and these disasters shall end in a Crowne of glory His memory shall be honoured in our Annals and his posterity flourish in these thrones Amen Amen CHAP. XVI How far forth the King ought to protect the Church and Bishops 1. IT is confessed to my hand that the King is ingaged to his power to protect the Bishops and their priviledges as every good King ought in right to protect defend the Bishops Churches under their Government Reason requires no more and Religion requires so much For by that God whom we serve Kings are made Guardians and nursing fathers to the Church and by the same God this ingagement is put upon them Not by man not by the Author as you seem to intimate nor yet by the Bishops One of the Bishops indeed in the behalfe of his brethren and the whole Clergie humbly beseecheth his Majestie to protect and defend to them and to the Churches committed to their charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice The King with a willing and devout heart premiseth to be their protector and Defender to his power by the assistance of God And afterwards at the Communion table he makes a solemne Oath upon Gods own book to observe the Premises This ingagement then is not put upon the King but with a willing heart he takes it upon himselfe acknowledging that he ought to do so if he be a good King Yea saith Sir Edward Coke the King is bound and sworn to the observation and keeping of Magna Charta His Majestie then is but intreated to do what he is sworne and bound to do And since sworne and bound he may not with a safe conscience give them up to the wild boares of the forrest to root up the plants or suffer the wild beasts of the field to devour this Vine which the Lords right hand hath planted 2. That the King is bound no further to exercise his power in the protection of the Church then he can do it without sinning against God is most undoubtedly true and it were not the part of a Christian to desire more For we know that the King receives his power from God which is to be used not against but for God Not to protect the Church to his power is to break his Oath it is to desert that trust which God hath committed to his charge and is not this to sin against God In the discharge of this dutie he is so far from being injurious to the rest of his people that if he should forbear it it would prove the greatest mischeife that can be imagined to his people and to their posterity in their soules in their estates and a perpetuall infamie to this Nation I need not prove it now it is already done Cap. 8. Sect 10. 11. c. 3. That his sacred Majestie hath interposed his Authority for the Bishops put forth all the power he hath to preserve them is that which vexeth your confederacy And yet you cannot deny but that every good King is bound in right to do so What we ought to do is our bounden duty and what we do in right is justly done Oh that this had been done in the right time Indeed he is not onely bound but he finds it more then necessary to protect and preserve them for in protecting them he protects himself his throne and his posterity Alas he was strook at thorough the Bishops sides His wise Father descried this long since No Bishop no King What the Father spake his Sonne our good King hath found true by woefull experience His Crowne hath sunke with their Miters 4. Well by your own confession what our gracious King hath done is right and what good Kings are bound to do to the extent of their power Thus our good King is justified by his enemies as our Saviour was by Judas If his Majestie have endeavoured to do that which is right what are they that have hindered him from doing it Have not they done wrong How can they excuse themselves before God or man that have so manacled our betrayed Soveraigne that he cannot do what good Kings are bound in right to do Is this to be good Is this to be just Then have all the Saints of God been utterly deceived 5. If after all this He must perforce let the Bishops fall you and your Schisme have much to answer for that have driven him to this necessity You seem to pitie his good subjects who with their blood have endeavoured to support Episcopacy Their swords were not drawn to maintaine this Government or the Religion established they never learned to fight for Religion What they did was done in submission to his Majesties just commands and to manifest their allegiance But if these be good that have indangered their lives to uphold Bishops what are they I beseech you that have spent their blaod to root them out Surely in justifying the former Mr. Geree hath condemned the latter and when the waspes find it he must look to his eares 6. I must confesse it is an hard case for one man to ingage his life for the maintenance of other mens privileges But who did so Not a man ingaged himself but the Kings command the Oath of Allegiance and the Laws of the Land ingaged every good Subject to assist his Soveraign to the utmost The King according to his Oath endeavoured to maintain the Laws of the Land to protect the Members of both Houses driven from Parliament to support the Bishops and to suppresse those seditious and sacrilegious persons which plotted and covenanted the ruine of Religion root and branch Though much the greatest part of the Nobility Gentrie and learned in the Law were deservedly moved to see Majestie dethroned and blasphemed Religion spurned at and vilified the Fathers of the Church scandalized and persecuted the Laws of the Kingdom and liberties of the Subject sleighted and trampled on yet not a man of these took up the Sword till he was commanded by him to whom the Laws of the Land and the Word of God have committed the power of the Sword This may not be called backwardnesse or unwillingnesse but pious discretion which ever waits upon the Soveraigns call When therefore His Majesty had set up his Standard I may truly say the governors of our Israel offered themselves WILLINGLY among the people they did the King service to the utmost Had there not been a back-doore to let in a forrein Nation to divide the Kings forces had not some of the Nobles of Judah conspired with Tobiah held intelligence with him and acquainted him with Nehemiahs secrets there never had been so many Thanksgiving dayes nor so much boasting that God prospered the cause God suffered David his own chosen servant his anointed and a man after his own heart to be hunted as a Partrige upon the mountains to be frighted from his throne and to live like a
the Nobility and Clergie and a multitude of his leige people And shall not all these oblige him so much the more to be tender of this Oath Zanchius tels us that it is a more grievous sin to offend against a publick solemne oath then against one made in private What may we then think of an oath taken with such high Solemnity 8. This Oath was voluntarily freely taken without compulsion or perswasion so no excuse that way Indeed it was taken in truth in judgement and in righteousnesse In truth his sacred Majesty resolving truly to keep it In Judgement judiciously upon mature deliberation and in righteousnesse intending that every branch of this Oath should be justly and righteously observed in all his Courts of Justice How then can he infringe this Oath 9. He made this promissâ—ry Oath to a great body of this His Kingdome the whole Clergie of this Land and those not the meanest of his Subjects And not onely so but to holy Church his mother and to God the Father of us all How can he then disclaime this Oath which so obligeth his conscience before God that â—ad he bound himself by such a tye to high-way robbers or to his professed â—nemies he had been bound by the Law both of Nations and Christianity strictly to haue observed it without fraud or coven Talke not of a dispensation Nor life nor death nor principalities nor powers whether civill or spirituall can possibly discharge him of this oath no more then they can me of my oath of Allegiance And yet it is a point of your Religion to perswade to perjurie as if it would ease your consciences to have millions concurre with you in the same perfidiousnesse and end 10. Is perjurie a sin or no sin If it be a sin and an heinous sin how then can I commit this great wickednesse and sin against God Is it no sin If you be of that mind speake out shew your self in your true colours What Religion are you of I know not well little use hath your conscience made of Religion in this case Your eye is wholly upon the Parliament and the present necessity those members have wrought our good King and this whole Nation Necessity hath so far prevailed with you as rather to be forsworne then to forgo your present maintenance But our most gracious Soveraigne whom God ever blesse hath wholly fixed his heart upon God and his Word wherein we are charged not to sweare falsely by the name of the Lord no nor to forsweare our selves but to performe our oaths unto the Lord. Marke though the oath be made to the servant it must be performed unto the Lord because the caution is given to the servant in the Lords behalfe yea upon the Lords credit for by his name and upon his book we sweare to do it And if we do it not the Lord will not hold us guiltlesse Minus dicitur plus intelligitur by this one word much may be understood For the Lord will come against us in Judgement and call us to an account for our oaths Oaths therefore must be avoided lest we fall into condemnation For perjurie is a foule a dangerous a damnable sin Odious it is to God because it defiles his most holy name For this very sinne the land mournes I beseech God it become not disolate Sure I am a curse will enter into his house that sweareth falsely it will settle there till it have consumed the timber and stones thereof Or as the wise man hath it his house shall be full of calamities and the plague shall never depart from it Let Zedekiah be our evidence He took the Oath of Allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar but slighted it and rebelled against that his Soveraign Lord who had so highly honoured him and trusted him with a Kingdom But what became of him The Caldees came besieged Jerusalem conquer'd it took Zedekiah prisoner and slew his sons before his eyes This done they put out his eyes and in fetters carried him captive to Babylon Here was an end of the Kings of that Land descended from the Tribe of Judah Are not here the timber and stones of his house his strong men and the sons of his loins utterly consumed 11. Think not to excuse your selves or any other by some later Covenant this will not serve the turn Was the first sworn in truth and judgement and righteousnesse or was it not Doth it truly and justly agree with the Word of God at least not contradict it If so thou art bound in justice to observe it lest judgement fall upon thee For this is a true rule if Zanchius mis-guide us not Posteriores promissiones etiam juramento firmatae nihil de prioribus detrahere aut imminuere possunt Later aths cannot possibly make the former of no or lesse validitie Why then do you perswade the King to break his oath He that enticeth a man to perjurie under pretence of pietie and Religion what doth he else but affirm that some perjuries are lawfull Which is as much to say as some sins are lawfull Which is naught else but to conclude that some things are just which are unjust I appeal to men of understanding whether this proposition savours of pietie or discretion Think not then to ensnare prudent and conscientious men with such frivolous and senslesse pretences which favour strongly of absurditie if not of Atheisme CHAP. VIII Whether the King may desert Episcopacy without perjury 1. GIve me leave to passe over a few pages and to take that into consideration which follows next in reason though not according to your method We are now fallen upon a strange question too high to be proposed by any Subject But you have enforced me to make that a question which is harsh to loyall ears lest I may seem to avoid your subtill and sawcie cavils as unanswerable For do not you say that your second Antâ—gonist plainly â—ffiâ—ms that the King cannot desert Episcopacy without flat perjury His words are far more mannerly but I am bound to trace your steps and shall with Gods assistance manifest that His Majestie without violation to his Oath and to Religion may not desert Episcopacy and leave it naked to the subtill fox or the mercilesse swine 2. First according to your own confession his sacred Majestie hath sworn to almighty God in his holy place before a solemn Assembly to protect the Bishops and their priviledges to his power as every GOOD KING in his Kingdom IN RIGHT OUGHT to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under their Government 1. Good Kings protect Bishops and good they are in doing so there is no evill then in protecting Bishops 2. They ought to do it it is therefore their duty and to fail of this their duty when they may choose is sin 3. In right they ought to do it they do wrong therefore if they do it not
dutie to be Master of his negative voice and to deny consent If he deny consent he does his dutie observes his Oath If he yeeld assent he breaks his oath and failes of his dutie And this will prove no lesse then sin I have already demonstrated that Episcopacy is agreable to the word of God and that it is the Institution of Christ himself It is sinne therefore to abolish it or to consent to the abolishing thereof You neither have nor can justifie the contrary out of holy writ or from the ancient and Apostolike Church And yet the Observations upon the Ordinance for Ordination have been extant in Print above these three years But you and your Assembly Rabbines take no notice of it because you have not what to say against it 19. But though you have neither Scripture Councels nor Fathers for the abolishing of Episcopacy yet you have reason grounded upon policy to worke his Miajestie to yeeld to this abolition For say you he cannot now deny consent without sin It seemes then he might without sin deny consent heretofore but not now And why not now as well as heretofore Because say you if he consent not there will evidently continue such distraction and confusion as is most repugnant to the weale of his people which he is bound by the Rule of Government and his Oath to provide for Thus sin shall vary at your pleasure sin it shall be now that was none heretofore That shall be sin in King Charles which was vertue and piety in Queen Elizabeth and all their religious ancesters 20. Where no Law is there is no transgression Before then you prove it to be a sin you must prove it to be against some Law either of God or man Not against the Law of God that 's already proved Not against the Law of man since no man can sin against that Law to which he is not subject The Laws are the Kings he gives Laws to his subjects not his subjects to him and we know no Law of his against Bishops Indeed the Laws of this Land are so far from the extirpation of Bishops that the fundament all Law of this Kingdom approves of them They then that are enemies to Bishops are enemies to the fundamentall Law of this Kingdom And what is fundamentall is in and of the foundation If then a Law be made to extirpate Bishops it grates upon the foundation it is against the fundamentall Law of this Realme it contradicts that Law of Laws the word of God Besides we are assured by that learned in the Law Justice Jenkins that it is against the Kings Oath and the Oaths of the Houses to alter the Government for Religion But an alteration of this Government must necessarily follow upon the abolition of Episcopacy Yea with Bishops not onely the Church and Religion will be ruined but the very Government and Laws of the Kingdom will be so confounded that the learned in the Law will not know where to find Law They must burn their old books and begin the world upon the new model All this will amount to no small sin it will be to the shame of this Land to the ruine of those two noble professions Divinity and Law and to the common misery of the people 21. These reasons premised I shall justly return your own words upon your self in this manner It is not in the Kings power to consent to the abolition of Episcopacy because he cannot now yeeld consent without sin For if he consent there will evidently follow such distraction and confusion as is most repugnant to the weal of his people which he is bound by the Rule of Government and his Oath to provide for I say so and true it is because it is evident to every discerning eye that there are as many and those more considerable that are cordially for Episcopacy and Common Prayer as are against them Indeed they are not so factious so mutinous and bloody as the other What multitudes are there in this Kingdom that mourn and grieve to see Religion so opprest so trampled on and almost breathing out her last In truth it is palpable that these seditious and irreligious courses have ingendred and propagated and will continue such distraction and confusion in Church and State as is most repugnant not onely to the present but to the eternall wedl and salvation of his people both which he is bound to provide for but more especially for the later 22. And whereas you say Such distraction and confusion will continue unlesse Episcopacy be abolished if seems you are resolved to continue these distractions But God knows and your words testifie that it is not the calling or the office of a Bishop that is offensive it is their honour and their wealth which you aim at these with their revenues must be shared amongst you of the Presbyterian faction and then all shall be well Till then we must look for nothing but fire and sword Hence it evidently appears that neither Episcopacy nor the Kings dissent but your ambition and avarice have been the true cause of these distractions and combustions Such a sedition as this there was in the time of Moses about the Priesthood because every man might not sacrifice as when and where he pleased Because Corah might not wear a Miter and go into the most holy place as well as Aaron And yet who dares say that the Priestood was the cause of those uproars 23. That insurrection was against Moses and Aaron against Prince and Priest but against the Prince for the Priests sake because the Prince would not endure that every one should meddle with the Priests office or strip him of his means and honour That conspiracie was linsie-woolsie loomed up of Clergie and Laitie Korah the son of Levi was the ring-leader and with him two hundreth and fiftie of his own Tribe To these were joyned Dathan and Abiram great Princes and men of renown such as were eminent in blood and of the tribe of Reuben And was not the crie the same then that is now Moses and Aaron Prince and Priest ye take too much upon you seeing all the congregation is holy every one of them and the Lord is among them Wherfore then lift ye your selves above the congregation of the Lord The Prince and Priest did but their duty and yet are obbraided with pride God raised them to their places and they are charged to raise themselves But Moses justly retorts upon them what they had falsly cast upon him Ye take too much upon you ye sons of Levi. What Is it not enough for you that God hath separated you from the multitude that he hath taken you neer himself to do the service of the Lords tabernacle but you must have the Priests office But you must be offering incense as well as the High Priest The Priest of the second Order would needs be equall
their Oaths to alter the Government for Religion For saith he every of them hath sworne IN THIS PARLIAMENT That His Majestie is the onely Supreme Governour in all causes Ecclesiasticall and over all persons 9. But what inconvenience I pray you ariseth to the people from the rights and priviledges of the Clergy Not tithes No say you that justifie them to be due to your precious Presbyters by divine right Not the Bishops revenues By no meanes they must not come into any mans hands but yours who are the Parochiall Pastors These must be your maintenance To seize them to private or civill Interest is detestable sacriledge cried out upon all the world over and to be deplored of all good men So you with your Master Beza Indeed to take them away from those that are intrusted with them would prove marvelous inconvenient to the people 10. How many inconveniences will arise to the people of this Kingdome by stripping the Clergie of their immunities and lands cannot suddenly be discovered Some of them I shal lay down and leave the rest to be displayed by those that are cleared fighted First the curse that is likely to fall upon this whole Nation by sacriledge For a nationall sin must have a nationall punishment Admensuram delicti erit plagarum modus according to the fault and the measure thereof the number of the stripes shall be Let it be considered how from severall Counties multitudes came in with Petitions for the exrirpation of Episcopacy By whose instigation the Petitioners best know Think not to avoid the scourge because multitudes conspired in the sin c We must not follow a multitude to do evill Hope not to lye hid in a throng be sure thy sin will find thee out as it did Achan among the thousands of Israel His nobility could not excuse him Remember that this was for sacriledge for he stole two hundred shekels of silver a wedge of gold which were consecrated unto the Lord. This is a dreadfull sinne it will lye at thy doore it will be a stone of offence to thee at thy going forth and thy coming in 11. I know there are men of severall mindes met at Westminster Some are wholly bent upon Church lands and are resolved to swallow them up come what will come Others are content to Covenant Vote or do any thing to save their own stakes For to what purpose were it for them to withstand Alas they are but an handfull they may wrong themselves but no good can they do to Church or King But we forget the Lords rule Thou shalt not speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgement 12. Some young gentlemen there are that must plead Ignorance in their votes as being not acquainted with the state of the question much lesse with the mysterie of iniquitie which worketh powerfully in the sons of disobedience But they must know that there be sins of ignorance for these there must be an attonement made by the Preist and without this for ought I read no forgivenesse Levit. 4. Yea saith the Lord If a soule sin and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the Commandments of the Lord though HE WIST IT NOT yet is be guiltie And he shall beare his iniquitie for he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord. But to bring it home a little neerer to these times that are so violent for sacriledge let all Achans broode give eare to the words of the Lord If any person transgresse and sin through ignorance by taking away things consecrated to the Lord HE SHALL RESTORE THAT WHEREIN HE HATH OFFENDED in taking away of the holy thing and SHALL PUT THE FIFT PART MORE THERETO AND GIVE IT UNTO THE PREIST Then shall the Preist make an attonement for him not before then shall the sin be forgiven him not before Here then remaines no excuse for any that have the least hand in sacriledge without restitution But why do we abhor Idols and commit sacriledge Why rob we God as if he were an Idol not sensible of these wrongs nor able to revenge them 13. Next when the Church is stripped of her means what kinde of Clergie shall we have Jeroboams Priests the lowest and meanest of the people For as now so then the Priests and Levites followed their true liege Lord. For that Arch-rebell and his sons had cast them off from executing the Priests office This being done who would might consecrate himself and be one of the Priests of the high places Like King like Priest each had alike right to their places A lively character of our times These are called the Devils Priests 2 Chron. 15. 11. men that wanted either the knowledge or the fear of God or both And surely this is the ready way to fiâ—â— our Priests places with men void of Learning not apt to teach not able by sound doctrine either to exhort or to convince the gainsayers Now S. Peter tells us that the unlearned and unstable ungrounded men wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction What then shall become of the people If the blinde lead the blinde both shall fall into the ditch This will bring us to that passe which Bishop Latymer speaks of We shall have nothing but a little ENGLISH DIVINITIE which will bring the Realm into very barbarousnesse and utter decay of Learning It is not that I wis saith that good Bishop that will keep out the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome And this will be a strange dishonour to this Nation which hath alwayes abounded with Learned men 14. 3 Hospitalitie will come to nothing 4 your rents will be racked and 5 your sons barred from one fair and most commendable course to preferment For with us no one familie or set persons are tyed to be Priests as was the Tribe of Levi. The qualification of the person and not his pedegree is with us inquired into What understanding man then will freely dedicate his son to the Ministerie and be at an extraordinarie charge to breed him up to Divinitie when his reward shall be certain poverty And what Scholer of worth will desire Orders when he knows that by these he shall be exposed to contempt and beggary Though we love the Priesthood when we are miserable in it yet no man affects the Priesthood that he may be miserable I know many since our coat is grown so contemptible who intended Divinitie that have diverted their studie to Physick knowing that this Nation is carefull of their bodies though carelesse of their souls 15. Is it not enough by this extirpation to barre your selves from heaven unlesse ye sink your posteritie into the same damnation Is it not enough to murder Priests unlesse ye slay the Priestood also Certainly ye run the readie way to do it If ye will not beleeve Bishop Latymer because a Priest yet trust
Kings of this Realme according to an Act of Parliament in that behalfe An. 32. Henr. 8. c. 36. According to this Statute were the Bishops and the rest of the Clergie assembled bâ— King Edward VI. and Queene Elizabeth for composing the Articles of Religion which were allowed to be holden and executed within this Realme by the assent and consent of those Princes and confirmed by the subscription of the Arch-Bishops Bishops of the upper House and of the whole Clergie in the neather House in their Convocation As is to be seen in the Râ—tification of those Articles Agreeable to the same Statute the Arch-Bishops Bishops and other of the Clergie were summoned called by K. Iames to treat of Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiasticall Which were by them agreed upon An. Dom. 1603. and were by the same King of blessed memorie ratified and confirmed by his Letters Patents And I am certaine that we have subscribed and sworne That the Kings Majestie under God is THE ONELY SUPREME GOVERNOR of this Realme and of all other his Highnes Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall or ECCLESIASTICALL THINGS OR CAUSES AS TEMPORALL 6. The substance of your touchie argument is I hope satisfied in the eye of every moderate and discreet man The rest that follows is but a Rhetoricall flourish or reiteration of what passed before as if the Kings Oath to the Clergie could not be consistent with the priviledges of the Nation formerly by him sworn to As if without peradventure there were a former and a latter Oath which I have proved to be most false And as if we of the Clergie were none of the Nation Or as if we were bastards and not legitimate slaves and not free-born subjects And yet blessed be God diverse of our Orthodox Clergie are as well descended as any that speake against them Is this my good brother to reverence the Preists and count them holy Is this the way to invite men of worth to incorporate themselves into your Presbyteriall Hierarchie Surely we are a part of this Nation to whom this promissory Oath was made Our Rights consisted comfortably many yeers with the priviledges of the people to the honour of this Nation and to the astonishment of others With what face then can you say that the Kings Oath to the Clergie cannot be consistent with the priviledges of the Nation Whereas it is evident that in three or foure yeers this Nation is so weary of the Presbyteriall encrochments that they can no longer possibly endure them 7. But by your words it seems when and while the Clergy were a distinct corporation from the Laitie the Oath had this sense viz. that the Kings oath to the Clergie was consistent with the priviledges of the Nation That must be the sense if I know what sense is But the Clergie were and are a distinct corporation In ceasing to be Popish we are not ceased to be Preists neither is that necessary and just exemption or distinction yet abolisht If it be why are you so zealous to distinguish us and our privileges from the people and their priviledges Whereas if we be all one without distinction our priviledges must needs be the very same and so no inconsistencie at all But of this more fully Chap. 11. 8. A Popish exemption it was for the Clergie to be free from the Kings Commands But this is abolished and we readily submit to every Ordinance of man and wish that you and your Assembly brethren would learn the same Christian obedience A Popish exemption it is for the Bishops and their Churches to know no Governor but the Pope That also is disclaimed and at the Kings Coronation it is publickly acknowledged that the Bishops and their Churches are under the Kings government The Antichristian usurpation is condemned and true Christian subjection justified The King is the â—nely Supreme O vernâ—r to him we owe obedience and to others for him and under him And though all Antichristian usurpation were abolishâ—d upon the death of Queen Mary yet in all the Acts since that time to this present Parliament the Lords spirituall are distinguished from the Lords temporall the Clergy from the Laity and the Convocâ—tion from the Parliament Yea even in these times of confusion the Clergie are doomed by your great Masters to be unfit for Lay or Civill imploiment If there be no such men then was that sentence sencelesse while we are of the same Corporation with them we are as capable of any office of State as the rest of our fellow-subjects even to be Members of both Houses But this distinction is still on foot the Kings Oath therefore to us is still binding especially since our immunities may as well subsist with the priviledges of the Commons as the priviledges of Bristoll with the Franchizes of London 9. Indeed you may well twit us with the change of our condition for we have just cause with Bishop Latymer to complain that there is a plain intent to make the Clergie slavery which was far from the intention of this Oath till your faction prevailed in the change But what inconvenience will follow if we confesse that the intention of the Oath was changed with the change of our condition Not that which you aime at For therein and so far forth onely is the intention of the oath changed as our condition is changed But wherein is our condition changed A Church we are still Bishops and Preists we are still onely our condition is thus far changed before we were subject to Antichristian usurpation but now we are altogether for Christian Allegiance Before our Bishops and Preists were subject to the Pope but we submit wholly to the King And I hope we shall not fare the worse for that The Kings Oath is to protect the Church as it is not as it was not as she was popish and superstitious but as she is Catholick and Apostolike Then she was subject to the Pope and free from the King but now she is subject to the King and free from the Pope But you would faine enforce us to our old vomit for we cannot but discern that a far more intollerable tyranny is drawing on by how much the more dangerous it is to be subject to a multitude then to one to a multitude at home then to one abroad Both of them being equally destructive to the liberty of the Church and alike contrary to the Word of God 10. Besides the change of our condition is either for the better or the worse If for the worse this is to maintain Popery He that saith our condition is changed for the worse justifies that it is better for us to be subject to the Pope then to the King If for the better then must the intention of the Oath be changed for the better For are not these your words that the change of the Clergies condition must needs change the intention of the Oath Without question the intention of
the Oath was to protect all his subjects in their severall places dignities add degrees and not to suffer them to oppresse or devoure one another to see justice done for them and upon them according to the Laws established and not to yeeld to any Law that may be distructive to the rights or liberties of any of his subjects 11. The intention of the Oath is to maintain the ancient legall and just rights of the Church and to preserve unto the Bishops due law and justice We desire no more and no man may with reason deny this to be the intention of the Oath The The words are plaine Sir will you grant and keep and by your Oath confirme the Laws Customs and Franchizes granted to the Clergie by the glorious King S. Edward your Predecessor c. And again Our Lord and King we beseech you to pardon and grant and preserve unto us and to the Churches committed to your charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice All this the King hath sworne to performe and hath acknowledged that by right he ought to do it And would you have him to be forsworne and to neglect that which by right he ought to make good Surely you would make an excellent ghostly father for the man of sin 12. Neither is this the peculiar opinion of us Church-men onely that great Oracle of the Law resolves that The King is bound to maintain and defend the rights and inheritance of the Church And he gives two reasons for it first because the Church is alwaies in her minoritie it is under age Seconly she is in Wardship to our Lord the King And then he addes Nec est juri consonum quod infra aetatem existentes PER NEGLIGENTIAM CUSTODUM SVORUM exhaeredationem patiantur seu ab actione repellantur Neither is it consonant to the Law nor yet to conscience that those who are under age should either be spoiled of their inheritance or barred from action at Law THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR GUARDIANS Especially Kings being by divine Ordinance made Guardians and nursing fathers to the Church Es 49. 23. 13. You see we have divine and humane Law for what we say we claime no priviledges long since by Act of Parliament abolisht We desire not his Majestie to contradict but to ratifie bis Oath and to maintain those Laws he found in force But as for you all your endeavour is to perswade the Laity that our weale is their woe and that the upholding of the Clergie in their due and ancient state would be certain ruine to the Commons As if our Priviledges were like Pharaohs lean kine ready to devoure the fat of the Laity as if our aime were to reduce Antichristian usurpation to subvert the ancient Laws Whereas every man may readily discern that these are but pretences The true end aimed at in these invectives and incentives is that the caninus appetitus the wilde ravenous stomachs of M. Geree and his fellow Presbyterians may be satisfied But at seven yeers end they will be as lank and hungrie as Pharaohs famished kine It was so with King Henry VIII and it will be so with all that tread in his steps 14. It s apparent then to make the intention of that Oath to be false and fallacious and under pretence that it may not be against legall alteration so to wrest it that it may be to the ruine of a great body of his subjects and those not the worst that it shall be against all Law and conscience for f that Law which is unjust is no Law That it shall be to the subversion of the true Religion and service of God to the distraction of his people and to the eternall dishonor of himself and the whole Kingdome makes his Oath in your sense utterly unlawfull And if unlawfull then is it not obligatory either in foro conscienciae or in foro justitiae either before God or any good man unlesse it be to do the contrary But if this Oath in the true and literall sense be not against legall alteration but against unjust oppression sacriledge and profanenesse manifest it is that it is both lawfull and obligatory and the King may not without violation of his Oath and certain danger of the pure and undefiled Religion passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy what ever His Houses of Parliament think or Petition or presse never so violently 15. But your opinion is that the King may passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy And what I thinke or what the King thinks it is no matter if His Houses of Parliament think it convenient he may do it It is wonder you had not said he must do it Indeed you say that which is equivalent for are not these your words He cannot now deny consent to their abolition without sin And if the King without sin cannot deny it then must he assent unto it Thus by your words it seemes he is at their disposing not they at his Indeed if a man may beleeve you the power is in the Houses and not in the King For do not you say that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with the consent of the King to alter whatsoever c. And againe There 's no question of POWER IN THE PARLIAMENT to over-rule it The power it seemes is in them consent onely in the King And here The King may passe a Bill when His Houses think it convenient Well he may and he may choose he may consent or dissent Cujus enim est consentire ejus est dissentire And so long we are well enough For the Kings Negative in Parliament is a full testimony of his Supreme power Hence is it that the Houses Petition for his consent which they need not do if the power were in the Houses Besides His Houses the Kings Houses you call them and so they are This also manifests that they are at his disposing and not He at theirs They must therfore wait his pleasure til he thinks it convenient His consent they may Petition for enforce they ought not since they are his subjects enforce it they cannot since he hath power over his own will And whatever you suppose it is in his power to consent or dissent when he sees it convenient and consequently to keep or not to keep his Oath His affirmative makes it a Law his negative denys it to be a Law For The King is the onely Judge whether the Bills agreed upon and presented be for the publick good or no And to take away the Kings negative voice is contrary to your Covenant it diminisheth the Kings just power and greatnesse and cuts off all Regall power Witnesse the Declaration of the Kingdome of Scotland p. 18. CHAP. X. Whether it be lawfull for the King to abrogate the Rights of the Clergie 1. THe question proposed is concerning Episcopacy but now you are fallen to the
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
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