise And this is the onely course you can take to make a plea in Law to the Church-lands You are faine therefore at last to perswade the Clergies consent p. 5. But of that in due place 20. In the mean space thus much by the way Either we are subjects or no subjects If we are subjects then ought we to have the liberties and priviledges of subjects whereof this is one that not so much as a Subsidie or a little Ship-mony be taken from any one of us without our assent yeelded either by ourselves or by such as we put in trust And this present Parliament
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
in the fourth page against the Jurisdiction of Bishops â— inconvenient and prejudiciall to the Church against unlawfull immunities Anti-Evangelicall Pompe combersome greatnesse and Forfeiture by abuse All these are cryed out upon but none of them proved I shall therefore passe these by as a distempered foame or pulpit froath Yet thus much I must say that the Immunities of the Clergie are held by Law or not If by Law then are they not unlawfull but legall If legall it is presumption in you to call them unlawfull If unlawfull shew against what Law We take not your word to be so authenticke as if we were bound to beleeve what ever you say 2. Somthing answerable to this it is that you tel us when this Oath was framed the Church was indued with the ignorance of the times But when was that time For that we may go seek for you relate it not If you had perchance we might have shewed you as wise and as learned men in those times as Westminster affords at this day 3. And yet upon these imaginations you conclude that the Kings Oath is invalid and not onely so but that it is vinculum iniquitatis the bond of iniquitie The respects you relie upon are onely these First that Prelacy is an usurpation contrary to Christs institution 2ly that the Clergie â—e of themselves a distinct Province is a branch of Popery 3ly that Bishops sitting and voting in the House of Peers is abolisht as incongruous to their calling 4ly that the Church was endowed with diverse unlawful immunities And last of all that when this Oath was framed the Church was indewed with the ignorance of the times The foure former have been pretily well sifâ—ed and a non liquet is returned I find them not proved When you make good the last I shall with Gods blessing return you an answer 4. In the mean space I cannot but tell you that you have willfully dangerously scandalized diverse Princes or blessed memorie and charged them almost as deeply as S. Peter did Simon Magus with the bond of iniquitie A binding in intangling sinne Surely those Princes if you may be credited tooke this Coronation Oath either ignorantly oâ— maliciously If ignorantly they are simple or carelesse If maliciously they were neither good Kings nor good Christians But light forsooth hath shined forth since those mistie daies I fear this late light is but a false light for it was never spyed by any that were not condemned Hereticks till now of late 5. Well thinke men what they please you have lately discovered that the Jurisdiction which was inconvenient and prejudiciall in the Bishops will prove very convenient and commodious for the Church in preaching Presbyters Those immunities that were unlawfull in them will be lawfull in you That pompe which was Anti-evangelicall and carnall in them must needs be spirituall and throughly sanctified to such Evangelists as yourself That combersome greatnesse will but fit your shoulders and those great promotions will not at all be unwildy to Presbyteriall Saul which did comber Bishop David And those priviledges which were disadvantagious to the Church and hindred the growth of religion while they were in Episcopall hands will in a Classicall Assembly turn to the advantage of the Church and further her edification If this be not your meaning let the world judge For these are your words And why may not the great revenues of the Bishops with their sole Jurisdiction in so large a circuit be indicted and convict to be against the edification of the Church and it be found more for the glory of God that both THE REVENUE BE DIVIDED to maintain a preaching Ministery and THEIR JURISDICTION also for the better oversight and censure of manners You have indicted them indeed and their revenues as if under the Bishops there were no preaching Ministery no censure of manners as if under them there were nothing to the edification of the Church or the glory of God Wheras it is well known that whilest the Bishops enjoyed their Jurisdiction other manner of Sermons were preached then have been ever since 6. You have already vaunted that the Bishops revenues and Jurisdiction are against the edification of the Church and I make no question but you will justifie that the abolishing of the three Creeds is much to the edification of Gods people And is not the silencing of the ten Commandments for the better oversight and censure of manners Thus you have also condemned that most excellent forme of Divine Service and vented multitudes of heresies and all for the glory of God But when these things come to try all we shall certainly see who will be convicted by that grand Jury that shall sit upon twelve thrones Judging the twelve tribes of Israel Not onely of Israel according to the flesh but of Israel also according to faith 7. But why are you so suddenly fallen from an abolition to an alteration Before you professe That the abolition of the one is no more against the Oath then of the other There you would have the Bishops Jurisdiction abolisht with their Votes But here you will have the Jurisdiction divided their domination altered and all to maintain a preaching Ministery This you call the removall of their Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction in the same page Aaron must lay down his Miter and holy garments that Korah may put them on And S. Paul must resigne his Apostolicall rod to Simon Magus to Alexander the Copper-smith and to the brethren in Qâ—irpo And why so Alas the Apostle-Bishops do not further but hinder the work of the Gospel They are superannited and decrepit away with them by all means and bring in the young lustie Presbyter-Bishops where strong holds are to be vanquisht These are the men will do the work or the Pulpit and Church shall ring for it This you call a good plea to ALTER the uselesse Anti-Evangelicall pomp Indeed ' â—is the best you have and make the best you can of it it will prove but an Anti-evangelicall and Antichristian plea if we trust Scripture 8. Yet that this may be done according to your designe you allow the King thus much power that he may notwithstanding his Oath consent to ALTER the Clergies immunities No Oath shall stand in the way so ye may gain by it What again fallen from the question From abrogation to alteration What if I should tell you that you have altered the state of the question That abrogation is the repealing the disanulling of a Law and not the changing of it But this is no error with you whose aim is to have Episcopacy abolisht that so the immunities and lands thereof may be transferred upon the Presbytery This is the alteration you gape after Yes you would so settled you would have them upon preaching Ministers and upon parochiall Pastors as if none were Preachers or Pastors but you of the Presbyteriall cut
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
no other â—â—nâ—e I G p. 7. a This Oath to the Clergie must not be intended in a sense inconsistent with the Kings Oath to the people first taken for their protection in their Laws and Liberties I. G. p 7. b S. Mat. 22. 21. c Rom 13 7. d Ib. v. 1. e Lex divina sicut Deoâ—â—rtur â—â—rtur ita à solo also tolli aut abrogaâ—i poâ—est Lex autem humanâ— sicut per hominem conâ—tituitur ita ab homine tolls aut abrogaâ—i potest Franc. à Vâ—ctor Relect 3 n 16. f Tho. 1. 2â— â— 96. 4. g Tho. Ib. h I b. i Gul. Ockam de Jurisdic in causis matrimon k Fitzherbert nat brev tit Protection p. 28. l Gal. 1. 10. m Rom. 13. 4. n For then the latter Oath would be a present breach of the former and so unlawfull I. G. p. 7. o Ib. p Eccles 8. 4. q Ib. v. 3. r Lex terrae p. 14 15. Å¿ Eccles 8. 2. t Gen. note in loc u 1 Iâ—c 1. x Lexterrae p. 29 y I D. p. 33. z I. G. p. 6. a Ib. b Deut 25. 2. Exod. 23. 2. d Num. 32. 23. e Iosh 7. 18. f Ib. v. 21. g Iosh 6. 19. h Gen. 4. 7. i Exod. 23. 2. k Levit. 5. 17. l Ib. v 19. m Ib. v. 15. 16. n Ib. v 15. o Rom. 2. 22. p 1 Reg 12. 31. q 2 Chron. 11. 13. 14. r 1 Reg. 13. 33. Å¿ 1 Tim. 3. 2. t Tit. 1. 9. u 2 S. Pet. 3. 16. x S. Mat 15. 14. y Bp. Laâ—ymeâ— Ser. 5 before K. Edw VI. z Sir Edw Coke Reports 2d part Levesque de Winchesters Case fol. 44. a I. G. p. 7. b Ib. c The Kings Oath taken at Coronation I. G. p 1. d The Kings Oath to the people first taken for their protection c. I G. p. 7. e Mag. Charta â—â— These words are added to avoid all scruples that this Great Parliamentary Charter might live and take effect in all successions of ageâ— for ever Sir Ed Coke in loc g Sir Edw Coke Proeme to Magna Charta h Ib. i Ib. k Sir Ed Coke in Mag. Chart c. 1. l Mag Cha c. 14. m Ib. c. 1. n Sir Ed. Coke in Mag. Chart. c. 1 Sect. Et habe bunt o Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton l. 2 Sect. 201. p Ib. in Sect. 136 q Ib. in Sect. 201. r Nulluâ— aliâ—â— praeter Regem potest Episcopo demandare inquisitionem â—â—ciendaÌ„ Bract. l. â— 10â— Å¿ Sir Ed. Coke in Mag Chart c. 1. Sect Eâ— habeat t Sir Ed Coke instit part l 4 c 1. Sect Oâ— what persons u Mag. Cha. c 38. x Sir Ed Coke Proeme in Mag. Chart. y He cannot afterwards inâ—age himselâ— to any particular estate to exempt it frâ— this power for by that Oath at least cessit â—â—re suo I G p 3 z Conceâ—â—imo Deo quod Ecclesiâ— Aâ—glicana libera â—it Mag. Cha. c. 1. a Sir Ed. Coke Proem in Mag. Chart. b I. G. p. 7. c 1 S. Pet. 2. 13. 14. d Lex terrae p. 8. e Ib. 7. f I hope they will not now claim an exemption from secular power I. G. p. 7. g 2 Cor. 13. 10. h Es 49. 23. i Meaning that Kings converted to the Gospel shall bestow their power and authoritie for the preservation of the Church Gen note in Is 49. 23. k But if theâ— be under Parliamentary power how can it â—ationally be conceived to be th 〈…〉 meaning of the Kings Oath to prâ—sâ—rve the priviâ—edges of the Câ—erâ—â— against that power to which they are legally subject I. G. p. 7. l Canons Eccles â—an 1. m 1 Eliz. 1. n Ib. o Can Eccles can 2. p 1 Eliz 1. q Or how were the Oath in that sensâ— consistent with the pâ—ivilâ—â—â—e of the Nation formerly â—â—orn to â—y the King I. G. p. 8. r Thou shalt count the Priests holy and reverence them Gen. note in Levit. 21. 8. Å¿ If the Oath had such a sense in the times of Popery when the Clergy were a distinct Corporation yet when that exemption was abolisht as a branch of Antichristian usurpation the change of their condition must needs change the intention of the Oath I. G p. 8. z Bâ— Latymers Serm. before K. Edw. VI. March 8 1549. a Ecclesia est infra aetatem in custodiâ Domini Regis qui tenetur jura haereditates suas manu tenere defendere Sir Ed Coke in Mag Chart. c 1 b Ib. c Vnlesse they will say that the Crown stands still ingaged to them to maintain such priviledgeâ— as by Act of Parliament were long since abolisht which is to make his Oath to them contariant to that taken before for the maintenance of the Laws I. G. p. 3. d Gen. 41. 4 e It s apparent then to make the intention of the Oath to be against legall alteration of their priviledges by ParliameÌ„t makes it unlawfull and so not obligatory And if it be not intended against legall alteration the King may passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy when his Houses of Parliament think it convenient and petition for it without violation of his Oath I. G. p. 8. g I. G. p. 9. h Ib. p. 7. i Ib. p. 5. k He that hath power to consent hath power also to dissent l 1 Cor. 7. 37. m Lex terrae p. 14 15. n I. G. p. 2. o Ib. p Ib. q Prov. 8. 15. Cujus iussu nascuntur homines huius iussu Reges constituuntur Iren. l. 5. p. 601. r 2 Chron. 9 8. Å¿ Ib. t I. G. p. 2. u Rom. 13. 4. x Ib. y 1 S. Pet. 2. 13 14 z Magistratibus ex animo deâ—erendus est honor 〈…〉 etiam tyrannis Beza in Act. 23. 5 a Psal 51. 4. b I. G. p. 2. c Ib. d The King is sworn to maintain the Laws of the Land in force at his Coronation Yet no man questions the constant practise shews that it is not unlawfull after to abrogateany upon the motion or with the consent of HIS PARLIAMENT I. G p. 2 * Declarat of the Kingd of Scotland p. 22. e Eccles 8. 4. f Ib. g Lex terrae p. 19 h Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton l. 2. Sect. 164. i I. G. p. 8. k Ib. p. 2. l Sir Ed Coke in Litleton l. 2. Sect. 164. m 1 S Pet. 2. 13. n Rom. 13. 4. o Gen. 41. 40. p Ib. v 43. 44. q Ib. v. 40. r Gen 45. 9. Å¿ Ib. v 8. t Ib. v 19 21. u Lex terrae p. 27 x 1 S. Pet. 2 13 14. y I. G. p. 2. z Ib. a Prov. 24. 24. b 2 Cor. 10. 8. c S. Matth. 26. â— d Christ is the head of his body the Church Col. 1. 18. 24. e S. Joh. 12. 6. f Rom. 11. 13. g 1 Cor 9. 1. c. 2 Cor. 10 4 c. 2 Cor. 11. 7. 8. h I. G. p. 4. i Ib. p. 4. 5. k Ib. p. 4. l Ib. m I.
An Dom 187. d Possed de vitâ August c 1. e Aug ep 225. f Aug. ep 224. g Possid de vitâ August c. 23. h Ib c. 24. i Ib. c. 25. Concil Antioch can 25. k Cypr. ep 38. Concil Chalced. can 26. * Concil Anti. och can 25. l Concil Ancyr can 15. m Act. 4. 34. 35. 37. 5. â— n Act 6. 3. o Ib. p 1 Tim. 5. 17. q 2 Cor. 1â— 14. r 2 Tim 2. 2. Å¿ 1 Tim. 1. 3. t 1 Tim. 6. 3. 5. u 1 Cor. 5. 11. x 2 Joh. 10. y Possid de virâ August c. 25. z I. G. p. 6. a Ib. b Prefat de non temerand Eccles c I. G p. 5. d I. G. p. 6. e Ib. f Deut. 23. 18. g Theod. hist l. 3. c. 11. h Ignat. ad Rom. p. 250. Hieron Damas ep 57. 58. Basil M. ep 292. Cypr. ep 3 n. 6. ep 38. n. 3. i Concil Antioch can 9. 19. Christ Justellus in cod Eccles univer can 88. k Tit. 1. 5. l That by or for which any thing is made so is more so m Solemn League and Coven n. 4. n I. G. p. 9. o Sol. League Coven n. 2. p I. D. q Tit. 1. 5. r Cypr. ep 37. n. 1. Å¿ Ephes 2. 20. t Cypr. ep 65. n. 3. u Prov. 28. 24. x Concil Chalced can 25. y A work for which following generations should not need to pity the King as put upon it by misfortune but rise up and call him blessed whose many other disasters ended in so good and so usefull a work I. G. p 6. z 1 Sam. 15. 24. a Ib. â— 26. b You see the ingagement put upon the King is but to his power as every good King ought inright to protect and defend the Bishops Churches under their government I. G p 8 c Isa 40. 22 d I answer from the expressions in the Oath it self aâ— they are set down by the same author I. G. p. 8. e Sir Ed. Coke proem in Mag. Chart. f Psal 80. 13. g Ib. v. 25. h Such power is no further then he can do it without sinning against God and being injurious to the rest of his people I. G. p. 8. i Rom. 13. 1. 4. k When he hath interposed his authority for them and put forth all the power he hath to preserve them he hath gone to the extent of his power and as far as good Kings are bound in right I. G. p. 8. l Confer at Hampt Court p. 36. m S. Mat. 27. 4. n If after all this he must let them fall or support them with the blood of his good Subjects I. G. p. 8. o And those unwilling too to ingage their liues for the other privileges I. G. p. 8. p Jud. 3. 9. q Nehem. 6. 17. 18. 19. r 1 Cor. 9. 11. Å¿ Iud. 17. 7. t Ib. v. 10. u Mag. Charta c. 37. x I. G. p. 6. â— y 25. Ed. 3. * Concil Chalced can 24. z Statut. de provisor 25. Ed. 3. a Stat. of the Clergy 14. Ed. 3. 1 b Mag. Charta c. 37. c Ib. d I. G. p. 8. e That were to be cruel to many thousand to be indulgent to a few I. G. p. 8. f I. G. p. 8. g I think none will affirm it I. G. p. 9. h Mag. Charta c. 37. 38. i Sir Ed Coke in Litleton l. 2. Sect. 139. k Sir Ed Coke in Mag. Chart. c. 1. l Statute of Armour 7. Ed. 1. 1. Eliz. 3. m Such is the case with the King in this particular I. G. p. 9. n I. G. p. 9. o If the King should be peremptory in deniall what help would this be to them Such peremptorinesse in this circumstance might in danger his Crown not save their Mitres I. G. p. 9. p S Mat. 10. 28. q Hebr. 10. 31. r Vsque adeò peccatum voluntarium malum est ut nullo modo sit peccatum si non sit voluntarium Aug. de vera Relig c. 14. Å¿ Deut. 22 26. t Ib. v. 25. t Though it be in his power to deny assent to their abolition in a naturall sense because Voluntas nonpotest cogâ— yet it is not in his power in a morall sense because he cannot now deny consent without sin I. G. p. 9. u Aug. de Fide cont Manish c. 9. x Hoc habemus in potestate quod cum volumus possumus Aug. cont Maximin l. 3. c. 14. * Far are we from taking away his Negative voice Exact Collect of Remonst Declarat p. 727. x I. G. p. 9. y Rom. 4. 15. * Declarat of the Kingd of Scotland p. 19. z Lexterrae p. 14. a Ib p. 29. b I hope they will not be so tenacious of their wealth and honour as to let the Crown run an hazard and indanger the whole Land I. G. p. 5 c That the revenues be divided to maintain a preaching Ministery I G. p. 4. d Num. 16. 2. c Num. 16 16. 17. 35. f Ib. v 2. g Ib. v. 3. h Ib. v. 7. i Ib. v. 9. 10. k Ib. v. 40. l Ib. v. 42. m Ib. v. 41. n Ib. v. 49. o Numb 7 8. p Ib. v. 10. q Psal 54 7. r Ib. v. 8. Å¿ That was to set up tâ—o Supremacies I G. p. 3. t I. G. p. 9. u 3 Eliz. 9. c. x That the Supremum jus dominii even that which is above all laws is in the King which under favour I conceive in our State is a manifest error I. G. p. 9. y I. G. p. 9. z Rex non pareÌ„ habet in regno suo Bract. temps el. 3. l. 4. c. 24. Sect. 5. a 1. S. Pet 2. 13. 14. b Tertul. ad Scap. c. 2. c Tertul. Apol. c. 30. d Optat. l. 3. e 16. Rich. 2. 5. f 24. Hen. 8. 12. 1. Eliz. 1. g 1. Eliz. 1. h Chrysost Theodoret Theophilact Occum in Rom. 13. 1. i Act. 25. 10. k Ib. v. 11. l Act. 26. 32. m Hug Grot. de Jure belli l. 1 c. 3. Sect 7. n Atnob in Psal 51. 4. o Eccles 8. 4. p Psal 51. 4. q Instit of a Christ man fol 86. The supreme and Soveraigne Prince hath none between him and God representing the person of God executing his office and in this respect bearing his name to whom onely he is accountable Dr. Corn Burgesse Fire of the Sanct. p. 263. r Rex solus omnium subditoruÌ„ tam Laicorum quam Ecclesiasticorum in suis ditionibus supremus est Dominus Commo fact Postulat â—â—g cogni p 38 Å¿ Arnob. in Psal 51. 4 t 24. Hen. 8. 12. 1 Eliz. 1. u Sir Rob. Cotton p 5. x 1. Eliz. 3. y 16. Riâ— 2. 5. z 1. Eliz. 1. b Sir Ed Coke instit l 4. c 1. Sect. The severall forms c I. G. p. 8. d Rot. Clausa An. 59. Hen. 3. e Sir Rob Cotton p. 3 f Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton l 2 Sect. 164. g Sir Rob. Cotton p. 8. h I. G. p. 9. i Rot. claus An. 59. Hen. 3. k Speed in Ric. 2 c. 13. n. 102. l Sir Ed. Coke In stiâ—l 4 c. â— Sect How Parliaments succeed m 12. Ed. 4. 3. 2. Men. 5. 6. 9 n 13 Eliz. 2 27. Eliz 17. o Sir Fd. Coke in Litleton l. 2. Sect. 140. p Praesumitur Rex habere omnia jurain scrinio pectoris sui Ib. q I. G. p. 9. q The Houses of Parliament without the King cannot enact any Laws Declarat of the Kingd of Scotland p 19. r Bract. temps H. 3. l. 4. c. 24. Sect. 1. Å¿ â—lowd 234. 242. t Bract ib. u Ib. x Lex terrae p. 4. y Bract. temps H. 3. l. 4. c. 24. Sect. 5. z Ib. a 3 Ed. 3. 19. b Lex terrae p. 7. c Nee regna socium ferre nec tedae queunt d Sir Ed Coke Reports part 2. Magd. College Case e I. G. p. 9. f Sir Rob. Cotton p 1. g Ib. h Sir Ed Coke in Litleton l 2. Sect. 164. i Sir Rob. Cotton p. 8. k Ib. p. 9. l Ib p. 11. m Sir Ed Coke in Litleton l. 2. Sect. 164. n Sir Rob. Cotton p 3. o Ib. p The Supremum jus dominis that is over all Laws to make or disanull them at pleasure is neither in the King nor in the Houses aparti but in both conjoyned I. G. p. 9. q In his Proclamation before the Book of Common Prayer r Illud exploratissimum est leges patrias aut mutare aut ad earum obsequium sese non accommoda re negotium semper cum periculo fuisse conjunctiâ—simum Smith de Repub. Anglorum l. 1. c. 5. Å¿ Psal 80. 5. 6. t I. G. p. 9. u Ib. x Potentia sequi debet â—uâ—â—tiâ—m noâ— praeire Augde Trin l. â—â— c. 13. y The forms or Acts of parliament sometimes beein with Concessimus or Statuit Rex And of latter times Laws and Statutes begin as Deinz enacted by the King c Declarat of the Kingd of Scot and p. 19. * Nat Brev. tit Proâ—ection fol 28 z Pâ—uâ—imum â—acit ad populum corrigendum multorum in unâ re sententia atque consensus Hieron in Gal. 1. 2. a Sir Ed Coke in Mag Chart. c. 1. b Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton l. 2. Sect. 139. c Notit Imperii Orient c. 159. d Lex terrae p. 5. e This Oath to the Clergy cannot ingage him against the legall privileges of the people or Parliament I. G. p. 9. f I. G p. 5. 6. g Ib. p. 9. h I. G. p. 9. i Rom. 137. k One of which is to be ready by confirming needfull Bills to relieve theÌ„ against whatsoever grievance they suffer from any I. G. p. 10. l 25 Ed. 3. 2. m 1. S. â—et 2. 14. n Apud Jo. Coch in Notis ad Maccoth c. 1. n. 31. o Thus I think the Case is sufficiently cleared that notwithstanding the Kings Oath to the Clergie at his Coronation he may consent to the extirpation of Prelaey out of the Church of England I. G. p. 10 p Ib. p. 9.
injoyned him to denounce Both Regall and Priestly power are the gift of God they cannot therefore but be good But the abuse of this power to other ends then God gave it is the viciousnesse of man and therefore bad Solomon made just use of this power when he despoiled Abiathar the High Priest not onely of his priviledges but also of his office and of all that belonged to his office The reason is because Abiathar for his treason deserved this and an heavier doom And I presume it was no usurpation in St. Paul when he delivered Hymeneus unto Satan that he might learn not to blaspheme nor yet when he anathematized and accursed those Preachers that taught otherwise then they had received If then our Bishops have made use of this power in silencing or depriving hereticall schismaticall or seditious Preachers they have done no more then they ought to do This therefore is no usurpation but a just use of that power which with their Orders was conferr'd upon them for this end and purpose 7. I have done with your Major now to your Minor But this Prelacy did as it stood in England What did it why it despoiled Christs â—fficers the good Presbyters that preached up the Scottish discipline and doctrine of their priviledges indulged and duty injâ—yned them by the Word of God If they deserved this censure it was no despoiling but a just deprivation If they deserved it not let it be proved I am sure Courts and Committees have been long enough open to receive large informations and easie proofs against them And I am as sure that our Saviour never indulged any such priviledge to his Apostles or any other of his â—fficers as to vent heresie schisme or sedition If any Bishâ—p be faultie I plead not for him I justifie Episcopacy not the Bishop Judas was bad cut his Episcopacy good Judas offended but not his office Judas was cut off not his Episcopacy the office is continued and a good man must be put into it So St. Peter And let another take HIS BISHOPPRICK So the Spirit of Prophecie Prelacy therefore is not in fault but the Prelate And it is as false a speech to say Prelacy despoils any as to say Judicature wrongs any Since we know that Judicature is blamelesse when the Judge is criminous And as improper a speech it is to say that a man is despoiled of his duty I may be forbidden my duty but not spoiled of it because I am bound to discharge it though forbidden if unlawfully forbidden 8. But what are these priviledges and duties whereof they are said to be despoiled The particulars are these Power to rule and to preach in their own congregations and this power they are indued with â—y Christs warrant Power to Rule and by Christs warrant sound high and raise attention And this they have as well as much as power to preach if we may beleeve you As if they had ruledome as you call it from Christ himself If this be doubted of you give us Scripture for it and that in foure severall texts The first is this If any cannot rule his own house how shall he take care for the Church Here is care to be taken for the Church but no rule given to a Presbyter in the Church unlesse you allow him as much power to rule in his Parish as he hath in his own house To which assertion no man I conceive will subscribe It is required indeed if any Lay-man desire to be a Presbyter-Bishop that before he be ordained he be known to be such a one that could rule his own house well But what is this to prove that by Christs warrant in Scripture a Presbyter is indued with power to rule in his eongregation Alas this government as your learned brethren confesse is but domesticall in private families not Ecclesiasticall in the publick congregation In like manner Deacons must be such as rule their houses and children well And yet ye allow them no ruledome in the Church but set Lay-Ruling Elders to over-top them No warrant here for this Presbyteriall ruling power what may come hereafter shall be examined 9. The next proof is from the same Epistle the words are these I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels that THOV OBSERVE THESE THINGS without preferring one before another and do nothing partially This is something were it to the purpose Here is a large authoritie given to Timothy in this Chapter and a charge in this verse that he be carefull to discharge his office with integritie But what is this to the point in question Alas you are clean mistaken in your mark It rests upon you to prove that this power in Scripture is given to a Presbyter-Bishop whereas it is here given to an Apostle-Bishop who is clean of another an higher order If I should justifie that a Sergeant at Law hath power to hear and determine Suits in Westminster-Hall because the Justices of the Kings Bench and Common Pleâ—â— have such a Commission you would think I were beside the cushion and so are you 10. In the third place you produce a text of the same Apostle to the Hebrews where-in he commands his brethren to obey those that have the over-sight of them and to submit themselves unâ—o them No question but they ought to do so But who are these Praepositi these Rulers here mentioned Are they Presbyters onely Presbyters are not mentioned here and it is impossible to prove that Presbyters onely are intended here unlesse they be the onely Church-governors It is rather to be beleeved that all Church-governors or else the chief Governors were here intended That he speaks of Presbyters I deny not but that he speaks of Presbyters onely I utterly deny When you can prove that onely Presbyters watch for the souls of the people and that they onely must give an account for those souls then shall I readily acknowledge that the Apostle speaks only of Presbyters in this place 11. If the Kings Majestie should command his Souldiers to obey their Commanders could any man imagine that he spake of the Lieutenants and Captains onely No wise man can have this imagination but this must reach to Majors and Collonels and all other in authority Thus when the Lord commands his people to obey those Governors that watch for their souls he means not onely Deacons and Presbyters but Bishops also For as in an Army there are Captains over souldiers and Commanders over Captains so in the Church which is aciâ—s ordinata a well-ordered Army there are Praepositi populo Praepositi Presbyteris Spirituall Governors of the people and some set over both people and Presbâ—ters Such were the Apostâ—â—s in Scripture and such their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their copartners in labour and successors in office whom we now call Bishops Such were Timothy and Titus who