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 If the Fathers were not quite out of date I could tell you what S. Austine saith And yet why may not I make use of him as well as your fellow Ministers of London Behold then the very case Quid si a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
take it well that you complain so much of one lay Chancelour in a Diocese and yet enthrall them to so many lay Elders Parochiall Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Say not that there be preaching Elders joyned with them least it be returned upon you that the lay Chancelour is but the Bishops Officer in such cases of Judicature as belong to his profession and to the Bishop he is accountable But you can endure no loy Judges over you on any hand And whereas you charge the lay Chancelorship with usuâ—pation contrary to Gods direction I am certain ye have made use of it against Gods direction For how many of you have been instituted into Benefices by lay Chancelours Quâ— jure comes not now to be scanned Thus ye can abuse them and yet use them But I shall turn you over to the Doctâ—rs of the Commons them it concerns they are well able to argue the case with you and to wash off these aspersions 18. Your first argument is I hope sufficiently confuted in the eye of indifferent and judicious men I shall not therefore any longer insist upon it but observe at how low a rate you value authority Nor Bishop nor King nor your Idolized Parliament shall be a Power but an usurpation against God and his Word if they deny you any priviledge indulged or debarre you any dutie which ye suppose to be injoyned you by the word If they sequester you from the Pulpit or from ruling in your congregations farewell my great Lords and Masters at Westminster And when they have sold the Bishops and Chapters lands they shall no longer be a Parliament but an Vsurpation because they have despoiled you of those lands which ye lay claim to and which they ought to have disposed of to supply you and your predicant brethren with such maintenance as your selves hold sufficient CHAP. IV. Whether the King may consent to the abrogation of Epiâ—copacy if so that calling be laâ—full 1. SAving your argument in the first place this is certain â—f Episcopacy be lawfull then the Kings Oath at Coronation was not as you would have it vinculum iniquitatis a bond of iniquitie And hereupon it follows quod non obligatur in contrarium that he is not bound to break this oath Take this by the way You must then seek some other way to cleere it to us that it is lawfull for his Majestie to wave this oath But your own conscience seemes to check you for your former resolution you therefore confesse that this way of invalidating the Kings is most satisfactory but to some 2. Surely if to some it be satisfactory those some are such that are either very weak or wilfully blinded with avarice Whose gaine is godlinesse But the end will prove thâ—t Godlinesse is prâ—fitable to all things That is as the Geneva Note hath it he that hath faith and a good conscience is promised to have all things necessâ—ry for this life and to injoy life everlasting This would be seriously layed to heart 3. But though your former argument seem satisfactory to some yet to some it will not hold namely to those that are not câ—nvinced of the UNLAWFULNESSE OF EPISCOPACY What so satisfactory and yet not hold Alas alas what creatures have you to deale with Pitie it is that you have to deale with learned and rationall men and not with Ignoramus and his Dull man What shall now become of your Case of Conscience Why It will cast the resolution of this doubt upon another question From one question to an other And what 's that The lawfulnesse of Episcopacy This is a large field that you are not acquainted with And yet to satisfie the conscience of your Reader you have already concluded that Episcâ—pacy is an usurpation against the word of Gâ—d and therefore sinfull and unlawfull How Conclude first that Episcopacy is unlawfull and then grant it to be lawfull But this is granted onely for argument sake That is because your argument is so loose that it proves just nothing againâ—â— Episcopacy For a firme demonstration admits of no contradiction it leaves no doubt behind 4. Well be it lawfull yet not withstanding that his Oâ—th thâ— King without impeaâ—hment may in this circumstance consent to the abâ—â—gâ—tion of Episcopacy What mean you by circumstance Is the Kings Oâ—â—h or Episcopacy or the abrâ—gaâ—iâ—n of Episcopacy but a circumstance A circumstance is that which is not substantiall or essentiall to the point in question but comes in upon the by at most for illustration The question is Whether the King notwithstanding his oath may consent with a safe conscience to the abrogation of Episcopacy All these then I take to be essentiall to the question unlesse a safe Conscience be with you and with your brethren but a circumstance And yet it is such an ingredient that a man may neither swear nor consent to nor act but what he may undertake with a safe conscience For if our heart if our conscience condemn us God is greater then our heart and knoweth all things His Majesty I make no question hath sadly thought on this 5. That he may abrogate that which is lawfull you say and we deny not since God hath given Kings a power nt onely over things indifferent but even in such things as are lawfull and honest and in their kind necessary for the preservation of a Common-wealth This is evident in Jonadab the sonne of Rechab who commanded his posterity that they should neither drink Wine nor build House nor sow seed nor plant Vineyard nor have any And yet as lawfull and necessary as these things were they obeyed their fathers voice God approves of their obedience and crowns it with a blessing And what a father is in his own familie that is a King at least within his own Dominions 6. But here the case is different for the question is concerning Christs own Ordinance and Institution which the King hath sworne to maintaine This then being lawfull and legally sworne the oath may not in any wise be dispenced with Nay if we say that the King or any authoritie upon earth may alter or abolish any one Ordinance of our Saviour we contradict our selves and complie with the Papists What reason bring we against the halfe Communion but Christs own institution who commanded it to be deliver'd and received in both kinds And Calvin deservedly reproves Bishop Cardiner for attributing this power to a King Now if Episcopacy be our Saviours institution then may no humane power root it up least they that do it be rooted out of the land of the living But that this very order which we now call Episcopacy is Christs own institution is already proved cap. 2. 6. 7 8. 7. Besides if this be the onely Order to which Christ hath given power to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons who shall confer these Orders when Bishops are taken away and utterly extinguished
beare in the Church Let Salmasius speake They at that time were mamed Apostles revera erant EPISCOPI JVRE EODEM ET ORDINE QUO HODIE HABENTUR qui Ecclesiam regunt Presbyteris praesunt and indeed were BISHOPS IN THE SAME RIGHT AND OF THE SAME ORDER WHEREOF AT THIS DAY THOSE ARE ACCOUNTED Who govern the Church and rule Presbyters But this very Office was none of those which were extraordinary and to continue for a season onely no no in Beza's judgement it is quotidianum munus an Office of daily use of necessity therefore it must be perpetull in the Church And yet the duties of that Office were such quibus sustinendis non alius quilibet e vulgo pastorum par fuisset as none of the vulgar Pastors no ordinary Presbyters were meet to undertake And what are these Even to redresse what is amisse and to ordain Presbyters These are matters of moment and require more then ordinary discretion For this cause S. Paul left Titus at Creete and for this very end he sent Epaphroditus to Philippi though at that time there were in that Citie many Bishops Phil. 1. 1. If then there needed no ordination but every man without orders might have discharged Presbyteriall duties or if the Presbyter-Bishops of that Citie might have set that Church in order and therein ordaine Presbyters Why did S. Paul send Epaphroditus to Philippi to do those things which might either have been left undone or at least have been done as well without him Surely S. Paul imposeth not needlesse businesses upon any 16. Bishops there were you will say before in that Church if then it belong to the Episcopall Order to ordain and reforme in the Church what is amisse why was Epaphroditus sent thither Take notice I beseech you that those Bishops were but Presbyters or Presbyter Bishops which Order never had the power either of Ordination or Jurisdiction S. Paul therefore sends unto them Epaphroditus an Apostle-Bishop who could performe both This you see acknowledged by your most able and subtill advocate 17. Well let it be what it will lawfull or unlawfull t is all one in this exigent or distresse that his Majestie is put to notwithstanding that his oath the King say you without impeachment may in this circumstance consent to the Abrogation of Episcopacy His Majesties oath now falls in question and I shall be willing fairely and calmely to consider wherein and how far forth a Christian King is bound to keepe or breake his Oath CHAP. VI. Whether the King without impeachment to his Oath at Coronation may consent to the Abrogation of Episcopacy 1. THis question hath two branches The first Whether a Christian King be bound to keep his Oath The second Whether he may notwithstanding his Oath consent to the Abrogation of Episcopacy His Majesties Coronation deserves also to be looked upon since an oath deliberately and solemnly taken deserves the more seriously to be thought on and will draw from God the heavier doome if despised or slighted 2. By your own confession it is evident that an oath against Christs Institution is vinâ—u um iniquitatis an impious oath and ought not to be observed but to be cut off with shame and sorrow since all bonds to sin is frustrate Confesse we must that an oath against God revealed will or honour is a bond to sin and therefore no sooner made then void and to be abhorred Such is your Covenant against Episcopacy And had the King either through misunderstanding ill advice or fear taken that irreligious Covenant he had been obliged by your confession to have made it frustrate since it is a bond to sin because it is against Christs Word and Instituition as is manifested c. 2. 4. 3. But an oath taken in truth and righteousnesse and judgement because it is of such things as may justly and lawfully be performed yea because God approves ratifies this oath is vinculum aequitatis necessitatis such a bond as equity and conscience bind us necessarily to performe to the utmost of our power But such is his Majesties Oath at Coronation concerning the Church the Spouse of Christ 4. No unrighteousnesse can ye shew in it the lawfulnesse of Episcopacy as also their just right to govern Presbyters is sufficiently justified c. 4. No untruth for our Soveraigne hath sworn to maintaine an Ordinance of truth of Christ himself And sub paenâ judicij upon paine of judgment he is bound to make good this his Oath so justly taken least he fall into the hands of God and so into eternall judgement For Justice requires that every man much more a Christian and a King keep his Oath made upon such grounds though it be with hazard both of Crown and life and all that may be indangered upon earth 5. Consider I beseech you how in an oath we call God to record and we make him not onely our witnesse but our suretie that we will with his blessing performe what we have vowed or sworne in his name And not onely so but we call upon him to be our Judge and the Revenger of our perfidiousnesse if so we wittingly depart from this Oath With what face then can we fall back and wilfully incurre perjury Is not this as Philo Judaeus hath it to make God a shelter for our wickednesse and to cast our sin upon him That so to the infamie of Christian Religion we may â—oder up a faire repute before men Is not this to cast aside not onely a fore-head but all conscience and the fear of God Oh saith S. Austin What blindnesse can equall this to hunt after a little vaine glory by deceiveing man while in thy heart thou sleightest God the searcher of all secrets As if his error who thinks thee good were comparable with thine who seekest to please man with a show of good whilest thou displealest God with that which is truly naught 6. But this is no new thing to you that have dispenced so long so often so variously with so many Oaths of Supremacie Allegeance and canonicall obedience That have done so many strange acts contrarie to your faith and subscription Take heed in time lest not onely your oaths but your own hand-writing arise in judgement against you for casting off the Book of Ordination For renouncing the Booke of Common-Prayer For disclaiming the Articles of the Church of England with those three Creeds the glory and hope of all good Christians Thus you and your brethren are become Apostata's and renegadoes to all Religion and piety gracelesse faithlesse perjured men God of his mercy give you a sence of these sins that so you may in time repent and make some satisfaction to the Church of Christ by an open confession and by a full detestation of those presumptuous and crying sins 7. This Oath his Majestie took solemnly before God in the house of God in the presence of
quis juret Deus tamen qui conscientiae testis est ita hoc accipit sicut ille cui juratur intelligit What art soever a man use in the words of his Oath God who is witnesse of the conscience takes the Oath in that very sense wherein the party takes it to whom we swear Otherwise we shall not onely deceive others but we shall cheat our selves into equivocation wherewith of late we have so justly charged the Jesuites and for which the Fathers most deservedly heretofore condemned the Helcheseites Valentinians Priscillianites and the followers of Origen Truly I am much afraid we are fallen into such times as Roger Hoveden complains of under K. Steven wherein it was accounted a noble act to lye and forswear and a manly deed to betray their Lords and Masters 9. And is not this which is wrought against the Clergie a tyrannous invasion What Law is there to countenance what of late yeares hath been done against us Where is the orderly alteration you speak of Hath not all been done by tumults and insurrections Have not divers of the Peers been assaulted and many of the Commons vilified and terrified by a seditious faction that so they might bring them to their own bend How many have been inforced to flye with all secrecy from Westminster because they would not passe their Voâ—es against Law and conscience Was it orderly to frame Petitions at Westminster against the Bishops and Orthodox Clergie and then to gleane hands in the Countrey from factious spirits to your own Petitions Was this an orderly alteration without any pretence of Law to deprive us of our freeholds to plunder our houses to imprison our persons and to thrust into our Benefices men with unwashed hands Felt-makers Blacksmiths Taylors and I know not whom And yet all this hath been done by our great Masters in Israel 10. By your own confession the King hath taken an oath to protect the Clergie and their rights against violence and a tyrannous invasion But how shall he protect us that is not able to secure himself This it seems was his dutie and with Gods assistance in his power when his sacred Majestie took the Oath His duty still it is though he be robbed of his power And when God shall restore him to his power he is bound to discharge this dutie For you confesse that his Majestie is ingaged to his power to protect the Bishops and their priviledges And if he breake this solemne Oath in his own person with what conscience can he punish perjurie in others 11. An orderly alteration or Legall waies of change who condemnes But we justly complaine that no such alteration hath been endeavoured For that is not orderly which is illegall neither can that be imagined rationall which is wrought by violence or forced upon a King He is to be ruled by the word of God and right reason which is the life of the Law not to be over-awed or over-swayed by a faction 12. That it is rationall for a King to undertake to protect the Clergie against violence you acknowledge and it is no more then all the Kings Ministers are bound in conscience to performe The King hath done it blessed be God to the utmost of his power Whether the Kings Officers and those he hath put in trust have done their dutie wi 〈…〉 be answered for at an higher barre In right reason the Oath should have no other sense Thâ—â— sense then it hath and we desire that sense may be made good by Parliament and we restored to our free-holds according to reason and Law and satisfaction made us for our losses â—nd illegall imprisonment â—ill an orderly and Legall change be made CHAP. VIII Whether the Kings Oath taken to the Clergie be injurious to his other Subjects and inconsistent with his Oath to the people 1. YOu Object and we confesse that this oath to the Clergie must not be intended in a sense inconsistent with the Kings Oath to the people How Inconsistent with the Kings Oath to the people What All blind but Mr. Iohn Geree and his confederacy King and subject Preist and people composers approvers takers all dimme-sighted How came you to spie this foule mistake Surely this is one of your new lights for both these Oaths as you please to call them have happily stood and may long stand together There was a time when the devill had found a device to set God and Caesar at odds but our Saviour set them to rights Give saith he unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs unto God That difference being reconciled that Arch enemie of man hath found out a late device to raise a quarell between Clergie and people as if the Liberties of the one could not consist with the Rights of the other But we have learned of our blessed Master to set these also at one and beseech his Majestie to give unto the people what belongs to the people and to the Clergie what belongs to the Clergie We desire nothing that is theirs and we are certaine that no good man will repine at what is iustly Gods or ours 2. It is Gods command to give every man his due And if any Law be made contrary to this it is no Law The reason is because all power iâ— from God and under God That Law then that God hath made man may neither abrogate nor alter it is onely in the Lords breast to do it Indeed what is settled by man may be changed or abolished by man But man must be carefull that the Law be just Lex enim non obligat subditos in foro conscientiae nisi sâ—t justa No Law binds a subject in case of conscience unlesse it be just Indeed it bindâ— them not to performance but to submission Though they be not bound to performe what is injoyned yet must they submit to what shall be inflicted since resistance is damnable Ro. 13. 2. 3. Since then it is onely the just Law that binds us to obedience it will not be a misse to set down what Laws are just and what not That a Law be just saith Thomas three ingredients are requisite first Power in the Law-maker 2ly the end that it be for the common good and 3ly the forme namely that all burthens and taxes be equally evenly layed upon the Subjects not more upon one then upon another but proportionably upon every man according to his estate Laws so qualified are just because impartiall 4. From hence we may safely conclude that those Laws are unjust where in the first place the Imposer wants authoritie 2ly When burdens are imposed that are not for the common good but for private interest gaine or glory 3ly When taxes or subsidies though for the publick good be unequally layed Or in the last place when Laws contradict Gods written Word For all Laws ought to be so framed vt illis quos
hearted Englishmen observe this that are lovers of their Countreys liberties 21. We have seen what the King hath granted sworn as also in what order and that the Oath is but one And yet Mr. Geree goes forward as if it were certain without question that this to the Clergie were a severall Oath from that to the people Confidently therefore he presseth it that the King cannot afterwards ingage himself Whereas he ingaged himself alike to his people at the same instant that he would preserve the priviledges both of Clergie and Commonaltie because both his people Now why His Majestie should be bound to maintain the priviledges of that one estate rather then of the other I cannot conceive Especially when I consider that the priviledges of the Clergie are granted to God without whose blessing nor privilege nor people can be preserved The King then herein non câ—â—sit jure suo hath not yeelded up the Clergie or his right to any other neither can he with a safe conscience do so But since Magna Charta hath been so often confirmed even by 32. severall Acts of Parliament the Parliament in that sense you take it hath parted with that right it had by these severall Grants and Confirmations and we ought in justice to enjoy our priviledges and they to maintain them unlesse they mean to affront and subvert so many Acts of Parliament and that main Charter and honour of this Kingdom As if they onely had the judgement of infa 〈…〉 ibilitie which Scotland denies Declarat of the Kingdom of Scotland p. 19. CHAP. IX How far forth and wherein the Clergie is subject to a Parliament and to what Parliament 1. THe net is prepared the snare layed danger is at hand and yet we must not forsake or betray the truth in time of need The noose layed by our Church adversary is this The Clergie and their priviledges are subject to the Parliament or they are not To this we must say yea or nay and the man thinks he hath us sure enough But the man is mistaken one mesh is not well made up and I must tell him that we are subject to the Parliament and we are not Subject we are to the Parliament consisting of head and members but not to the members without the head not to the members alone since we are subject to the members meerly for the heads sake and in those things onely wherein he subjects us to them Set apart the head and we are fellow members fellow subjects For Iowe no temporall subjection to any or many Subjects but onely for the Kings sake Though the Parliament be a great a representative an honourable body yet it is but a body And that body with every member thereof owe obedience and service to the head not one to another I say nothing if I prove it not by Scripture Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake Whether it be to THE KING AS SUPREME or unto Governors AS UNTO THOSE THAT ARE SENT BY HIM by the King As if he should say Submit your selves to the King for the Lords sake and to other Governors for the Kingâ— sake For Kingâ— have their Commission from God but all State Governors from the King and Iowe them no subjection beyond their Commission If then it shall please the King to give the members of Parliament power over us we must submit either by doing or suffering Either by doing what they shall command or by suffering what shall be inflicted on us 2. Subjection is not due to them as they are great or rich men but as they are the Kings Ministers This is evident because all Commissions breath and expire with the King Upon death of the King follows necessarily the dissolution of Parliament None of us that are meer Subjects have at such a time power one over another but onely by advice none of us authority but onely as this or that man hath gained esteem by his wisedome and integritie Onely the Preisthood never dyes because Christ ever lives from whom the Preist hath his Commission But all other subordinate powers expect a new Commission from the succeeding Prince This experience taught us upon the death of Queen Elizabeth 3. Though this be truth yet no truth can charge us that we claime exemption from secular power You see we acknowledge our selves subject to the King as also to those Ministers that he sets over us But as these may not exceed their Commissions given by the King neither may the King exceed his Commission granted him by God The Kings Commission is like the Preists ad aedificationem non ad destructionem for upholding the Church and service of God not for the ruining of either And the King may not grant a larger Commission to his ministers then himselfe hath received from the King of Heaven His Commission is to be a nursing father to the Church not a step-father to preserve to her all her rights and dues to see that she be provided with necessaries and to protect her against her profaine and sacrilegious enemies Surely if our Soveraigne hath intrusted the Parliament with any power over the Church and Church-men it is but with some part of that wherewith God hath enriched him and no other 4. Well if we be under Parliamentary power it cannot rationally be conceived to be the meaning of the King so to subject us to the Parliament as to forget or renounce his hath by destroying the priviledges of the Clergie which he hath swoâ—ne to preserve against or in dishonour to that power to which they are legally subject How far we are legally subject to this Parliament I know and how far we are or may be under Parliamentary power I have alreadie declared The power we are legally subject to is his Royall Majestie and it is not it cannot be the meaning of the Kings oath to preserve our priviledges against his own power or to exempt us from his Iurisdiction Let the world judge whether your or our priviledges and principles be distructive of legall power We are bound by Canon faithfully to keepe and observe and as much as in us lieth to cause to be observed and kept of others all and singular Laws and Statutes made for restoring to the Crown of this Kingdome the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiasticall AGAINST ALL USVRPED and forraign POWER Marke that it is not onely against forraign but it is against usurped and all usurped power Shew me if you can one such loyall Canon or resolution from any Presbyteriall Assembly This Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall is by the Lawes and Statutes restored to the Imperiall Crown of this Realme and not upon the Parliament because it is by Gods Word settled upon the Crowne 5. This authority in causes Ecclesiasticall was in the godly Kings amongst the Jews Christian Emperors in the primitive Church and hath been exercised by the
no other â—â—nâ—e I G p. 7. a This Oath to the Clergie must not be intended in a sense inconsistent with the Kings Oath to the people first taken for their protection in their Laws and Liberties I. G. p 7. b S. Mat. 22. 21. c Rom 13 7. d Ib. v. 1. e Lex divina sicut Deoâ—â—rtur â—â—rtur ita à solo also tolli aut abrogaâ—i poâ—est Lex autem humanâ— sicut per hominem conâ—tituitur ita ab homine tolls aut abrogaâ—i potest Franc. à Vâ—ctor Relect 3 n 16. f Tho. 1. 2â— â— 96. 4. g Tho. Ib. h I b. i Gul. Ockam de Jurisdic in causis matrimon k Fitzherbert nat brev tit Protection p. 28. l Gal. 1. 10. m Rom. 13. 4. n For then the latter Oath would be a present breach of the former and so unlawfull I. G. p. 7. o Ib. p Eccles 8. 4. q Ib. v. 3. r Lex terrae p. 14 15. Å¿ Eccles 8. 2. t Gen. note in loc u 1 Iâ—c 1. x Lexterrae p. 29 y I D. p. 33. z I. G. p. 6. a Ib. b Deut 25. 2. Exod. 23. 2. d Num. 32. 23. e Iosh 7. 18. f Ib. v. 21. g Iosh 6. 19. h Gen. 4. 7. i Exod. 23. 2. k Levit. 5. 17. l Ib. v 19. m Ib. v. 15. 16. n Ib. v 15. o Rom. 2. 22. p 1 Reg 12. 31. q 2 Chron. 11. 13. 14. r 1 Reg. 13. 33. Å¿ 1 Tim. 3. 2. t Tit. 1. 9. u 2 S. Pet. 3. 16. x S. Mat 15. 14. y Bp. Laâ—ymeâ— Ser. 5 before K. Edw VI. z Sir Edw Coke Reports 2d part Levesque de Winchesters Case fol. 44. a I. G. p. 7. b Ib. c The Kings Oath taken at Coronation I. G. p 1. d The Kings Oath to the people first taken for their protection c. I G. p. 7. e Mag. Charta â—â— These words are added to avoid all scruples that this Great Parliamentary Charter might live and take effect in all successions of ageâ— for ever Sir Ed Coke in loc g Sir Edw Coke Proeme to Magna Charta h Ib. i Ib. k Sir Ed Coke in Mag. Chart c. 1. l Mag Cha c. 14. m Ib. c. 1. n Sir Ed. Coke in Mag. Chart. c. 1 Sect. Et habe bunt o Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton l. 2 Sect. 201. p Ib. in Sect. 136 q Ib. in Sect. 201. r Nulluâ— aliâ—â— praeter Regem potest Episcopo demandare inquisitionem â—â—ciendaÌ„ Bract. l. â— 10â— Å¿ Sir Ed. Coke in Mag Chart c. 1. Sect Eâ— habeat t Sir Ed Coke instit part l 4 c 1. Sect Oâ— what persons u Mag. Cha. c 38. x Sir Ed Coke Proeme in Mag. Chart. y He cannot afterwards inâ—age himselâ— to any particular estate to exempt it frâ— this power for by that Oath at least cessit â—â—re suo I G p 3 z Conceâ—â—imo Deo quod Ecclesiâ— Aâ—glicana libera â—it Mag. Cha. c. 1. a Sir Ed. Coke Proem in Mag. Chart. b I. G. p. 7. c 1 S. Pet. 2. 13. 14. d Lex terrae p. 8. e Ib. 7. f I hope they will not now claim an exemption from secular power I. G. p. 7. g 2 Cor. 13. 10. h Es 49. 23. i Meaning that Kings converted to the Gospel shall bestow their power and authoritie for the preservation of the Church Gen note in Is 49. 23. k But if theâ— be under Parliamentary power how can it â—ationally be conceived to be th 〈…〉 meaning of the Kings Oath to prâ—sâ—rve the priviâ—edges of the Câ—erâ—â— against that power to which they are legally subject I. G. p. 7. l Canons Eccles â—an 1. m 1 Eliz. 1. n Ib. o Can Eccles can 2. p 1 Eliz 1. q Or how were the Oath in that sensâ— consistent with the pâ—ivilâ—â—â—e of the Nation formerly â—â—orn to â—y the King I. G. p. 8. r Thou shalt count the Priests holy and reverence them Gen. note in Levit. 21. 8. Å¿ If the Oath had such a sense in the times of Popery when the Clergy were a distinct Corporation yet when that exemption was abolisht as a branch of Antichristian usurpation the change of their condition must needs change the intention of the Oath I. G p. 8. z Bâ— Latymers Serm. before K. Edw. VI. March 8 1549. a Ecclesia est infra aetatem in custodiâ Domini Regis qui tenetur jura haereditates suas manu tenere defendere Sir Ed Coke in Mag Chart. c 1 b Ib. c Vnlesse they will say that the Crown stands still ingaged to them to maintain such priviledgeâ— as by Act of Parliament were long since abolisht which is to make his Oath to them contariant to that taken before for the maintenance of the Laws I. G. p. 3. d Gen. 41. 4 e It s apparent then to make the intention of the Oath to be against legall alteration of their priviledges by ParliameÌ„t makes it unlawfull and so not obligatory And if it be not intended against legall alteration the King may passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy when his Houses of Parliament think it convenient and petition for it without violation of his Oath I. G. p. 8. g I. G. p. 9. h Ib. p. 7. i Ib. p. 5. k He that hath power to consent hath power also to dissent l 1 Cor. 7. 37. m Lex terrae p. 14 15. n I. G. p. 2. o Ib. p Ib. q Prov. 8. 15. Cujus iussu nascuntur homines huius iussu Reges constituuntur Iren. l. 5. p. 601. r 2 Chron. 9 8. Å¿ Ib. t I. G. p. 2. u Rom. 13. 4. x Ib. y 1 S. Pet. 2. 13 14 z Magistratibus ex animo deâ—erendus est honor 〈…〉 etiam tyrannis Beza in Act. 23. 5 a Psal 51. 4. b I. G. p. 2. c Ib. d The King is sworn to maintain the Laws of the Land in force at his Coronation Yet no man questions the constant practise shews that it is not unlawfull after to abrogateany upon the motion or with the consent of HIS PARLIAMENT I. G p. 2 * Declarat of the Kingd of Scotland p. 22. e Eccles 8. 4. f Ib. g Lex terrae p. 19 h Sir Ed. Coke in Litleton l. 2. Sect. 164. i I. G. p. 8. k Ib. p. 2. l Sir Ed Coke in Litleton l. 2. Sect. 164. m 1 S Pet. 2. 13. n Rom. 13. 4. o Gen. 41. 40. p Ib. v 43. 44. q Ib. v. 40. r Gen 45. 9. Å¿ Ib. v 8. t Ib. v 19 21. u Lex terrae p. 27 x 1 S. Pet. 2 13 14. y I. G. p. 2. z Ib. a Prov. 24. 24. b 2 Cor. 10. 8. c S. Matth. 26. â— d Christ is the head of his body the Church Col. 1. 18. 24. e S. Joh. 12. 6. f Rom. 11. 13. g 1 Cor 9. 1. c. 2 Cor. 10 4 c. 2 Cor. 11. 7. 8. h I. G. p. 4. i Ib. p. 4. 5. k Ib. p. 4. l Ib. m I.