Second Speech, Speech

Second Speech · Speech

A SECOND SPEECH OF THE HONOVRABLE NATHANAEL FIENNES, (ſecond Son to the Right Honourable the LORD SAY) in the Commons Houſe of PARLIAMENT.

Touching the Subjects Liberty againſt the late Canons, and the New Oath.

Printed by a perfect Coppy, 1641.

p. 1A SECOND SPEECH OF THE HONOVRABLE NATHANAEL FJENNES (ſecond Son to the Right Honourable the Lord SAY) touching the Subjects Liberty againſt the late Canons and the New Oath.

Mr. Speaker,

NOW that wee are about to brand theſe Canons in reſpect of the matter contained in them, it is the proper time to open the fouleneſſe thereof: and though much of this hath beene anticipated in the generall debate, p. 2yet if any thing hath beene omitted, or if any thing may be farther cleered in that kind, it is for the ſervice of the Houſe, that it ſhould now be done.

Sir, I conceive theſe Canons doe containe ſundry matters, which are not onelyonly contrary to the Lawes of this Land, but alſo deſtructive of the very principall and fundamentall Lawes of this Kingdome. J ſhall beginne with the firſt Canon, wherein the framers of theſe Canons have aſſumed unto themſelves a Parliamentary power, and that too in a very high degree, for they have taken upon them to define what is the power of the King, what the liberty of the Subjects, and what propriety he hath in his goods. If this bee not proper to a Parliament▪ J know not what is. Nay it is the higheſt matter that can fall under the conſideration of a Parliament, and ſuch a point as wherein they would have walked with more tenderneſſe and circumſpection, then theſe bold Divines have done. And ſurely as this was an act of ſuch preſumption as no age can parallell: ſo is it of ſuch dangerous conſequence as nothing can bee more. For they doe not onelyonly take upon them to determine matters of this nature, but alſo under great penalties, forbid all Parſons, Vicars, Curats, Readers in Divinitie &c. To ſpeake any other wayes of them then as they had defined, by which Meanes having ſeiſed upon all the Conduits, whereby knowledge is conveyed unto the people, how eaſie would it be for them in time, to undermine the Kings p. 3prerogative, and to ſuppreſſe the Subjects liberty, or both.

And now (Sir) I beſeech you to conſider how they have defined this high and great point: they have dealt with us in matter of Divinity, as the Judges had done before in matter of Law: they firſt tooke upon them to determine a matter that belonged not to their Judicature, but onelyonly to the Parliament, and after by their judgement they overthrew our propriety, and juſt ſo have theſe Divines dealt with us: they tell us that Kings are an Ordinance of God, of Divine Right, and founded in the Prime Lawes of Nature, from whence it will follow that all other formes of government, as Ariſtocracies, and Democracies, are wicked formes of Government contrary to the Ordinance of God, and the Prime Lawes of nature, which is ſuch new Divinity as I never read in any Booke, but in this new Booke of Canons.

Mr. Speaker, We all know that Kings, and States, and Judges, and all Magiſtrates are the Ordinances of God, but (Sir) give me leave to ſay they were the Ordinances of men, before they were the Ordinances of God. J know I am upon a great and high point, but J ſpeake by as great and as high a warrant, if Saint Peters chaire cannot erre (as Saint Peters Epiſtles cannot) thus he teacheth us, Submit your ſelves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords ſake, whether it be to the King as ſupreame, or to the Governour, as to him that is ſent by him &c.

p. 4(Sir) it is worthy noting, that they are Ordinances of men, but that they are to be ſubmitted unto for the Lords ſake, and truely their power is as juſt, and their ſubjects alleageance as due unto them, though we ſuppoſe them to be firſt ordinances of men, and then confirmed, and eſtabliſhed by Gods Ordinance, as if wee ſuppoſe them to be immediate ordinances of God, and ſo received by men. But there was ſomewhat in it, that theſe Divines aimed at, I ſuppoſe it was this. If Kings were of Divine Right, as the Office of a Paſtour, in the Church, or founded in the prime Lawes of Nature, as the power of a Father in a Family; then it would certainly follow, that they ſhould receave the faſhion and manner of their government, onelyonly from the Preſcript of Gods Word, or of the Lawes of Nature, and conſequently, if there be no text neither of the Old nor New Teſtament, nor yet any Law of nature, that Kings may not make Lawes without Parliaments, they may make Lawes without Parliaments, and if neither in the Scripture, nor in the Law of Nature, Kings be forbidden to lay taxes or any kind of impoſitions upon their people without conſent in Parliament, they may doe it out of Parliament: and that this was their meaning, they expreſſe it after in plaine termes, for they ſay that Subſidies and taxes, and all manner of aydes are due unto Kings by the Law of God, and of nature. (Sir) if they bee due by the Law of God and of nature, they are due, though there bee no act of Parliament for them, nay (Sir) if they be due by p. 5ſuch a right, a hundred acts of Parliaments cannot take them away, or make them undue. And (Sir) that they meant it of Subſidies and aides taken, without conſent in Parliament, is cleerely that addition, that they ſubjoyne unto it, that this doth not take away from the Subject the propriety hee hath in his goods, for had they ſpoken of Subſidies and aides given by conſent in Parliament, this would have beene a very ridiculous addition, for who ever made any queſtion, whether the giving Subſidies in Parliament did take away from the Subject the propriety hee hath in his goods, when as it doth evidently imply they have a propriety in their goods? for they could not give unleſſe they had ſomething to give: but becauſe that was alleadged as a chiefe reaſon againſt ſhip-money, and other ſuch illegall payments levied upon the people, without their conſent in Parliament, that it did deprive them of their right of propriety which they have in their goods, theſe Divines would ſeeme to make ſome anſwer thereunto, but in truth their anſwer is nothing elſe but the bare aſſ…rtion of a contradiction, and it is an eaſie thing to ſay a contradiction, but impoſſible to reconcile it; for certainly if it be a true rule (as it is moſt true) …uod meum eſt ſine conſenſu meo, non poteſt fieri alienum; to take my goods without my conſent muſt needs deſtroy my propriety. Another thing in this firſt Canon, wherein they have aſſumed unto themſelves a Parliamentary power, is in that they take upon them to define what is Treaſon, beſides p. 6what is determined in the ſtatute of Treaſons. They ſay, to ſet up any coactive independent power is treaſonable both againſt God and the King, the queſtion is not whether it be true they ſay or noe, but whether they have power to ſay what is Treaſon, and what not? But now (Sir) that I am upon this point, J would gladly know what kind of power that is, which is exerciſed by Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, Deanes, Arch-Deacons, &c. Coactive certainly it is, all the Kingdome feeles the laſh thereof, and it muſt needes bee independent, if it be jure Divino, as they hold it, for they doe not meane by an independent power, ſuch a power as doth not depend on GOD. Beſides if their power bee dependent, of whom is it dependent? not of the King, for the Law acknowledgeth no way whereby Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction can bee derived from his Majeſtie, but by his commiſſion under the great Seal, which as I am informed, they have not: I ſpeake not of the High Commiſſion, but of that juriſdiction which they exerciſe in their Archiepiſcopall, Epiſcopall, Archidiaconall Courts, &c. and therefore if their owne ſentence bee juſt, wee know what they are, and what they have pronounced againſt themſelves. But (Sir) it were worth knowing what they aymed at in that independent, coactive power, which they terme popular. J will not take upon mee to unfold their meaning; but wee know Doct. Beale had a hand in the making of theſe Canons, and if wee apply his Paraphraſe to the text, it may give us ſome cleereneſſe. J remember p. 7amongſt other notes of his this was one, that we did acknowledge the Kings Supremacy, but would joyne unto him an aſſiſtant (viz.) the people, meaning this Houſe, which being the repreſentative body of the COMMONS of England, and claiming, as it is ſo, a ſhare in the Legiſlative power, Doct: Beale calleth this a joyning of an aſſiſtant to the King, in whom ſoly he placeth the power of making Lawes, and that it is but of grace, that he aſſumeth either the Lords, or Commons for the making of Lawes with him. Now (Sir) the Legiſlative power is the greateſt power, and therefore coactive, and it is the higheſt power, and therefore independent, and if every Eſtate for the proportion it hath therein, ſhould not have ſuch a power, it ſhould not have it of right, as founded in the Fabricke and frame, of the policy and government, but of Grace, or by Commiſſion, as Doctor Beale affirmeth. J have done with the firſt Canon, onelyonly J ſhall adde this, that conſidering the Principles and poſitions that are laid downe therein, and comparing them with a clauſe towards the end of the Canon, that in no caſe imaginable it is lawfull for Subjects to defend themſelves, wee may judge how farre forth theſe Canons were to prepare mens mindes for the force that was to follow after; if the accuſation againſt my Lord of Strafford be layed aright. For the matter it ſelfe, I hope there will never be any need to diſpute that queſtion, and J doe beleeve they had as little need, to have publiſhed that poſition, had it not beene p. 8upon deſigne. As for the ſecond Canon, therein alſo they have aſſumed to themſelves a Parliamentary power, in taking upon them, to appoint Holidayes, whereas the Statute ſaith in expreſſe wordes, that ſuch dayes ſhall bee onelyonly kept as Holy dayes as are named in the Statute, and no other, and therefore though the thing may be bonum, yet it was not done bene, becauſe not ordained by Parliament, notwithſtanding what hath beene alleadged to the contrary: it ſeemeth to me to be the appoynting of an Holy day, to ſet a time a part for Divine Service, and to force men under penalties to leave their labours, and buſineſſe, and to be preſent at it. And of the ſame nature is that other clauſe, in the ſame Canon, wherein they take upon them without Parliament, to lay a charge upon the people, enjoyning two Bookes at leaſt for that day, to be bought at the charge of the Pariſh, for by the ſame right, that they may lay a penny on the Pariſh without Parliament, they may lay a pound or any greater Summe.

As to the third Canon, I ſhall paſſe it over, onelyonly the obſervation that my neighbour of the long Robe made upon it, ſeemes unto mee ſo good as that it is worth the repeating, that whereas in the Canon againſt Sectaries there is an eſpeciall proviſo, that it ſhall not derogate from any Statute, or Law made againſt them (as if their Canons had any power to diſanull an act of Parliament) there is no ſuch Proviſo in this Canon againſt Papiſts, from whence it may be probably conjectured, that p. 9they might have drawne ſome colour of exemption, from the penall Lawes eſtabliſhed againſt them from this Canon,, becauſe it might ſeeme hard that they ſhould be doubly puniſhed for the ſame thing, as we know in the point of abſence from the Church; the Law provideth, that if any man be firſt puniſhed by the ordinary, he ſhall not be puniſhed againe by the Juſtices.

For the fourth Canon againſt Socinianiſme, therein alſo theſe Canon-makers have aſſumed to themſelves, a Parliamentary power, in determining an Hereſie not determined by Law, which is expreſſely reſerved to the determination of a Parliament. It is true, they ſay it is a complication of many hereſies, condemned in the foure firſt Conncills, but they doe not ſay what thoſe Hereſies are, and it is not poſſible that Socinianiſme ſhould bee formally condemned in thoſe Councills, for it is ſprang up but of late; Therefore they have taken upon them, to determine and damne a Hereſie, and that ſo generally, as that it may be of very dangerous conſequence, for condemning Socinianiſme for an hereſie, and not declaring what is Socinianiſme, it is left in their breſts whom they will judge, and call a Socinian. I would not have any thing that I have ſaid to be interpreted, as if J had ſpoken it in favour of Socianiſme, which (if it be ſuch as J apprehend it to be) is indeed a moſt vile aud damnable hereſie, and therefore the framers of theſe Canons, are the more to blame in the next Canon againſt Sectaries, wherein beſides that in the pre-Preamble p. 10thereof, they lay it downe for a certaine ground, which the holy Synod knew full well, that other Sects (which they extend not onelyonly to Browniſts, and Separatiſts, but alſo to all perſons, that for the ſpace of a monethmonth, doe abſent themſelves without a reaſonable cauſe, from their owne Pariſh Churches) doe equally endeavour the Subverſion of the Diſcipline, and Doctrine of the Church of England with the Papiſts, although the worſt of them doe not beare any proportion, in that reſpect to the Papiſts, J ſay beſides that they make them equall in crime, and puniſhment to the Papiſts, notwithſtanding the great diſproportion of their Tenents, there is an other paſſage in this Canon relative to that againſt Socinianiſme, which I ſhall eſpecially offer to your conſideration, and that is this. If a Gentleman comming from beyond Seas ſhould happen to bring over with him a Booke, contrary to the Diſcipline of the Church of England, or ſhould give ſuch a Booke to his friend, nay if any man ſhould abett, or maintaine an opinion contrary thereunto, though it were but in Parliament, if he thought it fit to be altered, by this Canon hee is excommunicate ipſo facto, and lyeth under the ſame conſideration, and is lyable to the ſame puniſhment; as if he had maintained an opinion againſt the Deity of CHRIST, and of the Holy Ghoſt, and of our Juſtification by the ſatiſfaction of Chriſt.

(Sir) if in things that are in their owne Nature indifferent, if in things diſputable, it ſhall p. 11be as heynous to abett or maintaine an opinion, as in the moſt horrible and monſtrous hereſies, that can bee imagined, what liberty is left to us as Chriſtians? What liberty is left to us as men? I proceed to the ſixt Canon, wherein theſe Canoniſts have aſſumed to themſelves a Parliamentary power, and that in a very high degree, in that they have taken upon them to impoſe new Oathes, upon the Kings Subjects. (Sir) under favour, of what hath beene alleaged to the contrary, to impoſe an Oath, if it bee not an higher power, then to make a Law, it is a power of making a Law of a moſt high Nature, and of higher and farther conſequence then any other Law, and I ſhould much rather chuſe that the convocation ſhould have a power to make Lawes, to bind my perſon and my eſtate, then that they ſhould have a power to make Oathes to bind my conſcience: a Law binds mee no longer then till another Law be made to alter it, but my Oath bindes mee as long as I live. Againe, a Law bindes mee either to obedience, or to undergoe the penalty inflicted by the Law, but my Oath bindes mee abſolutely to obedience. And laſtly, a Law binds me no longer then I am in the Land, or at the fartheſt no longer then I am a Member of the State; wherein and whereby the Law is made, but my Oath once being taken, doth bind mee in all places, and in all conditions ſo long as I live. Thus much J thought good to ſpeake concerning the power of impoſing new Oathes: as to the matter of this new Oath, it is wholy illegall. p. 12It is aginſt the Law of this Land, it is againſt the Law and Light of Nature, it is againſt the Law of GOD, it is againſt the Lawes of this KINGDOME; And that, no obſcure Lawes, nor concerning any meane, or pettie matters. It is againſt the Law of the Kings Supremacie, in that it maketh Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, Deanes, Arch-Deacons, &c. to be jure Divino, whereas the Law of this Land hath annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme, not onelyonly all Eccleſiaſticall Juriſdiction, but alſo all Superiority, over the Eccleſiaſticall State, and it is to bee derived from him by Commiſſion under the great Seale, and conſequently it is Jure humano. Againe, it is againſt the Oath of Supremacy, eſtabliſhed by Law point blanck, for therein I am ſworne not onelyonly to conſent unto, but alſo to aſſiſt, and to the uttermoſt of my power, to defend all Juriſdictions, preheminence, &c. annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme, of which this is one (and that which immediately precedeth this Oath in the Statute, and whereunto it doth eſpecially relate) That his Majeſtie may exerciſe any Juriſdictions, or Eccleſiaſticall government by his Commiſſion under the great Seale directed to ſuch perſons, as hee ſhall thinke meet, ſo that if hee ſhall thinke other perſons more meet, then Arch-biſhoos, Biſhops, &c. I am ſworne in the Oath of Supremacie not onelyonly to aſſent thereunto, but to aſſiſt, and to the uttermoſt of my power to defend ſuch an appointment of his Majeſty, and in this new Oath J ſhall ſweare never to conſent unto ſuch an p. 13alteration. In the like manner it is againſt the Law, and Light of Nature, that a man ſhould ſweare to anſwere, (&c.) to he knowes not what. It is againſt the Law and light of Nature, that a man ſhould ſweare never to conſent, to alter a thing, that in its owne nature is alterable, and may prove inconvenient, and fit to be altered. Laſtly, it is againſt the Law of God: for whereas there are three rules preſcribed to him that will ſweare aright, that he ſweare in Judgement, in Truth, and righteouſneſſe: hee that ſhall take this new Oath, muſt needs breake all theſe three Rules. He can not ſweare in judgement, becauſe this Oath is ſo full of ambiguities, that hee can not tell what hee ſweares unto; not to ſpeake of the unextricable ambiguity of the &c. There is ſcarce one word that is not ambiguous in the principall parts of the Oath, as Firſt. What is meant by the Church of England, whether all the Chriſtians in England, or whether the Clergie onelyonly, or onelyonly the Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, Deanes, &c. or whether the Convocation, or what? In like manner it is as doubtfull what is meant by the Diſcipline, and what by the Doctrine of the Church of England, for what ſome call ſuperſtitious Jnnovations, if others affirme to be conſonant to the Primitive, and that the pureſt Reformation in the time of Edward the 6. and in the beginning of the Reigne of Queene Elizabeth, and ſo for the Doctrine of the Church of England, if all the Poſitions that of later yeares have beene challenged by ſome of our Divines to bee Arminian and Popiſh, and p. 14contrary to the Articles of our Religion, and which on the other ſide have beene aſſerted and maintained as conſonant to the Doctrine of our Church, and if the Articles of Religion were gathered together, they might make a prety volume, nay Sancta Clara will maintaine it in deſpight of the Puritanes, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, is the Doctrine of the Church of England. Truely it were very fit that we knew, what were the Doctrine and Diſcipline of the Church of England before we ſweare to it, and then (Sir) give me leave to ſay, that J ſhould bee very loath to ſweare to the Diſcipline, or to the Doctrine and Tenents of the pureſt Church in the World, as they are collected by them, farther then they agree with the Holy Scriptures. Laſtly, it is as doubtfull what is meant, by the Doctrine and Diſcipline eſtabliſhed, and what by altering and conſenting to alter, whether that is accompted, or eſtabliſhed, which is eſtabliſhed by act of Parliament, or wheter that alſo that is eſtabliſhed, by Canons, Injunctions, &c. and whether it ſhall not extend to that which is publiſhed by our Divines with the allowance of authority, and ſo for conſenting to alter whether it be onelyonly meant that a man ſhall not be active in altering, or whether it extend to any conſent, and ſo that a man ſhall not ſubmit to it, nor accept of it, being altered by the State. More ambiguities might be ſhewen, but theſe are enough to make it cleere, that hee that ſhall take this Oath cannot ſweare in judgement. Nor can he ſweare in truth, for p. 15it is full of untruthes. It is not true that Diſcpline is neceſſary to Salvation. Jt is not true, that Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, Deanes, Arch-Deacons, &c. are jure Divino, as they muſt needs be, if the Law-makers ought of right to eſtabliſh them, as they are eſtabliſhed: for the Law-makers are not bound as of right, to frame their Lawes to any other then the Lawes of God alone. Now whether Biſhops be Jure Divino, we know it is a diſpute amongſt the Papiſts, and never did any Proteſtant hold it till of late yeares, but that Arch-biſhops, Deanes, Arch-Deacons, &c. ſhould be jure Divino, I doe not know that ever any Chriſtian held it before and yet he that taketh this Oath muſt ſweare it. Laſtly as he that taketh this Oath cannot ſweare in judgement nor in truth, ſo neither can hee ſweare in righteouſneſſe, for it is full of unrighteouſneſſe, being indeed, as hath beene well opened, a Covenant in effect againſt the King and Kingdome; for if the whole State ſhould find it neceſſary, to alter the Government by Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, &c. a great part of the Kingdome, eſpecially of the Gentry (for not onelyonly the Clergy, but all that take degrees in the Ʋniverſities are bound to take it) will be preingaged not to conſent to it, or admit of it. Againe it is a great wrong to thoſe that ſhall bee Parliament-men, that their freedome ſhall bee taken away being bound up by an Oath, not to conſent to the altering of a thing, which it may bee fit and proper for a Parliament to alter. And ſuppoſe that for the preſent it be no hinderance to the ſervice p. 16of God, nor yet burdenſome, to the King, and Kingdome, yet if it ſhould prove ſo hereafter▪ for a man to bee bound by an Oath never to conſent to alter it, may be a great wrong to God in his ſervice, and to the King and Kingdome in their peace and well-fare, and therefore this Oath cannot bee taken in righteouſneſſe. For the other Oath de parendo juri Eccleſiae, & ſtando mandatis Eccleſiae, though it make leſſe noyſe then the other, yet it is not of leſſe dangerous conſequence. If I remember well the Story, this was the Oath that the Pope made King John to take, and when he had ſworne ſtare mandatis Eccleſiae, the Pope commanded him to reſigne his Kingdome to him, and truely be hee Gentleman or Nobleman, or what ever elſe when hee hath once put his necke into this nouſe, his Ghoſtly Fathers may drag him whither they will, for they have the quantity and the quality of the penance in their owne breſt, and if they ſhall enjoyne him to give any ſumme towards the building of a Church, or the adorning of a Chappell, he muſt pay it, or if they ſhould enjoyne him any ſervile or baſe action (as there are not wanting examples of that kinde in the time of Popery) they are ſworne ſtare mandatis Eccleſiae, and ſo cannot recede, but muſt performe it. Nay I dare not warrant any man from the rods of Henry the ſecond, or of Raymond of Tholouze; what hath beene done may be done, J am ſure the power is the ſame. And that other Oath alſo (though more uſuall in practiſe, and more confirmed by th…ſe new Canons) which is p. 17adminiſtred to Church-Wardens, would bee looked into. For it is hardly poſſible for them that take it not to be for ſworne, being they ſweare to ſo many particulars, that they cannot mind, and to ſome that they cannot underſtand, as how many Church-Wardens are there in England, that underſtand what Socinianiſme is, in caſe they be ſworne, to preſent the offenders againſt that Canon, which concernes that matter. I ſhall onelyonly adde a word or two concerning two Canons more, which ſeeme to be Canons of Reformation. The firſt is, concerning excommunication, to bee pronounced onelyonly by a Divine, wherein it is alleadged for the framers of theſe Canons, that if they have not more Law on their ſides, yet they may ſeeme to have more reaſon. For my part, as in all other things, I thinke they have ſo mended the matter, that they have made it farre worſe, for before that which was found fault with was this, that a Lay-man did that which the grave Divine ſhould have done, and now the grave Divine muſt doe what ever the Lay-man would have done, for the cogniſcance of the cauſe, and the power of judicature is wholy in the Lay-man, onelyonly the grave Divine is to bee his Servant, to execute his Sentences, and hath ſuch a kind of managing the ſpirituall ſword allowed onelyonly unto him, as the Papiſts in ſome caſes were wont to afford unto the civill Magiſtrate, in reſpect of the Temporall ſword, for as if the Civill ſword by an implicite Faith had beene pinned, to the Lawn-ſleeves, they condemned men of Hereſie, and then delivered p. 18them over to the Secular power; but what to doe? Not to have any cogniſance of the cauſe, nor to exerciſe any power of judicature, but onelyonly to bee their executioners, and to burne the Heretick whom they had condemned, and ſo they judged men excommunicate, and then the civill power was to ſend out writtes de Excommunicato …apiendo againſt them, but one ſaid well, that the ſword without cogniſance of the cauſe, and judgement, was like Polyphemus without his eye, it became violence and fury. But being accompanied with the eye of judgement, it is equity and juſtice: and ſurely where the ſpirituall or civill governour is called upon to ſtrike, hee muſt bee allowed to ſee and judge whom and wherefore hee ſtrikes, otherwiſe he will bee able to give but an ill accompt to God, of the managing of the ſword, wherewith hee is inſtructed. The other Canon is the laſt Canon againſt vexatious citations, wherein they ſeeme to have ſome ſenſe of the great grievances that poore people lye under, by occaſion of vexatious citations, and moleſtations in Eccleſiaſticall Courts, and I verily beleeve that there is not a greater oppreſſion in the whole Kingdome upon the poorer ſort of people, then that which proceedeth out of theſe Courts. But now (Sir) Let us ſee what proviſion they have made againſt it by this Canon. They ſay becauſe great grievances may fall upon people by citations upon pretence onelyonly, of the breach of that Law without any preſentment, or any other juſt ground, that no citations, grounded onelyonly as p. 19aforeſaid, ſhall iſſue out, except it be under the hand and Seale of the Chancellour, Commiſſary, Arch-Deacon, or other competent Judge, ſo that (if there bee any ſenſe in theſe words) though there bee no preſentment at all, nor any other juſt ground, yet a citation may iſſue out, ſo it be under the hand and Seale of the Chancellour, Commiſſary, or other competent Iudge, and the party ſhall not be diſcharged without paying his fees, nor have any reliefe by this Canon. But ſuppoſe the citation bee not under the hand and Seale of any competent Judge, and that there was neither preſentment nor any juſt ground for it ſhall he then be diſmiſſed without paying any fees? No, unleſſe firſt contrary to the law of nature, there being no preſentment nor juſt ground of accuſation againſt him, hee ſhall by his oath purge himſelfe of pretended breaches of Law, and then too hee ſhall onelyonly have the fees of the Court remitted, but ſhall have no ſatisfaction for his troubleſome and chargeable journey, and for the loſſe of his time, and being drawne away from his aff…ires. Nay leſt they ſhould ſeeme to have beene too liberall of their favour, they adde a Proviſo in the cloſe of the Canon, that this grace of theirs ſhall not extend to any grievous crime, as Schiſme, Incontinency, misbehaviour in the Church, or obſtinate inconformity. And what do they call misbehaviour in the Church? If a man doe not kneele at the Confeſſion, or have his hat on, when the Leſſons are reading. In like manuer what doe they call obſtinate inconformity? p. 20If a man will not thinke what they would have him thinke, if a man will not ſay what they would have him ſay, if a man will not ſweare what they would have him ſweare, if a man will not read what they would have him read, if a man will not preach what they would have him preach, if a man will not pray what they would have him pray, In ſhort, if a man will not doe what ever they would have him doe, then he is an inconformiſt, and after that they have duely admoniſhed him, primò, ſecundò, tertiò, all in one breath, then hee is contumacious, then he is an obſtinate Jnconformiſt.

Now (Sir) my humble motion is, that in conſideration of all the premiſſes, and what beſides hath beene well laid open by others; wee ſhould proceed to damme theſe Canons, not onelyonly as contrary to the Lawes of the Land, but alſo as containing ſundry matters, deſtructive of the rights of Parliaments, and of the fundamentall and other principall Lawes of this Kingdome, and otherwiſe of very dangerous conſequence.

FINIS.

End of the text · Nathaniel Fiennes, Second Speech (1641)