The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 10
CHAP. X. PARAG. 1. Wherein is ſhewed, what the true intention of the Kings oath is, for maintenance of Epiſcopacie, in anſwer to Doctor Boughen's 8. Chapter.
I Come now to anſwer the 8. Chapter, wherein you were pleaſed to take in hand this paſſage, beginning with my anſwer to my latter opponent, firſt; and yet you did not make an end with him, before you undertook to reply to my anſwer to my firſt opponent; which how judicious it is, let the Reader judge: for what advantage you did it, you beſt know.
The queſtion is, you ſay, Whether the King may deſert Epiſcopacie without perjury, a queſtion too high for any ſubject; but you are enforced to make that a queſtion, that is harſh to loyal ears, leſt you may ſeem to avoid my ſubtile and ſaucie cavils, as unanſwerable. Good words, Doctor: If the queſtion be too high for a ſubject, have not I the ſame plea for medling with it, that you have, being led into it by my opponents? but the truth is, the queſtion is fit enough for diſcuſſion, ſo it be done with reverence; whatever I am, I know you will confeſs, that both my former opponents knew as well their dutie to our Soveraign, as you your ſelf, and were as obſervant of it: when men are to act by counſel or prayer for kings, unleſs they know, in Caſes propoſed, what is conſcionable for him to do, or not to do, how can they rightly perform their duties? To balk ſuch queſtions therefore, on juſt occaſion, is not dutie, but flatterie; and to leave kings and their Counſellors without needfull light: But you have a quarrell to me, for ſaying my ſecond Antagoniſt affirms, that the King cannot deſert Epiſcopacie without flat perjury, and ſay, his words are far more mannerly; why did you not then ſet down his more mannerly words, but abuſe your reader with a falſitie? but you will prove the thing, that Epiſcopacie may not be deſerted without violation of oath, and the Church left to ſwine. No Sir, we would purge it of ſwine, and doggs too, which they expoſed its choiceſt outward priviledges to; but how do you prove it?
Firſt, Parag. 2. You go a begging, telling one of my confeſſion, when I do but take the words of the oath from my Antagoniſts mouth, and diſpute ex conceſſo, that the oath is as he relates it, To protect the Biſhops, &c, and then you bring your obſervations, 1. Good Kings protect Biſhops, 2. They ought to do it. 3. In right they ought to do it. But when I confeſs, that theſe words are in the oath, muſt I therefore approve all that is in the oath, yea, and take them in your ſenſe too? I hope not.
Thus far I approve the kings protecting Biſhops, within the limits of their calling ſet them of God; but our Prelates have excluded their fellow-Presbyters. But thirdly, as of right he ought to do; I take to be a limitation how far he engageth himſelf, that is, ſo far as a good king in right ought to do, and if he go no further, he is injurious to none, though he diſpleaſes many, as you ſay, Parag. 3.
Parag. 4. You add, the King hath ſworn to be protector of the Church under his government, but that cannot be, unleſs he protect the Biſhops, who are the Miniſterial ſpouſe of the Church: This is a falſe inference, for though the Miniſterie be neceſſarie to the Church, yet not your Prelacie, which is but an humane additament: your proof is preſumptuous, to make any man a Miniſteriall ſpouſe of the Church, as well as it is for the Pope to be made a Miniſterial head of it.
Yet you repeat it, Parag. 5. With our frequent diſh of no ordination without them, which hath been often enough anſwered. You conclude, if Biſhops be of the ſame order with the Apoſtles, you have Calvins acknowledgment, that the Church cannot ſtand without them: yea, and mine too, and yet never the nearer; for, Ante Leves ergo. &c. as ſoon ſhall you finde Harts feeding in the middle region of the air, as your Biſhops among the Apoſtles.
You add, Parag. 6. that the Church cannot be without the Biſhop, if we believe Cyprian, that the Biſhop is in the Church, and the Church in the Biſhop; you add, that the Church is in the Biſhop, cauſally, &c. If you underſtand by the Biſhop, the Miniſterie, and by cauſally, as an inſtrument of its preſervation; I grant it, without any inconvenience: otherwaies we can grant the Church to be cauſally in none other but Jeſus Chriſt, the true head of it; nor is there any other that is fountain of it: its as flat Poperie to judg otherwaies, as to make the Pope the head of the Church: nay worſe: For Hart makes the Pope to be the head; not as the fountain of life, as your ſimilitude imports: but only in regard of directing the outward functions; and yet for this, that mirror of learning, Doctor Reynolds, doth implead Mr. Hart of high treaſon againſt Chriſt. And I remember alſo there, a witty and rationall anſwer, that our learned Doctor makes to a place cited out of Leo. He grants Leo was an ancient: learned, holy, and witty man, yet a man, and a Biſhop of Rome, &c. and applies to him a ſaying of Tully to Hortenſius, when he immoderately praiſed eloquence, that he would lift her up to heaven, that himſelf might go up with her; ſo did Leo lift up St. Peter, &c. So Cyprian was an holy man, but a Biſhop, ſo he might extoll Biſhops, that he might lift up himſelf with them. See confer, between Reynolds and Hart. cap. 1. diviſ. 2. therefore your premiſſes have not yet force to draw my conſent to their concluſion.
Parag. 7. You grant, "that the oath is not obligatory beyond the intention, that is, ſay you, according to the common plain and literall meaning of it; good: as the plain literall meaning is to be found out of the grammar of it: and other circumſtances, that may convince Reaſon of the intention of it.
You add, Parag. 8. That the oath is to the Clergie, The King muſt have reſpect to them and their intention.
I anſwer, not mentall, but what the words of the oath import, conſidered with its circumſtances; nor ſo much to the intention of the now giver, as the firſt framer.
Now, I beſeech you, if the King ſhould have ask'd the Biſhops, at the giving, whether if a Caſe ſhould fall out, that he muſt not only venture (which he hath done,) but loſe his Crown, rather then fail to ſave them, whether they would have ſaid, yea, that is the meaning: Truly I believe not, and if they had, the King and Peers, and people, would have hiſſ'd them out rather, then the one would have perſwaded, or the other would have yielded to have taken it with that ſenſe and intention.
Parag. 9. You enquire,, whether what hath been done, hath not been a tyrannous invaſion?
I anſwer, there hath been too much tumult, and Miniſters have ſuffered too irregularly on both ſides; but when the Houſes preſent a Petition to the king, with a Bill, for abolition of Epiſcopacie, that only is the regular way, that I defend the king not to be ingaged againſt.
Parag. 10. You ſay, it was his duty to protect you while it was in his power.
I anſwer, it was, and is his dutie, ſo far as it was intended in the oath, but was not to hazard the deſtruction of himſelf and kingdom, for your Prelates; yet I adviſe not the breaking of his oath, as you would hint; but I limit the intention of the engagement of the oath, as in reaſon it ought to be. If you be not againſt an orderly alteration, (as you ſay, Parag. 4.) You grant the queſtion, for then if the Parliament lay down their ſwords, and come with a Petition to deſire his aſſent, notwithſtanding his oath, he may aſſent, which was the thing to be proved.
For my part, I abhor force upon a king; but if he might ſign a Bill without force, I ſee no reaſon why danger of force can make it unlawfull.
To Parag. 12. I ſay, if the king hath done his beſt to protect them againſt violence, they can require no more, he hath done as much as his oath doth require; now he may take care to preſerve himſelf, iſſue, and people. And for his Miniſters, let them anſwer for themſelves.
CHAP. X. PARAG. 2. Shewing the right ſence of the Kings Coronation-Oath, from this, that what he undertakes for the Biſhops, muſt not be conceived to croſs what he hath promiſed to the people; in anſwer to Doctor Boughen's 8. Chapter.
I Proceed now to anſwer your eight Chapter, whoſe very Title is ominious, Whether the Kings Oath taken to the Clergie, be injurious to his other ſubjects, and inconſiſtent with his oath to his people. Hereby you would inſinuate, that I affirm it is, whereas I affirm, it cannot be conceived ſo to be, and therefore we muſt not put a ſence upon it to make it ſo to be; and from this ground, I impugne your falſe ſence of the oath, namely, that it takes away all power from the King, at the ſuit of his Parliament, to alter any of their juriſdictions, whereof they ſhew the grievance. Its therefore a calumnious inſinuation of yours, that I do ſet the liberties of the people againſt the Clergies; Its your falſe inhanſing your priviledges above thoſe of the people, alterable by King and Parliament that is guiltie of the incompatibilitie of their priviledges, if ſuch an evil be; and therefore I ſay Amen to your prayer, cloſing. Parag. 1.
Parag. 2. I agree that Gods law is unalerable by man: And I deſire no more from you then that, what is ſeled by man is alterable by man. For I plead for alteration of no priviledg, but what is from humane indulgence, and that ſuch an one too, that the Church may better want it, then have it in her Clergie.
That of Par. 3.4. Touching justneſs of laws, may paſs with ſome Animadverſion of that of Ocham, that laws, nemini notabile afferant nocumentum: If by nocumentum we underſtand dammage. For the law to pull down the houſes in Rome, that ſtood in the Augurs way, (their principles granted) was juſt, yet it brought notable dammage to the owners, but the publike good was to carrie it away: So laws among us againſt Monopolies undid ſome; yet the publike emolument made the law juſt.
Parag. 5.6. Are ignorant, trifling, or worſe: For firſt, you quarrel at the phraſe, the protection of the peoples laws; who ſay you, made them Law-makers? Not I Sir, but when King and Parliament have made them, they have propriety in them. The priviledg of them is uſually called part of their birth-right. A man may call an houſe his own, becauſe he poſſeſſeth it, and hath the benefit of it, though he made it not. So I call the laws the peoples: But yet the following cavil is worſe: For whereas I ſay, one of the priviledges of the people is, that the Peers, and Commons in Parliament, have power, with conſent of the King, to alter what ever, in any eſtate, is prejudicial to the whole; I had thought (ſay you) this had not been a priviledg of the people, but the Parliament Repreſenters, not the people Repreſentees, &c. And again parag. 6. How the Lords will take this, I know not; Can they endure their power to be derivative? &c. Which all are but trifling and odious miſtakes: For he might well know, that by People, I mean all, in diſtinction from the King, of what ſtate ſoever, Peers, or others: Nay, doth not he himſelf take it ſo? witneſs his own expreſſion, pag. 49. lin. 1.2. 'Ʋnder this word People, are comprehended the Nobility, Clergy, and Commons of this Kingdom. How trifling then are his exceptions, as though I ſet the people againſt the Parliament? When under People, I comprehend, as himſelf doth, all the Members of the Parliament.
And yet more abſurd is your trifling, parag. 7. in arguing againſt thoſe words, That the Peers and Commons, have power to alter whatſoever is inconvenient, becauſe it is in the Kings conſent to confirm, or cauſe a law. Sith I add in the ſame place, as you confeſs in parag. 8. with the conſent of the King, and ſo aſcribe not power of alteration without him, but with him: ſure (as they ſay) the …agle is hungrie, when ſhe catches at ſuch Flies.
As impertinent are your queſtions and anſwers, parag, 8.9. But parag. 10. You proceed to number up the inconveniences that will ariſe to the people, by ſtripping the Clergy of their immunities. But you muſt tye your ſelf to the immunities in queſtion, elſe you ſay juſt nothing to the purpoſe. 'First, the curſe for ſacriledg; but I have freed the alteration intended from guilt of ſacriledg, and therefore that is the curſe cauſeleſs, that ſhall not come: If no more be done, then by my caſe, I prove lawful. If any do proceed further, and commit ſacriledg: Whether many, or few, young or old, wittingly, or ignorantlie, I excuſe them not, but joyn in your cenſure, parag. 10.11.12.
But parag. 13. When the Church is ſtript of her means, 'what kinde of Clergy ſhall we have? Jeroboams Prieſts, the loweſt of the people (ſay you.) And have we not had many ſuch, under the Biſhops, in their, and other Lay-impropriations? Nay, was it not a deſign to fill all the Pariſhes in the Epiſcopal Cities, with the Singing-men of the Cathedral? Which was in a great part effected: and were not they of the loweſt, and many times of the worſt condition of the people? This is like to continue, and increaſe, if the Church be farther ſpoiled. But if the Biſhops, and Deans and Chapters lands be imploied to maintain Parochial Paſtors; this will help to fill the Church with able and learned Preachers, and encourage men to dedicate their Children to the Miniſtery, and them to imbrace it: becauſe if they be learned and unblameable, there will be more opportunitie of competent, though not of ſo great promotion, which was competible but to a few.
So the ſecond inconvenience, preſſed, parag. 13.14.15. is avoided alſo. parag. 16. All the inconvenience (you ſay) that Maſter Geree preſſeth, is, that we are not ſubject to the Parliament. But how far forth we are, and are not, we ſhall hear anon.
Parag. 17.18. You tell me, I ſpeak much of a firſt and 'ſecond oath. I anſwer, if that be an error, I was led into it by my firſt Opponent, that diſtinguiſh'd between oath and oath; and the oath to maintain the priviledges of the Clergie, he ſaith expreſly, is taken after the oath to the whole Realm: neither do I ſee any thing in your Analyſis of the oath here, or the delineation of the oath, in the beginning of your Book, that invalidates the expreſſion of my Opponent in realitie, though in ſome formalitie it doth. For there I ſee, that the King had particularly, and diſtinctly, engaged himſelf to the whole Realm, before he came to the Biſhops, which are the onelyonly part of the Clergie, about whom our controverſie is; and what he laſt promiſes to them, confirmed by his oath, muſt not contradict what he hath promiſed to the other: which promiſe muſt be underſtood to have a prioritie in order, in the bond of the oath, as well as in the bond of the promiſe.
Parag. 19. You ſpeak of ſending us to Magna Charta, to know who the People and Commons of this Kingdom are, &c. whith only fills up ſo much paper, being nothing to the queſtion in hand.
But Parag. 20. You reckon up the Priviledges of the Church, as you have gleaned them out of Magna Charta, and Sir Edward Cook, in number 8. The ſecond is, that no Eccleſiaſticall perſon be amerced according to the value of his Eccleſiaſticall benefice, but according to his lay-tenement, and according to the quality of his offence. The latter clauſe is reaſon, the former a priviledg without reaſon, and prejudiciall to the Civill ſtate, and gives many Eccleſiaſtical perſons leave to ſin impunè. The fourth, That all Eccleſiaſticall perſons ſhall enjoy all their lawfull juriſdictions, and other rights, wholly without any diminution, or ſubſtraction whatſoever. I pray you, if the Kings Coronation-oath engage ſo to the confirmation of this priviledg, that the king cannot conſent to allow it by Act of Parliament; how can that act be juſtified, that enables the Crown of England to appoint what perſons elſe they will, to execute all Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction in this kingdom? If that ſtatute were lawfully made, notwithſtanding this oath, why then may not another ſtatute be made againſt their ſtanding, ſith by the former they may be made unuſefull? and yet the former, you brag, you "have engaged your ſelves to maintain, in your oath of ſupremacie, Parag. 9.
The fifth priviledg you name, is, that a Biſhop is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of juſtice, in cauſes Eccleſiaſticall. Whence I gather, that by our law, a Biſhop is a kings creature, no Apoſtle; for he was the immediate Officer of Chriſt; though ſubject, in doing or ſuffering, to the Civill Magiſtrate, though heathen.
You conclude, that it is provided by act of Parliament, that if any judgment be given, contrary to any points in the great Charter, it ſhall be holden for nought, &c.
True, unleſs it be upon ſome particular ſtatute of a latter Parliament, with the king, enacting things to the contrarie.
Parag. 21. You ſay, that I go forward, as if it were certain, that this to the Clergie, was a ſeverall oath from that to the people.
I anſwer, I diſputed upon my opponents propoſals; and learned opponents do not uſe to make their cauſe worſe then it is, nor indeed doth he; for though the king ſwear but once, yet he ptomiſeth the things he ſweareth, ſeverally, and the promiſe of this to the Biſhops, in queſtion, is laſt; and therefore, in competition, muſt give way to other engagements: neither do the ſtatutes, for confirmation of Magna Charta, binde the hands of ſucceeding Parliaments. Whoſe hands, as the leaaned Chancellor Bacon obſerves, cannot be bound by their Predeceſſors, if they ſee reaſon of alteration; a ſupream and abſolute power (ſaith he) cannot conclude it ſelf. Hiſt. of H. 7. p. 145.
CHAP. X. PARAG. 3. Shewing, that the Clergie are equally under the Parliament, as well as Laytie, in anſwer to Doctor Boughen's 9. Chapter.
I Now come to anſwer your ninth Chapter, which is an angrie one; which makes me think that you were ſorely puzled: My Dilemma is, They are ſubject to the Parliament, or they are not. He anſwers, ſubject they are to the Parliament, conſiſting of head and members; not to the members alone, without the head; for we are ſubject to the members, only for the heads ſake. Truly, this grant is all that I deſire, or need; for the Parliament, I propoſe the Dilemma about, is that which conſiſts of head and members united; to which if they be ſubject, then may theſe joyntly determine of any of their priviledges, in their own nature alterable, as they do of thoſe of the people. Indeed, the King and Parliament ought not to take away any priviledges that are for edification, but ſuch as prove impediments rather; but, of that they are to be Judges, in the application of their power, and that's all needfull to be ſaid to parag. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
And yet I leave it with confidence to the judicious Reader, as alſo, what I have ſaid in the former Paragraph, touching a former and latter oath.
But whereas you ask, Parag. 6. with what face I can ſay, that the Kings oath to the Clergie is inconſiſtent with his oath to the people, parag. 6. I wonder with what face you can aver it, when as I directly ſay, it muſt not, and therefore take off an interpretation of it, that would make it inconſiſtent: whereas you ſay, the nation is weary of the Presbyterian government in three years; its but a piece of none-ſence, ſith this three years, (except a little liveleſs ſhew in the City of London, and ſome few places more) the truth is, and our miſerie is, that we have been under no Eccleſiaſticall government at all.
Parag. 7. You mention my words, if the oath had ſuch a ſence when the Clergie were a diſtinct Corporation, on which you ſpend your judgment, if you know what ſence is. Truly Sir, you are the worſt at picking out ſence, that ever I knew, of a D. D. My meaning is plain, if the oath had a ſence to exempt them from power of Parliament, it muſt be when they were a diſtinct Corporation, under another Supremacie, which now you diſclaim.
Parag. 8. You miſtake, "in ſaying I am zealous in diſtinguiſhing you and your Priviledges.
I anſwer to the diſtinction brought by my opponent, that it is not ſuch, but that the Priviledges of Clergie and People (I mean ſuch as are alterable) are equally under Parliamentarie power, for alteration on juſt grounds. And the kings oath to you is as obligatorie, as to the people, in the right ſence, and intention of it, which the review of the Covenant ſaith, is all the obligation of an oath.
Parag. 9. You ſpeak about the change of the condition of the "Clergie, as though the intent were to make it ſlavery. Sure Sir, its far from my intent: The Engliſh Laytie are not ſlaves. He that ſaith, the Priviledges of the Engliſh Clergie, that they hold by law, are inviolable to them, while the law remains; but that the laws concerning them, are alterable; makes them not ſlaves, but equall in freedom to any Engliſh Lay-ſubject.
But Parag. 10. You would pretend to a little ſubtiltie; for you ſay, the change of the Clergies condition, from Popery to Proteſtancy, was for the better or for the worſe.
I anſwer, undoubtedly, for better, morally; for now we are in Chriſts way. Let every ſoul be ſubject, &c. Rom. 13.1. Then we were in Anti-Chriſts way but yet in a civill reſpect, we have not ſuch exemptions or liberties as we had: we are more under uncivil power, but this is for the better; for that libertie that is without Gods leave, is not indeed a priviledg, but a ſnare to the partie holding it. I confeſs with you, that the intent of the Kings oath, was to protect his ſubjects in their ſeverall places, dignities, and degrees, and not to ſuffer them to oppreſs one another; but not to deny any Bill, that upon adviſement, ſhall be preſented, and manifeſted to conduce to the weal publique.
You proceed, Parag. 11. The intention of the oath, is to maintain the ancient, legall, and the juſt rights of the Clergie.
I have anſwered, it is to maintain them againſt illegall oppreſſion, but not againſt legall alteration, that you ſhould prove, but do not. The continual practice of the nation is with me, wherein by divers ſtatutes, many Canonical Priviledges have been altered, as 25. H. 8. all Canonicall Priviledges, contrariant to the Kings Prerogative, and civil laws, and 1 of Elizabeth, in giving power to the Crown to exerciſe all Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction, by whom ſhe will appoint; and this is all that I affirm, that Priviledges are alterable by an orderly way in Parliament, and therefore you may take the Ghoſtly Fathers place to the man of ſin, which you would bequeath to me; you are fitter to ſerve the Pope then I; you hold, no Biſhop, no Church: but ſuch paſſions I look at, but as winchings when an argument pincheth.
For Parag. 12. I conſent to Sir Edward Cook, in his opinion, of the Kings engagement, to maintain the rights and inheritance of the Church; nor is he againſt my limitation, for its known what his opinion was, of the power of Parliaments; That they might alter what ever they ſaw inconvenient to publikeweal.
In your parag. 12. You wilfully ſlander me, that I would "perſwade the Laytie, that the Clergies weal is their woe. I only affirm, that if all ſuch Priviledges of the Clergie, that are in their nature alterable, be made unalterable by the kings oath; (that let the kingdom ſink or ſwim, the King cannot conſent by Act of Parliament, to alter them,) then are they inconſiſtent with the people; and this I ſay again. And I am carried thereto, by evidence of truth, and not any caninus appetitus after wealth and honour. Thoſe that know me, will but laugh at your raſhneſs, in theſe miſtaken calumnies.
The former part of your 14. Parag. is paſſionate nonſenſe, the latter part is a contradiction; for you ſay, if this oath be not againſt legall alteration, in the true and literal ſenſe, &c. The King may not, without violation of his oath, paſs a Bill for the abolition of Epiſcopacie. What (I pray you) is legall alteration, of any thing here in England, but alteration by conſent of the King and Parliament? How can this oath then, if it be not againſt a legall alteration, be againſt an alteration by Bill in Parliament? which is the only legall alteration of Priviledges, founded on law in England; you are the ſtrangeſt opponent that ever I met with, you make nothing of giving the cauſe, and railing at me for carrying it.
To as little purpoſe is all you conclude with, parag. 15. Whereas I ſay, he may paſs a Bill; you wonder, I ſay not, he muſt paſs a Bill; you add, I ſay that which is equivalent. He cannot now deny conſent without ſin; but yet Sir, this muſt ariſe, not from any authoritie of the Houſes, but from the condition of the King, to preſerve, or reſtore peace to his kingdoms: For the kings negative voice, I alwaies aſſerted it, as well as you, both in word and writing; but I affirm, he hath power of an affirmative voice, to confirm any thing that is for good of his people, which he hath not, nor ought not to ſwear away.
It may be, you will ſay, true, if abolition of Epiſcopacie were for the good of the nation.
I anſwer, that's to paſs to another queſtion, and to grant this in hand; but beſides, the King and Parliament are to judg of the goodneſs of it, for the nation; and if they erre, they are anſwerable to God alone.
Caſe of Conſcience reſolved.
SEcondly, I anſwer, from the expreſſions of the oath it ſelf, as they are ſet down by the ſame Author, pag. 74. To protect the Biſhops and their Priviledges, to his power, as every good king in his kingdom, ought to protect and defend the Biſhops, and Churches, under their government.
Here you ſee, the engagement of the king, is but to his power, as every good King ought in right to protect, &c.
Now ſuch power is no further then he can do it, without ſinning againſt God, and being injurious to the reſt of his people. When then he hath interpoſed his authoritie for them, and put forth all the power he hath to preſerve them; if after all this, he muſt let them fall, or ſupport them with the bloud of his good ſubjects, and thoſe unwilling too, to engage their lives for the others priviledges; I think none need queſtion, but that he hath gone to the extent of his power, and as far as good Kings are bound in right; for it is not equall, to engage the lives of ſome, to uphold the honours of others. That were to be cruel to many thouſands, to be indulgent to a few. Suppoſe a king put a Commander into a City, and give him an oath, to maintain the Priviledges of it, and keep it for him to his power; and this Commander keeps this town till he hath no more ſtrength to hold it, unleſs he force the Towneſ-men to arms, againſt that priviledg which he hath ſworn to maintain. If this Governor now ſurrender this town upon compoſition, doth he violate his oath? I think, none will affirm it: Such is the caſe with the king in this particular: when he hath gone as far in their protection, as is conſiſtent with the weal of other his liege people, which he is ſworn to tender; he hath protected them to his power, and his obligation is no further by the words of the oath.
The only objection, as I conceive, which lyeth againſt this, is, that though it be not in the Kings power to uphold them, yet it is in his power, not to conſent to their fall.
Anſw. If the king ſhould be peremptorie in denyal, what help would this be to them? Such peremptorineſs in this circumſtance, might indanger his Crown, not ſave their Miters. Beſides, though it be in his power to deny aſſent to their abolition, in a natural ſence, becauſe voluntas non poteſt cogi; yet is it not in his power in a morall ſence, becauſe he cannot now deny conſent, without ſin; for if he conſent not, there will evidently continue 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.