is necessary to Salvation Jt is not true that Arch-bishops Bishops Deanes Arch-Deacons c. are jure Divino as they must needs be if the Law-makers ought of right to establish them as they are established for the Law-makers are not bound as of right to frame their Lawes to any other then the Lawes of God alone Now whether Bishops be Jure Divino we know it is a dispute amongst the Papists and never did any Protestant hold it till of late yeares but that Arch-bishops Deanes Arch-Deacons c. should be jure Divino I doe not know that ever any Christian held it before and yet he that taketh this Oath must sweare it Lastly as he that taketh this Oath cannot sweare in judgement nor in truth so neither can hee sweare in righteousnesse for it is full of unrighteousnesse being indeed as hath beene well opened a Covenant in effect against the King and Kingdome for if the whole State should find it necessary to alter the Government by Arch-bishops Bishops c. a great part of the Kingdome especially of the Gentry for not onely the Clergy but all that take degrees in the Vniversities are bound to take it will be preingaged not to consent to it or admit of it Againe it is a great wrong to those that shall bee Parliament-men that their freedome shall bee taken away being bound up by an Oath not to consent to the altering of a thing which it may bee fit and proper for a Parliament to alter And suppose that for the present it be no hinderance to the service of God nor yet burdensome to the King and Kingdome yet if it should prove so hereafter for a man to bee bound by an Oath never to consent to alter it may be a great wrong to God in his service and to the King and Kingdome in their peace and well-fare and therefore this Oath cannot bee taken in righteousnesse For the other Oath de parendo juri Ecclesiae stando mandatis Ecclesiae though it make lesse noyse then the other yet it is not of lesse dangerous consequence If I remember well the Story this was the Oath that the Pope made King John to take and when he had sworne stare mandatis Ecclesiae the Pope commanded him to resigne his Kingdome to him and truely be hee Gentleman or Nobleman or what ever else when hee hath once put his necke into this nouse his Ghostly Fathers may drag him whither they will for they have the quantity and the quality of the penance in their owne brest and if they shall enjoyne him to give any summe towards the building of a Church or the adorning of a Chappell he must pay it or if they should enjoyne him any servile or base action as there are not wanting examples of that kinde in the time of Popery they are sworne stare mandatis Ecclesiae and so cannot recede but must performe it Nay I dare not warrant any man from the rods of Henry the second or of Raymond of Tholouze what hath beene done may be done J am sure the power is the same And that other Oath also though more usuall in practise and more confirmed by thâ—se new Canons which is administred to Church-Wardens would bee looked into For it is hardly possible for them that take it not to be for sworne being they sweare to so many particulars that they cannot mind and to some that they cannot understand as how many Church-Wardens are there in England that understand what Socinianisme is in case they be sworne to present the offenders against that Canon which concernes that matter I shall onely adde a word or two concerning two Canons more which seeme to be Canons of Reformation The first is concerning excommunication to bee pronounced onely by a Divine wherein it is alleadged for the framers of these Canons that if they have not more Law on their sides yet they may seeme to have more reason For my part as in all other things I thinke they have so mended the matter that they have made it farre worse for before that which was found fault with was this that a Lay-man did that which the grave Divine should have done and now the grave Divine must doe what ever the Lay-man would have done for the cogniscance of the cause and the power of judicature is wholy in the Lay-man onely the grave Divine is to bee his Servant to execute his Sentences and hath such a kind of managing the spirituall sword allowed onely unto him as the Papists in some cases were wont to afford unto the civill Magistrate in respect of the Temporall sword for as if the Civill sword by an implicite Faith had beene pinned to the Lawn-sleeves they condemned men of Heresie and then delivered them over to the Secular power but what to doe Not to have any cognisance of the cause nor to exercise any power of judicature but onely to bee their executioners and to burne the Heretick whom they had condemned and so they judged men excommunicate and then the civill power was to send out writtes de Excommunicato â—apiendo against them but one said well that the sword without cognisance of the cause and judgement was like Polyphemus without his eye it became violence and fury But being accompanied with the eye of judgement it is equity and justice and surely where the spirituall or civill governour is called upon to strike hee must bee allowed to see and judge whom and wherefore hee strikes otherwise he will bee able to give but an ill accompt to God of the managing of the sword wherewith hee is instructed The other Canon is the last Canon against vexatious citations wherein they seeme to have some sense of the great grievances that poore people lye under by occasion of vexatious citations and molestations in Ecclesiasticall Courts and I verily beleeve that there is not a greater oppression in the whole Kingdome upon the poorer sort of people then that which proceedeth out of these Courts But now Sir Let us see what provision they have made against it by this Canon They say because great grievances may fall upon people by citations upon pretence onely of the breach of that Law without any presentment or any other just ground that no citations grounded onely as aforesaid shall issue out except it be under the hand and Seale of the Chancellour Commissary Arch-Deacon or other competent Judge so that if there bee any sense in these words though there bee no presentment at all nor any other just ground yet a citation may issue out so it be under the hand and Seale of the Chancellour Commissary or other competent Iudge and the party shall not be discharged without paying his fees nor have any reliefe by this Canon But suppose the citation bee not under the hand and Seale of any competent Judge and that there was neither presentment nor any just ground for it shall he then be dismissed without paying any fees No unlesse first contrary to the law of nature there being no presentment nor just ground of accusation against him hee shall by his oath purge himselfe of pretended breaches of Law and then too hee shall onely have the fees of the Court remitted but shall have no satisfaction for his troublesome and chargeable journey and for the losse of his time and being drawne away from his affâ—ires Nay lest they should seeme to have beene too liberall of their favour they adde a Proviso in the close of the Canon that this grace of theirs shall not extend to any grievous crime as Schisme Incontinency misbehaviour in the Church or obstinate inconformity And what do they call misbehaviour in the Church If a man doe not kneele at the Confession or have his hat on when the Lessons are reading In like manner what doe they call obstinate inconformity If a man will not thinke what they would have him thinke if a man will not say what they would have him say if a man will not sweare what they would have him sweare if a man will not read what they would have him read if a man will not preach what they would have him preach if a man will not pray what they would have him pray In short if a man will not doe what ever they would have him doe then he is an inconformist and after that they have duely admonished him primò secundò tertiò all in one breath then hee is contumacious then he is an obstinate Jnconformist Now Sir my humble motion is that in consideration of all the premisses and what besides hath beene well laid open by others wee should proceed to damme these Canons not onely as contrary to the Lawes of the Land but also as containing sundry matters destructive of the rights of Parliaments and of the fundamentall and other principall Lawes of this Kingdome and otherwise of very dangerous consequence FINIS
A SECOND SPEECH OF THE HONOVRABLE NATHANAEL FIENNES second Son to the Right Honourable the LORD SAY in the Commons House of PARLIAMENT Touching the Subjects Liberty against the late Canons and the New Oath Printed by a perfect Coppy 1641. A SECOND SPEECH OF THE HONOVRABLE NATHANAEL FJENNES second Son to the Right Honourable the Lord SAY touching the Subjects Liberty against the late Canons and the New Oath Mr. Speaker NOW that wee are about to brand these Canons in respect of the matter contained in them it is the proper time to open the foulenesse thereof and though much of this hath beene anticipated in the generall debate yet if any thing hath beene omitted or if any thing may be farther cleered in that kind it is for the service of the House that it should now be done Sir I conceive these Canons doe containe sundry matters which are not onely contrary to the Lawes of this Land but also destructive of the very principall and fundamentall Lawes of this Kingdome J shall beginne with the first Canon wherein the framers of these Canons have assumed unto themselves a Parliamentary power and that too in a very high degree for they have taken upon them to define what is the power of the King what the liberty of the Subjects and what propriety he hath in his goods If this bee not proper to a Parliament J know not what is Nay it is the highest matter that can fall under the consideration of a Parliament and such a point as wherein they would have walked with more tendernesse and circumspection then these bold Divines have done And surely as this was an act of such presumption as no age can parallell so is it of such dangerous consequence as nothing can bee more For they doe not onely take upon them to determine matters of this nature but also under great penalties forbid all Parsons Vicars Curats Readers in Divinitie c. To speake any other wayes of them then as they had defined by which Meanes having seised upon all the Conduits whereby knowledge is conveyed unto the people how easie would it be for them in time to undermine the Kings prerogative and to suppresse the Subjects liberty or both And now Sir I beseech you to consider how they have defined this high and great point they have dealt with us in matter of Divinity as the Judges had done before in matter of Law they first tooke upon them to determine a matter that belonged not to their Judicature but onely to the Parliament and after by their judgement they overthrew our propriety and just so have these Divines dealt with us they tell us that Kings are an Ordinance of God of Divine Right and founded in the Prime Lawes of Nature from whence it will follow that all other formes of government as Aristocracies and Democracies are wicked formes of Government contrary to the Ordinance of God and the Prime Lawes of nature which is such new Divinity as I never read in any Booke but in this new Booke of Canons Mr. Speaker We all know that Kings and States and Judges and all Magistrates are the Ordinances of God but Sir give me leave to say they were the Ordinances of men before they were the Ordinances of God J know I am upon a great and high point but J speake by as great and as high a warrant if Saint Peters chaire cannot erre as Saint Peters Epistles cannot thus he teacheth us Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreame or to the Governour as to him that is sent by him c. Sir it is worthy noting that they are Ordinances of men but that they are to be submitted unto for the Lords sake and truely their power is as just and their subjects alleageance as due unto them though we suppose them to be first ordinances of men and then confirmed and established by Gods Ordinance as if wee suppose them to be immediate ordinances of God and so received by men But there was somewhat in it that these Divines aimed at I suppose it was this If Kings were of Divine Right as the Office of a Pastour in the Church or founded in the prime Lawes of Nature as the power of a Father in a Family then it would certainly follow that they should receave the fashion and manner of their government onely from the Prescript of Gods Word or of the Lawes of Nature and consequently if there be no text neither of the Old nor New Testament nor yet any Law of nature that Kings may not make Lawes without Parliaments they may make Lawes without Parliaments and if neither in the Scripture nor in the Law of Nature Kings be forbidden to lay taxes or any kind of impositions upon their people without consent in Parliament they may doe it out of Parliament and that this was their meaning they expresse it after in plaine termes for they say that Subsidies and taxes and all manner of aydes are due unto Kings by the Law of God and of nature Sir if they bee due by the Law of God and of nature they are due though there bee no act of Parliament for them nay Sir if they be due by such a right a hundred acts of Parliaments cannot take them away or make them undue And Sir that they meant it of Subsidies and aides taken without consent in Parliament is cleerely that addition that they subjoyne unto it that this doth not take away from the Subject the propriety hee hath in his goods for had they spoken of Subsidies and aides given by consent in Parliament this would have beene a very ridiculous addition for who ever made any question whether the giving Subsidies in Parliament did take away from the Subject the propriety hee hath in his goods when as it doth evidently imply they have a propriety in their goods for they could not give unlesse they had something to give but because that was alleadged as a chiefe reason against ship-money and other such illegall payments levied upon the people without their consent in Parliament that it did deprive them of their right of propriety which they have in their goods these Divines would seeme to make some answer thereunto but in truth their answer is nothing else but the bare assâ—rtion of a contradiction and it is an easie thing to say a contradiction but impossible to reconcile it for certainly if it be a true rule as it is most true â—uod meum est sine consensu meo non potest fieri alienum to take my goods without my consent must needs destroy my propriety Another thing in this first Canon wherein they have assumed unto themselves a Parliamentary power is in that they take upon them to define what is Treason besides what is determined in the statute of Treasons They say to set up any coactive independent power is treasonable both against God and the King the question is
to his friend nay if any man should abett or maintaine an opinion contrary thereunto though it were but in Parliament if he thought it fit to be altered by this Canon hee is excommunicate ipso facto and lyeth under the same consideration and is lyable to the same punishment as if he had maintained an opinion against the Deity of CHRIST and of the Holy Ghost and of our Justification by the satisfaction of Christ Sir if in things that are in their owne Nature indifferent if in things disputable it shall be as heynous to abett or maintaine an opinion as in the most horrible and monstrous heresies that can bee imagined what liberty is left to us as Christians What liberty is left to us as men I proceed to the sixt Canon wherein these Canonists have assumed to themselves a Parliamentary power and that in a very high degree in that they have taken upon them to impose new Oathes upon the Kings Subjects Sir under favour of what hath beene alleaged to the contrary to impose an Oath if it bee not an higher power then to make a Law it is a power of making a Law of a most high Nature and of higher and farther consequence then any other Law and I should much rather chuse that the convocation should have a power to make Lawes to bind my person and my estate then that they should have a power to make Oathes to bind my conscience a Law binds mee no longer then till another Law be made to alter it but my Oath bindes mee as long as I live Againe a Law bindes mee either to obedience or to undergoe the penalty inflicted by the Law but my Oath bindes mee absolutely to obedience And lastly a Law binds me no longer then I am in the Land or at the farthest no longer then I am a Member of the State wherein and whereby the Law is made but my Oath once being taken doth bind mee in all places and in all conditions so long as I live Thus much J thought good to speake concerning the power of imposing new Oathes as to the matter of this new Oath it is wholy illegall It is aginst the Law of this Land it is against the Law and Light of Nature it is against the Law of GOD it is against the Lawes of this KINGDOME And that no obscure Lawes nor concerning any meane or pettie matters It is against the Law of the Kings Supremacie in that it maketh Arch-bishops Bishops Deanes Arch-Deacons c. to be jure Divino whereas the Law of this Land hath annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme not onely all Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction but also all Superiority over the Ecclesiasticall State and it is to bee derived from him by Commission under the great Seale and consequently it is Jure humano Againe it is against the Oath of Supremacy established by Law point blanck for therein I am sworne not onely to consent unto but also to assist and to the uttermost of my power to defend all Jurisdictions preheminence c. annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme of which this is one and that which immediately precedeth this Oath in the Statute and whereunto it doth especially relate That his Majestie may exercise any Jurisdictions or Ecclesiasticall government by his Commission under the great Seale directed to such persons as hee shall thinke meet so that if hee shall thinke other persons more meet then Arch-bishoos Bishops c. I am sworne in the Oath of Supremacie not onely to assent thereunto but to assist and to the uttermost of my power to defend such an appointment of his Majesty and in this new Oath J shall sweare never to consent unto such an alteration In the like manner it is against the Law and Light of Nature that a man should sweare to answere c. to he knowes not what It is against the Law and light of Nature that a man should sweare never to consent to alter a thing that in its owne nature is alterable and may prove inconvenient and fit to be altered Lastly it is against the Law of God for whereas there are three rules prescribed to him that will sweare aright that he sweare in Judgement in Truth and righteousnesse hee that shall take this new Oath must needs breake all these three Rules He can not sweare in judgement because this Oath is so full of ambiguities that hee can not tell what hee sweares unto not to speake of the unextricable ambiguity of the c. There is scarce one word that is not ambiguous in the principall parts of the Oath as First What is meant by the Church of England whether all the Christians in England or whether the Clergie onely or onely the Arch-bishops Bishops Deanes c. or whether the Convocation or what In like manner it is as doubtfull what is meant by the Discipline and what by the Doctrine of the Church of England for what some call superstitious Jnnovations if others affirme to be consonant to the Primitive and that the purest Reformation in the time of Edward the 6. and in the beginning of the Reigne of Queene Elizabeth and so for the Doctrine of the Church of England if all the Positions that of later yeares have beene challenged by some of our Divines to bee Arminian and Popish and contrary to the Articles of our Religion and which on the other side have beene asserted and maintained as consonant to the Doctrine of our Church and if the Articles of Religion were gathered together they might make a prety volume nay Sancta Clara will maintaine it in despight of the Puritanes that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the Doctrine of the Church of England Truely it were very fit that we knew what were the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England before we sweare to it and then Sir give me leave to say that J should bee very loath to sweare to the Discipline or to the Doctrine and Tenents of the purest Church in the World as they are collected by them farther then they agree with the Holy Scriptures Lastly it is as doubtfull what is meant by the Doctrine and Discipline established and what by altering and consenting to alter whether that is accompted or established which is established by act of Parliament or wheter that also that is established by Canons Injunctions c. and whether it shall not extend to that which is published by our Divines with the allowance of authority and so for consenting to alter whether it be onely meant that a man shall not be active in altering or whether it extend to any consent and so that a man shall not submit to it nor accept of it being altered by the State More ambiguities might be shewen but these are enough to make it cleere that hee that shall take this Oath cannot sweare in judgement Nor can he sweare in truth for it is full of untruthes It is not true that Discpline