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
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
good King ought to be a Protector and Defender of the Bishops and Churches under his Government Rex With a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my part and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdome by right ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under his Government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion Table where he makes a solemne Oath in sight of all the â—â—opâ—e to observe the premises and laying his hand on the Booke saith The Oath The Things that I have before promised I shall perform and keep so p 〈…〉 me God and the Contents of this Book The Contents CHAP. I. VVHether the King may lawfully consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy 1. CHAP. II. Whether the Kings Oath taken at his Coronation be an unlawfull Oath 4. CHAP. III. Whether Prelacy in the Church of England were an usurpation 9. CHAP. IV. Whether the King may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy if so that calling be lawfull 18. CHAP. V. Whether ye have not bound your selves by your Solemne League and Covenant to maintaine Episcopacy 22. CHAP. VI. Whether the King without impeachment to his Oath at Coronation may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy 31 CHAP. VII Whether the King may desert Episcopacy without perjury 37. CHAP. VIII Whether the Kings Oath to the Clergie be injurious to his other subjects and inconsistent with his Oath to the people 41. CHAP. IX How far forth and wherein the Clergie is subject to a Parliament and to what Parliament 52 CHAP. X. Whether it be lawfull for the King to abrogate the Rights of the Clergie 60. CHAP. XI Whether the Clergie and Laity be two distinct bodies or one body Politicke That Church-men in all ages had some singular priviledges allowed them 69. CHAP. XII Whether to sit and Vote in Parliament be incongruous to the calling of Bishops 78. CHAP. XIII Certaine light and scandalous speeches concerning Prince Preist tenderly touched 87. CHAP. XIV Whether the Lands of the Church may be forfeited by the misdemeanour of the Clergie 93. CHAP. XV. Whether it be lawfull to take away the Bishops Lands and to confer them upon the Presbytery 104. CHAP. XVI How far forth the King ought to protect the Church Bishops 114 CHAP. XVII Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdome 127 Mr. GEREES Case of Conscience SIFTED CHAP. I. Whether the King may lawfully consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy 1. I Find a Case of Conscience proposed by Mr. Geree and this it is Whether the King considering his O that Coronation to protect the Clergie and their Priviledges can salvâ conscientiâ consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy But why I pray you is the question proposed here when you have determined it before For doth not your Title page speak thus In this Case of Conscience it is cleared that the King may without impeachment to his Oath touching the Clergie at Coronation consent to the Abrogation of Episcopacy Thus you have full magisterially determined before the question be so much as proposed Is this the fashion first to resolve and then to argue the case This may be the course of Hereticks it is otherwise with good Catholicks But you are resolved to maintain that a Christian may swear and forswear without the least prejudice to his soul 2. And your practice is accordingly witnesse the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy which you with your great Masters have taken more then once And those of your perswasion have taken up Arms against their Soveraign Lord without impeachment to their Oath of Allegiance and maintain that The Parliament is subordinate to no power under Heaven without any breach of the Oath of Supremacie And your self like a good Preacher of Gods Word have taken the Oath of Canonicall obedience to the Bishop and yet endeavour the abrogation of Episcopacy and the extirpation of that Order from whence you had your Orders and without which you could have had no Orders 3. Me thinks the Smectymnuans should not endure this Proposition since with them a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same Thus while you endeavour to ruinate Episcopacy you subvert the Presbytery according to their tenets I wonder much how your case hath passed so long unsifted and uncensured by the Divine Masters of your learned Assembly 4. But I shall take it for your best advantage as it is distinguished or as we say a distinct order from Presbytery I shall also take into consideration the severall motives which you produce for the Abrogation of Episcopacy 5. Whereof your first is this that there is no hope of the Kings or Kingdoms safetie without an union between our King and Parliament I must confesse with anguish of spirit as matters have been handled the King and Kingdom are driven into a great streight and an Vnion between our King and your Parliament hath been prayed for and sought for by all commendable or tolerable means The hope left us is onely in our God and Saviour whose custome it is to scatter the proud in the imagination of their hearts to pull down the mighty from their throne and to exalt the humble and meek Thus can he shew strength with his arm and do great things for us And this I hope in his due time he will do and reduce this Kingdom from irreligion and sacriledge and not cast off the innocent with the prophane blasphemers Oh that we might begge that blessing from Heaven to see a Parliament rightly regulated religiously minded and with-out any by ends of their own men of courage fearing God men dealing truly hating covetousnesse Such as will not be led by a multitude to do evil or to subvert the truth I am certain we should then have an Union a blessed Vnion between King and Parliament 6. But by you it seems that there is now no probable or possible means of reconciliation left in mans judgement unlesse the King yeeld to the extirpation of Episcopacy You should have added unlesse he lay down his Lands Royalties and just Prerogatives at his Subjects feet unlesse he abandon the wife of his bosome and become a stranger to the Children of his loins unlesse he sacrifice his friends to the malice of his foes and the ruine of whole families to their avarice unlesse he cast off the Service of God that most excellent form of Common Prayer and give up the houses and lands of God and all that is accounted holy to satiate their sacrilegious appetite 7. But in sober sadnesse do you beleeve that the Abrogation of Episcopacy is that they yawn at You are mistaken good brother the Episcopall houses and lands as also what ever belongs to Deans and
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
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
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
messengers and makers of peace would never have passed a Vote for war 2. But what were the motives that wrought upon His Majestie to yeeld to have the Bishops turned out of that House wherein they had voted from the first day that ever Parliament sate in England And before ever there was an House of Commons they had their Votes in the great Councels of the Kingdom as Sir Robert Cotton manifests in his Treatise that the Soveraigns person is required in the great Councels of the State p. 3. c. If at any time they have been forced out of these Parliaments or great Assemblies it hath been with so ill successe that with all possible speed they have been recalled Will you hear the motives Surely they were the very same that drove the King from Westminster and London I remember the Clothiers were perswaded in a mutinous manner to cry down the Bishops votes because they had no market for their clothes And now they cry out that they want wooll to make clothes Is not this the blessing they have gained by that hideous and senselesse out-cry 3. But why was this privilege abolisht as incongruous to their calling Are Bishops unfit to advise or assent in framing Laws Surely they are rationall men and learned men By reason of their age and offices which they have heretofore passed thorow they must needs be men of much experience And it is to be presumed so many for so many as conscionable and as much for the common good as any And such men are most fit to prepare and commend Laws for and to Kings For I have learned that this is a strong argument in Law Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum Nothing contrary to reason is lawfull For REASON IS THE LIFE OF THE LAW nay the COMMON LAW it self IS NOTHING ELSE BUT REASON Which is to be understood of an artificiall perfection of reason gotten by 1 long studie 2 observation and 3 experience and not every mans naturall reason for Nemo nascitur artifex no man is born Master of his profession Against reason therefore it is that men of long study much observation and experience should be excluded from voting in matters of such high concernment And some men that have scarce any of these should be admitted as if they were born wise or gained State-experience by hawking or hunting 'T is true that Senatore sons might be admitted to the government of the Common-wealth before they were five and twenty yeers of age but before they were twenty and five yeers compleat they could give no suffrage among the rest of the Senators though Senators This was the wisdom of that thriving Roman State 4. Now give me leave to enquire more strictly what it is that is incongruous to the calling of Bishops Is it to sit in the House of Peers or to Vate in the House of Peers or both That the Lords Spirituall have sate and voted with the Lords Temporall cannot be denied The Acts of Parliament speak it from the first Session to this last Let it not be thought incongruous for Bishops to sit with the best of Subjects They sate at Constantines own table Nor to be numbred among Peers The prophecie saith that they may be made Princes Nor to vote in matters of State since usually they are men of great Learning of much experience observation and conscience Such as fear God honour their Soveraign and love their Countrey with-out by ends Such they are and such they ought to be And though sometimes there be a Judas among the twelve yet is the Calling never the worse 5. Had it been incongruous to their Calling Melchisedech that was both King and Priest had never been a type of our Saviour The Law of God and Nature abhor that which is incongruous Had it been incongruous to the Priesthood God had never made Moses and Eli Governors of his people in temporall affairs for they were both Priests Jethro Priest of Midian was of excellent use to Moses in State affairs And it may not be forgotten that King Jehoash thrived as long as he hearkned to Jehoiada the High Priest But when he sleighted the Priests counsell he suddenly fell into the extremest miseries 2 Chron. 24. 21. 23. c. Our Histories will likewise tell you how K. Henry VII prosper'd by applying himself to the advice of his Bishops Morton Denny Fox and others And how his Son K. Henry VIII never thrived after he turned his ears from the counsell of his Prelates And yet he excluded them not from Parliaments he could not be drawn to that Sure had this been incongruous to their calling your fellow Ministers of London would never have granted that two distinct offices may be formally in one and the same person as Melchizedech was formally a King and Priest I. D. p. 212. 6. A wonder it is that you your faction should spie thiâ— incongruitie which was never discerned by the wisest of our fore-fathers The Writ which summons the Parliament runs thus Rex habiturus colloquium tractatum cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus The King intending a Conference and Treatie with his Prelates and Great men and Peers This Writ as some report was framed under K. Henry III. and is continued in the same terms to this day And yet no incongruitie discerned in it till ye came in with your new Lights which issue from your light brains But now the Bishops must no more vote no not sit in Parliament because you forsooth conceive it to be incongruous to their calling But will any wise man take your word for a Law or imagine it to be more authentick then the resolutions of all our fore-fathers You have no way to finger the Bishops lands and Jurisdiction but by turning them out of the House This this was it that moved you to charge their presence in Parliament with incongruity 7. The Lawyers tell us that the Writ of Summons is the basis and foundation of the Parliament And if the foundation be destroyed what becomes of the Parliament Truly it falls saith Justice Jenkins according to that maxime both in Law and Reason Sublato fundamento opus cadit the Foundation being taken away the work falls If then it shall be proved that you endeavour to ruine the Foundation the Writ of Summons it must necessarily follow that you endeavour the ruine of the Parliament By the Writ the King is to have treatie with his Prelates But you suffer him to have no treaty with his Prelates Where then is the Writ Nay the Bishops are quite voted down root and branch How then shall he treat in Parliament with those that have no being The Lord commands the Ark to be made of Shittim-wood If there had been no Shittim wood the Ark could not haue been made If there be no Prelates where 's the treatie Where the Parliament It will not serve
provided for Shall she not in their absence be layed open to the subtill foxes and mercilesse bores to wast and distroy her Yea by this means she is already distroyed So pious Justice Jenkins The incongruitie then is not to the Bishops calling but to the covetousnesse of bores and foxes 13. Another incongruity will follow upon this The whole Parliament is one corporate body consisting of the HEAD AND THE THREE ESTATES If one of the Estates be wanting it cannot be called a whole but an imperfect a maimed Parliament But the Bishops are one of the three Estates Suppose them to be the more feeble and lesse honourable Estate or Member yet this very Member is necessary and the body is but lame without it Take heed then that the excluding of Bishops be not incongruous to the Parliament I see not how it can be incongruous to the Prelates to suffer wrong since for this purpose they are called But it is incongruous to the Parliament to be without them since without them it is not a whole but an imperfect Parliament For I have read that Bishops were in all Parliaments and voted in them since we had any Yea that great Master of the Law justifies that every Bishop ought ex debito justiciae of due justice to be summoned by Writ to every Parliament that is holden But if they leave out the Bishops they begin with injustice and lay but an ill foundation for so great a Court of Justice And where injustice beares the sway there is little Justice to be hoped for So they are incongruous in the first stone or foundation of a Parliament 14. There is a Statute that no Act of Parliament be passed by any Soveraign of this Realm or any other authority what soever without the advice assent of the three Estates of the Kingdome viz. of the 1 Lords spirituall 2 temporall the 3 Commons of this Realme And all those are solemnly cursed by the whole Parliament that shall at any time endeavour to alter this Act or to make any Statute otherwise then by the consent of all these or the Major part of them This as the learned in the Law report is upon record in the Parliament Roles 15. And what comfort I beseech you can his Majestie have to call a Parliament without Bishops since he cannot assure himself of Gods assistance without them Cenwalch King of the West-Saxons was sensible that his Province was destitute of Gods protection while it was without a Bishop Indeed a good Bishop is with Gregory Metropolitan of Cesarea not onely the beautie of the Church and a fortresse to his flock but he is the safety of his Country It was the religious conceit of our country men heretofore that both King and Kingdome have by the Church a solid â— sure foundation for their subsistence And it was the usuall saying of King Iames No Bishop no King In Scripture the Preists are called the Charets and horsemen of Israel because by their prayers the Country prospered more then by force of armes And the Greek Fathers observe that the Bishop is therefore to pray for all because he is the Common Father of all be they good or bad 16. And as he can have little spirituall comfort without Bishops so without them he can have no temporall releife no Subsidies granted for his own supplies or for the defence of the Kingdome I am sure none have been granted him at Westminster since the expulsion of the Bishops Thus have you moulded up such a Parliament as was never known in this Realme since these great Councels of State were first assembled For though the Bishops were by his Majestie summoned according to justice yet were they afterwards turned out at the instigation of a strong tumultuous faction not suffered to vote in matters that concerned either Church or State Thus ye are become like the Princes of Judah that remove the bounds That is as the Genevians interpret ye have turned upside down all politicall order and all manner of Religion Therefore upon those that have done so the Lord will powre out his wrath like water which will surely overwhelm them as it did those desperate sinners in the deluge Thus I have manifested that it is not incongruous to the calling of Bishops to sit and vote in Parliament but to exclude them is incongruous to the being of a Parliament to the weale of the King and safety of the Kingdom 17. And yet as if what-you had delivered were ex tripode as sure as Gospel from barring their votes you deduce an argument for taking away their Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall If one be abolished why may not the other be removed As if because my cassocke is taken from me I must necessarily be stripped out of my gowne 'T is true if this be also done I must bear it patiently but my patience doth not justifie their action that do me the injurie Neither doth the former fact justifie the latter truly no more then Davids follie with Bathsheba can countenance the murder of Vriah The question is not de factâ— but de jure not what is done but whether it be justly done If the fact may justifie a right then may we maintaine robbing upon Salisbury Plain because it hath been done there more then once A wonder it is you had not framed your argument thus who knows not that the Parliament caused the Arch Bishop of Canterbury to be beheaded And then why may they not hang the rest of the Bishops if their lives prove inconvenient and prejudiciall to the Church But with Julian the Apostata ye had rather slay the Preisthood then the Preists 17. Indeed the removall of their Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction is no more against the Oath then the abolition of their Votes Both alike in respect of the Oath but if we consider the severall authorities from whence they are derived we shall find a difference because the most part of their Jurisdiction is the grant of God but their Voting among the Peers is by the favour of Princes grounded upon the right of Nature and that civill interest which every free denizon ought to have in some measure in disposing of his own and assenting to new Laws But suppose Princes may revoke their own favours can they without perill to their soules cut off that entaile which God hath settled upon his Church I beleeve no. But you will onely remove it not abolish it And removed it may be from Dorchester to Lincolne from Crediton to Exiter But the removall of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction from Bishops to Presbyters is utterly unlawfull since without sinne we may not alter the Ordinance of God who settled this Jurisdiction upon Bishops onely and not upon Presbyters as is demonstrated in the next Chapter CHAP. XIII Certaine light and scandalous passages concerning Prince and Preist tenderly touched 1. THere 's a great cry
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
Lay-mens hands which heretofore were appropriated and annexed to this or that particular Religious House Which house according to Mr. Spelman was the perpetuall incumbent Parson of each of those Rectories and did duely officiate the Cure by one of their own fraternity Then were there few or no defective Parishes But upon these new Statutes the Lay Appropriatoes swept all into their own custody and possession From hence ariseth the want of congruous maintenance in too many Parishes for him or them that serve those Cures And shall Bishops smart for it when Lay-men have done the mischief and purse up the profits Dat veniam corvis vexat censura columbas when the Laity offends the Clergie suffers Is this Justice But so the Parliament do it it is with you valid in Law though injurious But God and you are of severall minds 11. Nay if this be done if Bishops lands be removed to Presbyters there will be no danger of sacrilege How prove you that This say you will not be to ruine but to rectifie the devotion of former ages and turn pomp into use and impediments into helps This is somewhat like Cardinall Wolseys pretence who dissolved fourty small Monasteries of ignorant silly Monks to erect two goodly Colleges for the breeding up of learned and industrious Divines Was not this to turn impediments into helps Lo he removed lazie drones that did little but eat and drink and sleep that so learned men might be provided for who would labour in the Word and doctrine and might be able to do Church and State good service Was not this as fair a pretence as yours or as any you can invent And how was this accepted of God that forbids theft will no more endure the offering gained by theft then by adultery One of his Colledges dyes in the conception the other remains unfinished to this day and it pities me to see her foundations under rubbish And a misery it is to take into consideration the ruine of this man as also of that King and Pope who gave him licence to commit this sin This attempt and grant opened a gap to the most profuse sacrilege that ever Christian Nation before that time had been acquainted with And yet for ought I find by this particular sacrilege there came no gain into any of their private purses 12. But I beseech you what is the meaning of these words this will turn pomp into use What your intent is perchance I may gesse but to take them according to the plain and literall sense I can make no other construction of them then this If the Prelates revenues were diverted to supply with sufficient maintenance all those Parochiall Pastors that want congruous maintenance this would turn pomp into use That is that pomp which the Prelates made no use of the Presbyterians would turn into use If this be not the Grammaticall sense I appeal to any rationall man And their Essay in the Divine right of Church government shews what their proceedings would prove I must confesse ye have marvellously improved the impediments and turned them into helps For the power and Jurisdiction of Bishops which were the main impediments to Schisme and Heresie you have covenanted to root up and have brought in all the helps that may be to further irreligion and Atheisme While the Bishops had power heresies were rarae nantes seldom seen and suddenly supprest if any such crept in But now they flowe in by shoals and have Pulpits and Presses cloyed with them Does not your own Mr. Edwards professe that never was there such plenty of Sects and Heresies As many more in truth as ever the Church knew in former ages Onely as by Julian the Apostata both Pulpits and Presses are locked up to the Orthodox no coming there for them lest perchance they infect the Auditories with sound and Apostolike Doctrine 13. Parochiall Pastors are most necessary men by them the work of the Ministery is CHIEFLY to be performed This is true and not true True in the Fathers sense not in yours In the Fathers sense a Pastor is a Bishop strictly so called as by his Order he is differenced from a Presbyter and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no petty Countrey or Citie Parish it is a whole Citie with the Precincts and Countrey adjoyning which were under the jurisdiction of the Citie and repaired thither for justice if differences arose With them Paraecia was the same that a Diocese is with us So a Parochiall Pastor in the ancient and Church sense is a Diocesan Bishop and in this sense the work of the Ministery is CHIEFLY PERFORMED BY THE PAROCHIALL PASTOR This Pastor indeed can perform all Ministeriall acts divers of which are clean out of a Presbyters power And yet you say that by the Parochiall Pastor who is with you but a Presbyter the work of the Ministery is chiefly performed Not so my good brother not so not that work without which the Church cannot possibly subsist And that is twofold first the ordering of the Church and 2ly ordeining of Presbyters The chief works of the Ministery according to St. Paul are to 1 regular the Church and to 2 beget those by whom the Sacraments may be administred and absolution pronounced But these works may not cannot be done by any or many Presbyters In your sense therefore this proposition is false 14. But why cheifly What because Presbyters offer up the prayers and supplications of the Church Because they are the usuall Preachers and dispensers of the Sacraments These indeed are the most usuall and daily offices and very necessary but I dare not say that by them these offices are cheifly discharged What say you to that principle of reason Propter quod aliquid est tale illud est magis tale Especially if it be such an efficient or ministeriall cause without which in the ordinary way there can be no such thing But by a Bishop a Presbyter is made a Minister of these holy duties in the ordinary way without him he could not be a Presbyter The Bishop then doth cheifly performe the work of the Ministery The reason is because illo mediante by his means or mediation that is done which without him could not be done The work of Justice is usually performed by the Justice of the severall Benches But I presume you will not say cheifly that you will reserve to the Parliament since you have sworne that to be the Supreme Judicatorie of this Kingdome And in this treatise you have concluded that The Parliament is the Supreme Court by which all other Courts are to be regulated And as all Courts are to be regulated by Parliament so are all Presbyters to be guided by their own Bishop 15. Cheifly say you onely saith your Ordinance for Ordination wherein you make the Presbyter the onely Minister In your Solemne League and Covenant ye resolve and vow the extirpation of Arch-Bishops and
with the chief Priest the Priest of the first Order And is it not so now Have we not just cause to say to you Ye take too much upon you ye Presbyters ye sons of Bishops What Is it not enough for you that God hath separated you from the multitude that he hath taken you neer himself to do the service of the Lords house and to administer the Sacraments but you must have the Bishops office But you must be giving Orders as well as the Bishop Surely this is to assume that power to your selves which God never committed to any Presbyter while a Presbyter 24. Last of all I cannot but observe that when the Lord had punished these schismaticall and seditious persons the tumult ariseth afresh against Moses and Aaron they cry out upon them as murderers as if these two had slain the people of the Lord for thus they call that factious and damnable crue But the Lord decided the controversie and shewed manifestly who were His first by consuming the mutineers with the plague and secondly by causing Aarons rod when it seemed to be quite dead to revive even to bud and blossom and bear fruit in the Tabernacle Thus the mouthes of the rebellious Children were stopped and Gods Ordinance justified Oh that salvation were given unto Israel out of Sion Oh that the Lord would deliver his people out of Captivity Oh that we might see Aarons rod once more bud and blossom and bring forth Almonds Then should Jacob rejoyce and Israel should be right glad CHAP. XVII Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdom 1. IN this Treatise you blame those that seem to set up two Supremacies and yet you cannot see the same beam in your own eye You are of kin sure to those Lamiae those witches that were blind at home but quick-sighted abroad Thou that findest fault with another doest the same thing For do not you say plainly that there 's a Supremacie in the King and a Supremacy in the Parliament I hope you know your own language Clodius accusat It is an usuall thing for your confederacie to charge the King and his good Subjects with that which your selves are either guilty of or intend to induce 2. What two Supremacies two superlatives at the same time in the same Kingdom Is this possible What because there is summus and supremus because there are two superlatives of the same word shall we therefore have two Supremacies in the same Realm Is not this flatly against the Oath of Supremacy Wherein you and I and your great Patriots have sworn that the Kings Highnesse is the ONELY SUPREME GOVERNOUR OF THIS REALME and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countreys But the King hath been so long out of your eye that he is now out of your minde and the Parliament shall at least be his corrivall in the Supremacy Take heed take heed of perjury I can tell you of severall Acts of Parliament since the Reformation that lay a penaltie of fourty pounds upon every particular perjurie If His Majestie had all these forfeitures they would satisfie his debts and make him a glorious King after all these pressures 3. But you clip His Majesties wings though ye make him flie and tell us as you conceive that the Supremum jus Dominii the supreme right of Dominion which is above all Laws is not in the King To say it is in him is in this in our State a manifest error Why what 's become of the Oath of Supremacy Have we forgot that Was not that provided for this State In our State this is no error in yours it may be or else you are in a manifest error Certainly the members have sworn that the King is the ONLY SUPREME GOVERNOUR OF THIS REALM or State And that he is so as well IN ALL Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall If He be the onely Supreme how shall we find another Supreme or an equall to him within his own Dominions If He be so in all things and causes both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall what thing or cause is there wherein he is not the onely Supreme or wherein he hath any other Supreme joyned to him For certain these particles Onely and All are exclusive of any copartner 4. But you will chalk out a way whereby to elude or avoid this Oath and the restrictions therein There 's a supreme Parliament as well as a supreme King Or a Supremacy is in the Parliament and a Supremacy in the King An excellent Arithmetician he hath learned to multiply of one and one onely he hath made two Thus have they raised division out of unity and from hence are these distractions and divisions which are so repugnant to the weal of the people This is one of their new lights which is borrowed from their multiplying glasse that makes a molehill as bigge as a mountain and a Spider as large as a Sea-crab But when the multiplying glasse is layed aside the spider will be but a spider 5. Well let us see how you make good this twofold Supremacy The Supremacy or the Supremum jus Dominii that is over all Laws figere or refigere to make or disanull them at pleasure is neither in the King nor in the Houses apart but in both conjoyned Here then we are fallen back to one Supremacy And this Supremacy is not the Kings onely but it is the Parliaments as well as his This is to skip from Monarchy to Aristocracy Kingdoms indure no corrivals and Kings have no Peers But this man hath found one thing wherein the King hath Peers and consequently is not the onely supreme Governour of this Realm Strange how that Parliament and all since that time have been so mistaken as not to see their own right but to ascribe all to the King and that in a point of so high concernment Surely they wanted this young Preacher to bring them in a new light But I beleeve it will appeare that the Supremacie over all Laws to make or disanull them is in the King alone at the Petition of both houses and that those Parliaments knew full well 6. For satisfaction in this point I shall observe what Scriptures Fathers and some modern writers have resolved concerning Kings S. Petter plainly and fully ascribes Supremacy to the King Submit your selves saith he to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake Whether it be to the KING as SUPREME or unto Governors as unto them that are sent by him Kings are sent by God to them therfore we submit for the Lords sake All other civill Governours are sent by the King to them therefore we submit for the Kings sake that sent them Answerable hereunto are those passages in Tertullian that the Emperor is homo a Deo secundus solo Deo minor in Dei solius potestate a quo secundus post quem primus the man second to God and
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
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