The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. Wherein it is cleared, that though the King be the Supream Magiſtrate, yet that ſupremacy which is over all laws, is in this Kingdom, not in the King alone, but in the King and Parliament; in Anſwer to Doctor Boughen's 17. Chapter.
I Come now to your laſt Chapter, entituled, Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdom? But why not as wel, three? You know I make three ſupremacies, but two fitted your Bow better, which you had prepared to ſhoot your Arrows in, even bitter words: But I ſhal let you ſee, that as there is more vapour, ſo more vanitie and lightneſs in this, then in any other Chapter; and ſome of it againſt your own words, and I believe more of it againſt your own light. Firſt, you begin to tell me, That I blame them that ſet up two ſupremacies, and yet cannot ſee the beam in my own eye, and then calumniate at pleaſure.
Yet all is but winde: I blame them that ſet up two abſolute ſupremacies, that had power to make laws independantly one of another: onelyonly the Clergie had the better end of the ſtaff; for the Laytie muſt be ſubject to their laws, but they would be exempt from the Layties. This I condemned out of Marſilus Patavinus, as an enemy to quiet, becauſe ſuch were alwaies apt, and uſually in act, claſhing one againſt another. But the ſupremacies that I ſpeak of, cannot croſs one another, ſo no danger of diſturbance. Again, Doctor, in ſober ſadneſs, do you not know a difference between a ſupremacy, and the Supremacie? A D. D. cannot be ſo ignorant. You cannot chuſe but have learned the difference between abſolute ſummum, and ſummum ſecundùm quid. Chiefs, in ſome reſpect, may be many, chief abſolutely, but one; and when I ſay, a Supremacie, did not that hint to you onelyonly a Supremacie ſecundum quid, in ſome reſpect onelyonly? and yet more expreſly, when I call it the ſupream Court, that is, ſupream, not abſolute: but in reſpect of judicature, there lies an appeal from all Courts to it by petition, but from it to none. Is not this a Supremacie? Nay, do not you your ſelf aſcribe as much to it, when you ſay, This I ſay, that the Parliament is Curia Capitalis, the ſupream Court of this Kingdom? Your own words, pag. 136. if Supream, there's ſupremacie, quicquid dicitur de in eſt in; it cannot be denominated ſupream, but there is ſupremacie in it, in ſome reſpect; denominatio fit ab inhaeſione; did you not then cavil againſt conſcience at a ſupremacie in the Parliament, and raiſe duſt to darken the light?
Parag. 2. After a light quirk, misbecoming a D. D. you ask Whether this be not againſt the oath of ſupremacy, Wherein we ſwear, that the Kings highneſs is the onelyonly ſupream Governour of this Land, &c? How are my poſitions againſt this oath? Do not I aſcribe to the king, to be the onelyonly Supream Magiſtrate? You that could play with ſummum, and ſupremus; Can you tell us a difference, between Magiſtrate, and Governour? If not, he that aſſerts the King the ſupream Magiſtrate, reacheth the ſence of that oath, which maketh him ſupream Governour. Therefore I need fear no humane penalties againſt perjurie, for this; No, Doctor, I hope once, the Lord will not hold him guilty, will more make me dread perjurie, then all other penalties.
Parag. 3. you ſay, I clip his Majeſties wings, and ſay that the ſupremum jus Dominij, which is above laws, figere, & refigere, is not in the King, to ſay it is in him, is in our State a manifeſt error. Whats become of the oath of Supremacy then (ſay you)? Safe enough ſay I, The King remains ſtill ſupream Governour; he is ſaid to be onelyonly ſo in government, which notes execution of laws, and ſo doth the phraſes Eccleſiaſtical and Civil; but (you ſay) in your eſtate it is no error. Sure Sir, in King Charles his Kingdom of England it is an error; in which aſſertion, I ſhould not have been ſo peremptory at firſt, nor now, had I not received this light from his own pen, in his anſwer to the Parliaments 19. Propoſitions, ſent to him in York-ſhire; where firſt, he tels them, that the experience, Col. of Remonſt. and pag. 320. 321.and wiſedom of their Ancestors, hath ſo moulded our government, out of a mixture of all the three, viz. abſolute Monarchy, Ariſtocracy, and Democracy, as to give to this Kingdom, as far as humane providence can provide the conveniences of all three, without the inconveniences of any one, &c. And then a little after. In this Kingdom, the laws are joyntly made by a King, by an Houſe of Peers, and by an Houſe of Commons, choſen by the people, all having free votes and particular priviledges. The government, according to theſe laws, is truſted to the King, &c.
Have not I now followed my copy right? the ſupream power to make laws, is Ariſtocrati, cal in three States, free to vote, and the King the ſupream Magiſtrate to execute laws. One would think, if this would not make you bluſh for what is paſt, yet it may ſtop your mouth for future; and I need not ſay no more on this point; yet I will give a little touch to ſhew the vanitie of your flouriſhes.
Your Parag. 4. Is a meer flaſh, attended with the ſparkles of light calumnies; For I have not made one of two, I yet leave one abſolute Supaemacie, as you confeſs in the next parag. the Supremacie to make and unmake laws. This is neither in King, nor Houſes apart, but conjoyned.
Here then we are fallen back to one Supremacie. Why did you then trifle ſo much about two? But this (ſay you) is to skip from Monarchie to Ariſtocracie; juſt as his Majeſtie hath told you, in this government there's a mixture; its Ariſtocratical in Legis lation, Monarchical for execution; and therein is the excellency of it; the one being fitteſt for Law-making by ſolidity; the other for execution by celeritie; and yet this D.D. jeers, as though this was never ſeen before, becauſe he wanted eyes: But now comes a precious one. He believes it well appears, That ſupremacie over all Laws, to make or diſanul them, is in the King alone, at the Petition of both Houſes. Ridiculum caput; for its as much as to ſay, its in the King alone with the help of others; a notorious Bull. That power is in a man alone which he can execute without the concurrence of others; but this the King cannot do, without the Houſes manifeſting their conſent, and deſire by Petition. Beſides, have you forgot the ſtatute, your ſelf quoted, pag. 85? That no Act of Par liament be paſſed by any Sovereign of this Realm, or any other authority whatſoever, without the advice and conſent of the three Eſtates of the Kingdom, &c. Oportet te eſſe memorem.
But you will come to Scriptures, Fathers, and moderne Authors, as Parag. 6. 'Peter aſcribeth ſupremacie to the King, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. But that is clearly, as I have ſaid, as Supream Magiſtrate, to whom others are ſubordinate, and this admonition muſt be with limitation too, where Kings are ſupream. You do not think that the Apoſtle doth level all Kings, and give them all one equal ſupremacie; No, the Apoſtle had no power, nor would not attempt, to alter the conſtitution of Nations. Now Grotius will tell you; ſome Kings are not ſupream. Thoſe of Athens were under the power of the people, thoſe of Lacedemon, under the Ephori. See Grot. de jure bel. & pac. lib. 1. cap. 2. parag. 8. The ſentences out of Fathers, which you quote, parag. 6, and 7. ſpeak of abſolute Monarchs, which you ignorantly, or flatteringly, ſay ours is; but our King denies it, calling our government, a mixture of all the three, and a regular Monarchie, Collect. of Declar. &c. pag. 320. 321. And that ſentence cited by you out of Grotius will confute you; Thats the ſupream civil power, cujus actus alterius juri non ſubſunt. Whoſe acts are not ſubject to another mans cenſure; For thoſe acts that any do by the Kings authoritie, are the Kings acts; and the Parliament hath power to diſanul theſe acts, and puniſh theſe agents, as the King informeth, Collect. of Remonſtr. pag. 321. to ſhew, the compleatneſs of our government. Our Law indeed (ſaith the king) can do no wrong; that is, he cannot work, but by Agents: and the law takes no notice of him in it, but of the Agents, to puniſh them.
But you proceed, Parag. 8. I …ow (ſay you) you relye more upon the laws of the Land then upon the Word of God. But I believe therein you ſpeak againſt your conſcience; what you produce, that the king is the ſupream Head, is no more then what I aſcribe to him, to be ſupream Magiſtrate, and in that he is alone, and the head one; and therefore the Bull of two Supremacies, you ſpeak of, is but a Calf of your own fancie.
What you ſay, Parag. 9, 10. 13. Touching the Parliament being ſubjects, and petitioning to him as ſubjects, and that Bills are not in force without him. I confeſs: but theſe onelyonly denie that ſupremacie in the Parlament, which I never aſſerted: but do not aſſert the ſupremacy in the king, to make, or un-make laws, without them. Therefore all this is trifling.
Par. 11. You ask, What ſupremacie can be in that Court, that cannot lawfully Convene, till the King ſummonthem? There is this; The ſupremacie of a Court, as you confeſs, to be the ſupream Court; that is, there is no appeal from them, but appeals from all Courts to them: and you know, they can reverſe decrees in Courts, which the King cannot; he can pardon, not reverſe ſentences. They can reverſe Verdicts but not pardon offenders.
You add Parag. 12. The King is to regulate them for the time. I acknowledg it: this Parliament onelyonly excepted, by a particular Statute, made in this Parliament with the Kings aſſent. And for the manner, The king himſelf ſaith, they are free, and have priviledges of their own. For the great Lawyers judgement, you ſpeak of, in Richard the 2. time, That if any in Parliament proceed upon other Articles, or in other manner then is limited by the King, &c. they are to be puniſhed as Traytors.
I wonder, you will mention it, ſith that great Lawyer was flattering Treſilyan, who by ſuch ill Counſel helpt to over-throw his Sovereign: and in a Parliament, held in the 13, year of Richard 2. was for this, by the Lords in Parliament, condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, which was preſently executed on him, as our Hiſtorians ſhew.
Your Collections, Par. 14. were diſproved before: what you ſay 'for the Kings regulating Courts of justice. You miſtake, the Law is their rule, and that regulates them, which if they transgreſs, he may puniſh them: but the law they are ſworn to follow, againſt any private inſtructions of his; thats clearly known.
You ſum up your arguments, Parag. 15. But they are all ſhort of your concluſion: for they conclude not againſt the Parliaments being a ſupream Court, which is all I aſſert, and you confeſs in the following page: Nay, in this page, parag. 17. and what you have, parag. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Are ſuperfluous: For they onelyonly concludet he King to be ſupream Magiſtrate, but exclude not the Parliament from being the ſupream Court: you ſay, but yet it is the Kings Court. I deny it not; I denie him onelyonly to be above it, in the capacitie of a Court, though it ſit by his writ. Therefore all you do here, is, but lis de lana caprina, meer trifling.
And as captious a conceipt is that, that you conceive not They have power to make and alter laws at pleaſure; for there is great danger in altering laws without urgent cauſe. Who doubts it? What need you prove it? But to make up want of proof in things to be proved? Who knows not, that wiſedom and moderation in Law makers, is to regulate that power that they may put forth upon any, that they put it not forth, but upon juſt occaſion?
Parag. 22. You infer, If the King cannot do any thing againſt the legal rights of others, ſo nor Parliaments. True; they ought not to over-rule or alter the rights of other, but for the publike good; but for that they may; you know there were many had legal rights in offices in Star-Chamber, and yet for publike good, the King condeſcended to a Bill of abrogation.
Parag. 23. You tell us, 'The King is above law. That is, ſay you, Common-law. But this is your fiction; for the King ſaith, he is a regular Monarch, that is regulated by laws, ſo in a ſence, under them. The common cuſtom of our Nation is, that actions may be commenced againſt the King at the Common-law; therefore you ſpeak againſt experience, in ſaying, that the king is above the Common-law; which appears alſo, in that the Judges of the Common, as well as Statute-law, are ſworn not to denie, or delay juſtice to any, for any Letter, or Prohibition of the king. And though his taking the Parliament into the joynt aſſiſtance of making laws, makes not them ſupream: yet it hinders that ſupremacie of laws-making from being ſolely in him, ſith he can do nothing without them.
For Parag. 24. I would not brand you, nor delude the people, as you object; But onelyonly ſeek to give a rational ſence of the kings oath, which they that oppoſe, brand themſelves. I did believe, what I expres'd in my good conceit of the preſent Biſhops tenderneſs to preſerve the King from hazzard; but if they be all of your minde, I ſee I am deceived for; let the Crown, or life of king, ſink or ſwim, he ſhall have no conſent from you to enlarge his conſcience, to conſent to aboliſh Epiſcopacie, for the ſafegard of either.
For Parag. 25. 26. I deſire no more, then that the king ſhould give every one his own, preferring the publike before any private. I confeſs the kings readineſs to confirm Bills, ſuch and ſo large, as never were the like; but yet I know, and you know, what danger the king and land hath been, and is in, for want of conſent to let down Epiſcopacie: And in this exigent wherein we are, by the corruption of man, I humbly give my advice, to promote Peace, and prevent much of that blood, and miſery, which for want of peace ſtill continues; and threatens worſe to the Church (I confeſs) then either the want or preſence of Biſhops.
But your Sun muſt ſet under a Cloud, and therefore, Parag. 17. you tell me, He that ſlayeth a Prelate, to whom he owes faith and obedience, its Treaſon: you amplifie, If it be Treaſon to kill a Prelate, then how much greater to kill Prelacy. Negatur Argumentum, egregie D. D. It follows not; for he that kills a Biſhop, kills a man, and he hath Gods Image ſtampt on him. But Epiſcopacy, as I have ſhewed, is but foreign, an inhumane creature; ſo he may be removed regularly, without any injury to God. Beſides, you conſider not that Biſhop is a concrete word, including a man and Epiſcopacy, Concretum relativum, as the Logicians call it. But Epiſcopacie is an abſtract: your ſimilitude onelyonly holds thus, as it were worſe to kill the ſpecies, then one man; ſo to aboliſh Epiſcopacy, then to degrade one Biſhop; If either were evil. But, in a regular way, I have ſhewed you, both are good; therefore, as I fear not your law, ſo I doubt not of Gods approbation, being conſcious to my ſincere intentions, for the good of King and kingdom, in it.
For your Concluſion, Parag. Ʋlt. I muſt minde you, that it cannot be better then the Pr…miſes, Concluſio ſequitur deteriorem partem. Therefore I may conclude, That would the abolition of Epiſcopacy make our peace, put an end to blood, rapine, miſery: The king may with ſafety and approbation do it. But if God be not pleaſed to perſwade his heart ſo far; If that moderation that he would bring them to, would ſatisfie others: I think, as the caſe ſtands, they may do innocently, and commendably, to cloſe with him. Yea, I think, thoſe, who upon a ſerious conſideration of the over-flowing of all ſin, with an high hand, ſhall yield firſt; (that ſome government may be ſetled in the Church, Laws recover their power in the Common-wealth, ſin be prevented, Juſtice and amity revived) they will be moſt acceptable to God, and ought to be ſo with men.
Deo gloria. Finis
Poſtſcript.
THe ſentence, you, after all, cite out of Doctor Burges, I may not paſs over. Obſerve the plagues of ſuch men, as are never touch'd with the miſeries of others: They commonly fall under the ſame judgments which others, unpitied, have taſted before. I thank God, this toucheth not me; for I have neither cauſed, nor been ſenceleſs of the miſeries of others. But have not many poor Miniſters been ſilenc'd, turn'd out of all, for things that others counted trifles, and might have forborn them in, but they ſcrupled at as ſins, and could not ſubmit? And have they not paſt unpitied by many Prelates and Prelatical men? I ſpeak not of my own Dioceſan, whom I found moſt pittiful, and would not be ſlack to requite it, with active ſympathie, upon good opportunity. But Doctor, you know what pitty you vouchſafe them in this Treatiſe. Nothing but Schiſmaticks, and Hereticks, juſtly ejected, &c. Therefore now, with Joſephs Brethren, conſider how you have been in a fault concerning your Brethren, Gen. 42.21.22. and give glory to God, that he may lift you up, which I heartily wiſh and beg of God; and ſo Doctor, fare you well.
Errata.
PAge 17. line 17. read officers. page. 18. line 24. dele and, p. 21 l, 10. χ. p. 24. put in the margin againſt line. 7, 8, 9. Apol. cap. 39. p. 37. l. 31. dele or. p. 49. l. 25. r. by. p. 61. in title of the 6. chapter for explanations, r. exclamations. p. 70. l. 2. for me, r. men, p. 75. l. 14. for can r, cannot, p. 95. l. 17. for one, r. me. p. 100. l. 2. for cauſe, r. caſſe. p. 104. l. 24. for uncivil, r. civil. p. 106. l. 16. r. This muſt, ariſeth. p. 112. l. 28. r. diminiſhing. p. 114. l. 20. r. foreign, p. 116. l. 9. r. is, So Epiſcopacy. p. 119. l. 18. read ſummus.
End of the text · John Geree, The Sifters Sieve Broken (1648)