Appeal to the Parliament, Evidence · Part 4 – Part 5
4. Position proved.
THeir manifold and manifest abusing of the Kings authority, by changing, adding, and taking away at their pleasure &c. Appeareth in theis particulars.
1. In the point of subscription urged. Canon. 36.37. It is to be seene what heavy things are pressed upon the Conscience of every one that entreth upon any ministeriall function, namely That nothing conteyned in the publique leiturgie, the booke of ordination, or the Articles of Religion in number. 39. Is contrary to the word of God. Yea that every thing contayned in every one of the aforesaid Articles, is agreeable to the word of God. And this he must doe, adding every expression that may avoyd ambiguitie. And in like manner they must subscribe to the two bookes of Homilies. Now what grosse, absurd (if wee say not) blasphemous vntruthes all theis 5 bookes are stuffed with, wee neede not to demonstrate, since by a judicious and true inquiry they are made more then manifest. Especially the service booke; which they cannot deny to be raked out of three Romishe channells; Namely the Briviary out of which the common prayers are taken, out of the Rituall or booke of Rites the Administration of the Sacraments, buryall, matrimony, visitation of the sicke are taken. And out of the Masse booke are the consecration of the Lords supper, Collects, Gospells and Epistles. As for the booke of Ordination of Arch-bishops, Bishops, Ministers &c. it is out of the Romane Pontificall.
Now from this prescript forme of Leiturgie, the Minister must not go a jote, nor use any other in the appointed service: Witnesse Canon. 38. which is not indeed according to the mynde of the Prince, nor meaning of the Law. It is a wonder to see, what adding, changing, and taking away, is in that Leiturgie. To which English Masse (for so his late Majestie called it) it is not the intent of the law, that the Ministers should subscribe, witnes that statute. 1. Eli. Cap. 2. bynding them to use such prayers and order of administration of the Sacraments, as are contained in that booke, authorised by Parliament in the 5. and 6. yeares of Edward. 6. with the alteration or addition of some lessons, and none other or otherwise. Againe the Law requireth no subscription, but barely to the Articles of Religion; which onelyonly concerne the confession of true Christian faith, and the doctrine of the Sacraments, witnesse the very words of the Satute 13. Eli. Cap. 12. which Statute is not yet abrogated nor contradicted. So that to the matter of Ceremony and of Church government, subscription is not by the law required. Further it is well knowne to judicious men now living, that it was not her Majs. mynd, nor the meaning of the law to presse these things upon the consciences of her truly professing subjs; But the intent was only to bring Papists and Popishly affected to a Church conformitie, condiscending to retayne some Popish passages, till reformation might be more fully made. VponUpon which grounds the Honourable Court of Parliament would never have any bound to it, seeing the things not only controverted, but also reiected by whole reformed Churches. But we see the Prelats require subscription to all the aforesaid books; Yea least vexation enough should be wanting to Gods people they have hatched out of their own brains, An hundred & fiftie laws, called the Canons, as we may thinke in apishe immitation of the Psalmes of David, whereunto though they exact not subscription, yet they tye men strictly, and afflict them greivously, both in purse & person for not obeying of them: which is a malapert countermanding of his Majesties laws, and a haynous oppression of his subjects,15. H. 8. Cap. 19. witnesse that Statute of Henry the 8. forbidding any man to make or exercise laws or Church orders, repugnant to the laws of the Realme. But many of those Canons and visitation Articles (to which they force men to sweare) are repugnant to the laws. By this your Honours do see and very well know that the laws are made of none effect (and that to the best of his Majesties subjects) which may yet be further instanced by divers particulars.
1. It was the desire of sundry Mins. to subscribe secundū formā statuti, according to the form of the statute. 13. El. c. 12; But they were not admitted. 2. Of that good law of Appeale from the Prelacy to the Chancery (inacted by Henry 8;25. H. 8. 1. Eliz. or rather renewed and continued by all our professing Princes) the greived and wronged subiects (through the daunting pride of the Prelats) can have litle or no benefitte, witnesse 98. Canon. twharting the law of God, nature, & nations, & the law of the Land. 3. By vertue of the law no subiect shalbe put from his freehold, but by the verdict of 12 men: witnesse the great Charter of England, Mag. Char. Cap. 29.which often and again hath bene confirmed by divers other statutes as 42. Edward. 3. c. 3. and making void by strong inforcements all such Statutes as might crosse or contradict the same. But ministers are thrust from their benefices by the bare and peremptorie command of the Bishops. The iniquitie & crueltie of this their course was laid to heart by the States in Parliament Anno. 1610. who inacted against it in effect as followeth; where the Canons would charge body goods and Lands of the subiect, that charge shall be of no force, except it were confirmed by act of Parliament. 4. Where by the law of the Land no free man should (but upon lawfull proceeding and just ground) be imprisoned: the Prelats against the laws and libertie of the State, and Priviledge of the Subject, erect prisons, and comitt men thereto at their pleasure, if they will not breake the Laws. As for instance in taking of the oath ex officio, which is (as shall be shewed) against all laws of Heaven and Earth. This tricke of imprisonment (as Choppinus saith) was taken up by Pope Eugenius the second,De sacr. Polit. lib. 2. Pag. 243. Anno 824. And as one saith well, it came out of the tayle of the Dragon. A punishment not beseeming a Minister of the Gospell to impose.
This tyranny rather then law had its first originall in England (as the lawes record, and learned of the land witnesse) from that statute 2, Henry 4. Cap. 15. whereby authority was given to the prelates and their Ordinaries to imprison and fyne the subjects and to presse the lawlesse oath upon them. This statute was procured by the prelates for suppressing of the professors of the Gospell, witnesse the title in the record, petitio cleri contra haereticos, Ex Rotul. Parliamenti Anno 2. Henr. 4.and was passed as is shewed without the consent of the commons, witnesse the record of the statute, yea our learned in discovering the iniquity and bloudthirsty cruelty of this law tell us, that it wanted not onelyonly the consent of the commons, but they wonderfully repined at it. But as evill means must ever establish an evil purchase, the King was forced by their importunity to lay the necks of his best subjects under the feet of the blouddie beast, of which more hereafter. But the state at length laying to heart the abundance of christian blood that had been shed by this blooddie law (for so it is called) and observing the judgment of God that had ensued on this bloodshed upon the State, (as afterward shall be made plain) with vnanimous and full consent made voyd and revoked that statute of imprisoning and the oath ex officio, leaving not the least impression of any such power to the Ordinary, because it was against the Law of God, the Honour of the King, the law of the Land, the nature of Ecclesiasticke jurisdiction, and the right of the Subject.
It is true that in the 1. and 2. of Philip and Marie, a statute was framed according to that formerly revoked statute of Henry. 4. But first it doth acknowledge that the Church had no power of imprisoning but onelyonly the power of the keyes.
2. They inacted this that by fiery and bloody courses they might supplant the Gospel, whereof the people being mindfull and exceeding sensible in that Parliament of the 1. Elizabeth requested the state to repeale, and make voyd that statute of Henr. 4. concerning imprisoning, and the selfe-accusing oath, which the state did grant and established in expresse words before the annexing of the right of Ecclesiasticke jurisdiction to the Crowne, repealing, making utterlie void, and of none effect all and every branche, articles, clauses and sentences in the said statute, from the last day of that Parliament. So that we see the imprisoning, fineing, and pressing of the oath by the high Commission, hangeth not onelyonly upon that bloudy act for defence of Popery, repealed by the statute laws of the Land, but is also directly against that very act of Parliament or statute from which their commission is founded, as shall be more clearely demonstrated in an other place. But this sufficiently sheweth how egregiouslie they abuse the Kings authoritie, and wrong the subject notwithstanding of all this.
It is a wonder that B. Whitgift will side with Pighius against Marcilius Patavinus (in fetching a ground from Peters killing of Ananias & Saphyra) for their imprisoning of men; might they not aswell warrant the killing of them, for they kill many of them: For that act of Peters was not done (as the learned answer well) by an ordinary power, but by that extraordinary power,1. Cor. 12.4.28. which the Apostle calleth foreign, and otherwhere a Rod, that is an extraordinary punitive power by the vertue of miracles.
5. And lastly, they inforce the Lawes of the Land that are for the subject, against the very best subjects, namely, such as gather themselves together, to humble their soules for the sinnes of the times, for the safetie of Sion, and the deliverance of the common weale. Against such it is most true, there is no Law. But these men will either have one or make one against them, namely, they must be charged with Conventicles, where as they are neither such people as are meant in the statute; nor doth that law intend to them any molestation; but rather preservation, aswell as the preservation of the Prince and State from the dangerous conventions and riotous assemblyes of plotting Papists. If the interpretation of the Law depend upon the mynde of the lawgiver (as indeed it doth) with what faces can men turne the law against the innocent for the guiltie? May not & doe not the Papists meete & plott mischeefe against the Church and State, without the Tenth part of this molestation? Yes it is too too true, but it is no new thing for them, and the Prelats to Lapp it up: Yet is it not a wonder, why they should hate and oppose so much that which is the preservation of the Church & State. Good reasons may be given why they doe so: But of them afterward. To have the Doves thus beaten and the Ravens & Pye-Maggotts to prey upon the State, what blessing can it bring from God, what Honour to the King, what credite to the Laws, what high esteeme to the Parliament, what comfort to the people? And so to the fifth greivance.
5. Position proved.
THe priviledges of the Laws, and the Hierarchicall government cannot consist together.
In 19. Hen. 6. Fol. 62.The Laws of the Land (as hath been often sayd) are the inheritance of the subject.
But these Prelats practises, and forged or inforced Laws are foreign or quite opposite to our Laws, as hath been formerly proved.
How can the libertie of a loyall subject, and the unjust restraint of the same consist together? How can the disclayming of Soveraigne power, and the imbracing and obeying of it stand together? How can the subscription to the Articles of Religion (which onelyonly concerne the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments) and the subscription to books, contayning many things contrary to the word of God (as a number of Popish Rites and mens devises) consist together? As unnaturall heate consumeth the inbred or naturall heate and radicall moisture of the bodie; So the unnaturall Laws of the Prelats, eate up and consume the power of the Lawes of the Land. Yea their Laws are not onelyonly worse then the Canon Laws (which are badd enough) but worse then the laws and constitutions of the very worst times of our Nation under the high command of Popery, which will appeare by the comparing of the Canons of that Counsell of Oxford houlden by Stephen Langton Achb. of Cant. 280. yeares agoe. There it was decreed, that none should be excommunicate where the fault is not apparant, Et non nisi Canonica monitione precedente, vnlesse they be Canonically, that is thrice admonished. But the Prelats and their Officers accompt none apparence at the first to be a pregnant contempt,Pag. 23. witnesse the Oxford answer to the Petition: So that forthwith they excommunicate, yea some times they sett a day of Appearance, and excommunicate the partie before the day; And this we will avouch. There also it was decreed, ne presument judices esse & actores, That none should take upon them to be judges, actors, and accusers. But this they doe, when the judge dealeth ex officio. We could instance in many other of the like nature, but a tast is enough: yea doe they not exceede the height of Popery in this, that there, an Appeale was allowed to every man, to that supreame courte of the man of sinne. But they oppose and hinder the just Appeale of the Kings subjects to a higher Courte, without exception. And so much for this point.