The Sifters Sieve Broken, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI. Shewing, that the King is not bound to protect the Biſhops honours with the lives of his good ſubjects, in anſwer to Doctor Boughen's 16. Chapter.
I Proceed to the anſwer of your 16. Chapter, entituled, how far forth the King ought to protect the Church and Biſhops. You begin, it is confeſſed to my hand, that the King is engaged, to his power, to protect the Biſhops and their Priviledges, as every good King ought in right, to protect the Biſhops and Churches under their government. It is confeſſed, that theſe are the expreſſions of the oath, as it is ſet down by the Reviewer; but you ſhould conceive, that I propoſe theſe two clauſes, as limitations of the kings engagement, that is, 1. To his power. 2. only ſo far forth, as in right he ought; and I do not ſay, the engagement is put upon him by the Author, as you ignorantly ſuggeſt, but that theſe are the expreſſions of the oath, delivered by the Author; but he is not, in right, bound to protect their priviledges againſt an orderly alteration by act of Parliament, if any appear inconvenient to the whole body, for that is not right.
Parag. 2. You confeſs, the King is not bound further to exerciſe his power in protection of Biſhops, then he can do it without ſinning. And I after prove, he cannot ſo protect them, as to denie a Bill in that circumſtance of affairs he and the land were in, without ſin; what you anſwer to my proof, will be ſeen in the ſequel of this Chapter. How I have anſwered your proofs, that he cannot let fall Biſhops without miſchief to his people, &c. in your eighth Chapter, let the Reader judge.
In that you ſay, parag. 3. That the Kings interpoſing the power he hath, vexeth my confederacy; Is I doubt your wilful ignorance; for the frame of my Book might clearly enough hint unto you, that I, neither was of, nor liked any confederacie againſt the King.
Neither have I, as you ſay, parag. 4. Confeſt that what the King hath done, is right. Right it is indeed upon his principles: But I do not think, the King is bound in right to maintain Biſhops, in statu quo, in the ſtate wherein they were; and he is willing now to regulate them by their Preſbyters. But whatever I confeſs in juſtification of the King, is not (as you ſay) the juſtification of an enemy; unleſs he that pleadeth, prayeth, ſuffereth for the King, and his juſt and Kingly libertie, be his enemy, becauſe he is againſt the uſurping power of Biſhops.
Parag. 5. If after all this, he muſt perforce let the Biſhops fal, you and your ſchiſm have much to anſwer for. Still a Slanderer; its none of my ſchiſm, to force the King to let them fall; for though I prove, he may let them fall; and that it is for the advantage of the Church, that they ſhould fall; yet I was alwaies againſt forcing him to it; for, I think, it is much more reaſon, that his conſcience ſhould be left free in its determination, then my own, or any private mans, in as much as God hath ſet him in ſo high a degree of eminencie in his Kingdoms.
But that you ſay, the ſword was never drawn on the Kings ſide, to maintain Religion eſtabliſhed: They never learn'd to fight for Religion; It is an ignorant ſpeech, misbecoming a D. D. For what juſter cauſe of War, or more weightie, then to maintain Religion eſtabliſh'd? Its true, we may not fight to ſet up a Religion (which is true) againſt the laws and authoritie of the land where we live; that were againſt the direction to Chriſtians, under Heathen Emperors, Rom. 13.1.2. But to joyn with authoritie to maintain Religion eſtabliſh'd, (ſuppoſing it true) with the laſt drop of our blood, is the moſt glorious quarrel; and ſo I doubt not, but the Royal partie learned, though not from you, yet from better Divines. For your clinch about good ſubjects; Its frivolous; for the War coſts blood on both ſides, and the King loſeth on both ſides, for all are his ſubjects, and I doubt not, but he hath good Subjects on both ſides, in regard of meaning, and intention, though its true, one ſide muſt needs be in a grand error.
Parag. 6. You confeſs, it is an hard caſe for one man to engage his life for the maintenance of anothers priviledges. But who did ſo? Not a man (ſay you) engag'd himſelf, but by the Kings command, which you after prove, and ſtate the queſtion us you pleaſe. But this is but to ſhuffle, and alters the ſtate of a queſtion, to elude the force of an Argument, which you cannot anſwer: That which I ſaid, was, it was not equal for the King to engage, by his command, the lives of ſome, to maintain the priviledges of others, which I ſpake upon this ſuppoſition; That if the King had condeſcended in point of Epiſcopacie, the War would have been at an end, Laws reſtored to exerciſe, &c. For both City, and the Scotiſh Nation, would have cloſed with him: and for this cauſe alone, viz. to maintain power of Biſhops, I ſay, it would not have been equal to have engaged the lives of others; nor were they willing, as I have been informed, Nobles, nor others. It may be, the King thought condeſcention in this, would not have ſet him and his people, in quiet poſſeſſion of their rights; but I cannot but wiſh, that it had been tryed, that nothing lawful had been omitted, by which there was any hope to have ſaved a great deal of miſery, that his Majeſtie, his Royal relations, and the whole Nation hath ſuffered.
But Par. 7. You deny them to be others priviledges, and affirm them to be the peoples, becauſe they reap ſpirituals from them. But truely I muſt tell you, that the people reaped but little in ſpirituals from many of the Biſhops, who ſeldom preached themſelves, and rob'd many people of their ſpirituals, by ſilencing their Miniſters; and though there were no Biſhops in England, the people may reap ſpiritual things from the Clergie, as plentifully, if not more, then ever they did; as well as without them, they do in other reformed Churches. But what you add, "That in the ſuffering of the Clergie, all Families ſuffer, you ſubſtitute Clergie for Biſhops. Other of the Clergie may be in better condition by the removall of Lording Biſhops; but in your proof that one of the Tribe of Judah, of the moſt remarkable Family, turn'd Prieſt: That is ſo groſs an overſight, that it is moſt unbeſeeming a D. D. for its expreſly ſaid, that young man was a Levite by birth. And the argument of Micah, plainly proves him ſo, or elſe he had been in no better caſe with him, then with one of his own ſons, whom he had conſecrated, if that would have made a Prieſt. See Judg. 17. v. 5.13. The Levite indeed turned Prieſt, which was his wickedneſs; for a Levite was not to do the Prieſts office. There is indeed an ambiguous expreſſion, touching this Levite, v. 7. A young man of Bethlehem Judah, of the family of Judah. But if you had conſulted Interpreters, you would have found them generally agreeing that he was a Levite, though differing in their opinions, how he was of the family of Judah. Some ſaying, by his Mother, ſome referring it to the City, to diſtinguiſh it from another Bethlehem in Zabulon, &c.
You add, parag. 8. What if Magna Charta do obliege all to ſtand up for the due obſervation of theſe priviledges? then we muſt acknowledg that we are bound to obey his Majeſty commanding, &c. Still you alter the queſtion; for the queſtion is, Whether it can be ſuppoſed equal, that the King ſhould ſtand bound to engage the lives of many, for the priviledges of a few Lord Biſhops. I hope, you think it not the meaning of Magna Charta, that every one ſhould engage their lives for every paltrie priviledg of another. But its well you can now confeſs, that Magna Charta is a great and juſtly magnified Charter. If you and your Prelates had been of this minde formerly, and not been ſo deep in breaking, and countenancing the breach of it in others, by illegal impriſonments, impoſitions, fines, both of Laytie and Clergie: England might have ſcap'd this cannenſem calamitatem, this mine-threatning calamitie, under which it is readie to expire; to which the breaches of Magna Charta gave the firſt occaſion, and the faireſt colour.
Parag. 2. You make an objection touching Abbots and Priors provided for by the ſame Charter, yet ſince taken away by act of Parliament, which you confeſs. But firſt, you you would have us obſerve, how they proſpered that did it. Secondly, that Maſter Beza and my ſelf call it ſacriledg. We do ſo, and that we judge the cauſe why they proſper'd not that did it, becauſe they did it with that ſinful circumſtance of devouring holy things, which ſhewed alſo their want of ſinceritie in it. Thirdly, you ſay, that they are for it ſtiled enemies of our Sovereign. But they did not hear it, they were born long after the Statute of 25. Edward 3. Fourthly, you cite the Counſel of Chalcedon, that no conſecrated Monaſtery may be turned to a ſecular dwelling. I anſwer, Counſels may erre, and ſo may that of Chalcedon; if the profit of the houſe had been imployed for pious uſes; I ſee no ground of complaint or cenſure. Fiftly, you ſay, you hope I will make a difference between our Saviours inſtitution, and mans invention. Truely I do, and have proved Dioceſan-Biſhops to be no inſtitution of Chriſt, but man, in the foregoing Diſcourſe. And laſtly, I joyn With the wiſhes of thoſe pious men, and move (as you know) not a devouring but a diverſion of Chathedrals maintenance; (Beſides what is requiſite to maintain needful preaching there,) to procure and encourage able Parochial Paſtors (who are the undoubted Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt) all the Land over.
Parag. 10. You do but beat the ſame buſh again, in citing again Magna Charta. I confeſs, the kings engagement to maintain the Priviledges of the Clergie, ſo far as he is bound by right; nor is any act of the king, or the Houſes without the king, valid againſt it; but king and Parliament joyning, they may over-rule ſome parts of it, and upon juſt ground warrantably, as appears in all experience, as in paring Epiſcopall Canonical priviledges, niminiſhing their juriſdiction by the high Commiſſion annext to, and ſet over Biſhops, &c.
Parag. 11. You enquire, Whether it be equall to engage the lives of ſome, to deſtroy the honours of others? This is impertinent to my Caſe, and though I count not your Biſhops, plantations of Gods right hand, yet ſith they had footing by law, it hath been my grief, that force hath been uſed to pluck them up, for me they ſhould have ſtayed for his day; who hath ſaid, every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted, ſhall be plucked up; but when I have made complaint of this, it hath been replyed to me by many, that this was not the cauſe of the engagement in war, though I believe the moſt conſiderable part of the people had an eye on this; but this is on the by.
Parag. 12, 13. You take into conſideration my Caſe, of a Captain, engaged by oath to maintain the Priviledges of Townes-men, and keep a town to his power, whether he may not, notwithſtanding his oath, make his compoſition, (if he cannot defend it without the Townes-men, and they will not fight) without violation of his oath? I think, none will affirm it. You do not only deny it, but take the Name of God in vain, to make a jeer at it, doth that become a Divine? But let's hear your reaſon; becauſe there's no town in England can have ſuch a priviledg, as not to bear arms againſt the Kings enemies. Suppoſe it be ſo, I am no Lawyer; yet you know its not unuſuall in caſes, to ſuppoſe things that are not, ſo they be not impoſſible, as this is not; for the king may grant ſuch an immunitie if he pleaſe, that none ſhall be compell'd to bear arms, and therefore it was but a ſhift; that error in the Caſe may be eaſily mended, and it will pinch the Doctor as hard as ever it did; for ſuppoſe that ſo many of the ſouldiers in the town are ſlain, or taken priſoners, that the Governour can defend it no longer, then I hope Mr. Doctor will yield that he may make his compoſition; ſo was it with the king, at the publiſhing my ſmall Treatiſe; and now, notwithſtanding my former fails (as he ſaith Parag. 14.) for want of skill in law; the difficulty is returned on the Doctor, get out how he can.
I make an Objection, that though the king cannot in ſuch a ſtate uphold them; yet it is in his power not to conſent to their fall; this, I ſay, is the only exception. The Doctor ſaith, "its a juſt one, though not the only one; yet he ſhews no other: but then he is angry for the phraſe, peremptorineſs, in denying aſſent to the fall of Biſhops, uſed to the King as uncivil. I am no Courtier, (I confeſs) and may fail in phraſe; yet peremptorineſs in a candid ſenſe, is no more then reſoluteneſs, ſo I mean it: but I will ſtrive hereafter, even in expreſſions, to cut off occaſion from them that ſeek occaſion. But you ſay, his not conſenting to the fall of Biſhops, may keep him from ſin. But you beg the queſtion; for I argue by my inſtance, in a Governour of a town, that there is no ſin in reſigning upon compoſition; and your proof, that it is a ſin to conſent to aboliſh Epiſcopacie, becauſe an ordinance of Chriſt, waves the bonds of the oath, and argues from the thing; the vanity of which I confuted, when I met with it, Chap. 4.
Parag. 16. You anſwer, though the King cannot ſave your Mitres, but endanger his own Crown, yet (ſay you) he ſhall avoid ſin and ſave his ſoul, for without conſent, no ſin. Neither in conſent is there ſin in this caſe, as I have proved; and then a king, I hope, may do all that may be done, without ſin, to ſave his Crown: but in the mean time, the land may ſee how tender you are of the king, that rather then you will conſent to his ſigning a Bill when it may ſave his Crown, he ſhall loſe it. It's a ſign you love the Crown for your Mitres ſake; and if there muſt be no Biſhops, then let there be no kings neither. Rightlike him in the Tragedie, foreign.
Parag. 17, 18. You examine, that I ſay in a naturall ſence, it is in the Kings power to conſent to the abrogation of Epiſcopacie, not in a morall ſence, becauſe he cannot now deny without ſin; the diſtinction you acknowledg, and ſay, it ſhould be the Kings care, that he incline not to ſin. I ſay ſo too, he muſt venture all, rather then ſin; and if I thought it were ſin, I ſhould chuſe death, rather then perſwade him to it; but you confidently conclude, the King breaks his oath, and ſins if he conſent. This I deny, the oath engageth not to diſſent in this caſe, as I have proved: yet were Epiſcopacie an inſtitution of Chriſt, I confeſs alſo, it were ſin to aboliſh it: but I have proved it a brat of humane power; and what man ſets up, you confeſs man may pull down.
But I prove, that the king cannot deny his aſſent to abrogation of Epiſcopacy now, without ſin, for elſe ſuch confuſion will follow, as is moſt repugnant to the weal of his people; this confuſion we have felt: but what ſaith the Doctor to this, Parag. 19. Thus ſhall ſin vary at your pleaſure, ſin it ſhall be now, that was none heretofore. Why Sir, is that ſtrange, that circumſtances ſhould change the morality of actions? I am aſhamed, that a D. D. of mine own mother Univerſitie ſhould diſcover ſuch ignorance in Divinitie. Was it not a thing unlawful in the Apoſtles time, after the Decree, Acts 15. to eat things ſtrangled, and bloud, where offence was taken; but cannot you without ſcruple, now eat a good blood-pudding, or a ſtrangled capon? truly, if you cannot, you would get more ſcorn, then followers, for ſuch a ſilly fancie.
But you proceed, Parag. 20. Where there is no law, there is no tranſgreſſion. Is there no law, for a King to tender the weal of his people? yes, ſure that that requires him to be honoured as a father; and therefore, if he withholding his aſſent, occaſion the keeping up confuſion, repugnant to the weal of his people, undoubtedly there's a law broken, unleſs there be ſome ſuperior law to check this. Oh, but Judge Jenkins ſaith, its againſt the oath of the King and Houſes, to alter the government for religion. But I pray you ask, the Judge whether it be againſt their oaths, to alter the religion, from Popery to Proteſtancie? and withall, whether is greater, the religion, or the external government of it? and if without perjury they alter the greater, why may they not the leſs? for the trouble, that the learned in law ſhall be put to on alteration: If you compare it with garments rolled in blood, let the Reader judg, whether you be a prudent eſteemer of matters.
But you retort, Parag. 21. If the King do conſent to abrogate Epiſcopacie, there will follow confuſion, repugnant to the weal of his people. Your reaſon is, that there are as many for Epiſcopacie (Common-Prayer is another buſineſs) as againſt it, though not ſo mutinous.
I anſwer, the danger of confuſion is not from the number or quality alone, but alſo from the power of oppoſers, which then was very great, and the adverſe party weak; therefore your retortion was feeble. I confeſs, the ſins occaſion'd by this confuſion endanger temporal and eternal weal of people; that's it that makes me ſo ſtudy the healing of it.
Parag. 22. You infer, that I mean to continue theſe diſtractions, unleſs Epiſcapacie be abrogated▪ But you are miſtaken in me; though I have no good conceit of Epiſcopacie, yet I had rather it had continued, though to my burthen and ſuffering, then have ſeen ſo much ſin and miſery by an unnatural war; but your expreſſions carry it, that your minde is ſo. Epiſcopacie may be held up: Scelera ipſa nefaſque hac mercede placent. You are as much miſtaken in objecting ambition, or avarice to me, as a cauſe of theſe evils: I have by Gods grace, followed the dictate of my conſcience, above theſe twenty years, againſt my civill intereſt: and I hope, I ſhall not now become ſuch a ſlave to luſt, to do ſuch a horrid thing, to ſerve it.
You cloſe this Chapter, Parag. 23, 24. with paraleling our preſent times with the conſpiracie of Corah; and when you can prove by Gods Law, ſuch a difference between Presbyters and Biſhops, as God made between Prieſt and Levites, it will give a pretty colour to the buſineſs; but as long as Gods Word tells us, that Presbyters are Biſhops and Paſtors, nor hath he left any diſtinct orders among Paſtors, you may pleaſe your ſelf, and credulous followers, with your conceit, but ſhall not convict thoſe of any guilt, that for peace-ſake, move, that man would aboliſh that difference of order which the wit of man made, and the corruption of man hath made hurtfull. God make the Scepter of the King flouriſh, but as for your Epiſcopall Mitres, they have been ſo ſtained by thoſe that wear them, that well may they get power, but I believe they will never get beauty and glory in our Iſrael again.
Caſe of Conſcience Reſolved.
THirdly, I anſwer, that this Opponent in this Diſpute, argues upon this ground, that the ſupream jus Dominij, even that which is above all laws, is in the King: which under favour, I conceive, in our State is a manifeſt Error. There's a ſupremacie in the King, and a ſupremacie in the Parliament. But the ſupremacie, or the ſupremum jus Dominij, which is over all laws figere, & refigere, to make or diſanul them at pleaſure, is neither in the King, nor in the Houſes apart, but in both conjoyn'd. The King is the ſupream Magiſtrate, from whom all power of execution of laws is legally derived. The Parliament is the ſupream Court, by which all other Courts, which derive their power for execution of laws from the King by his Commiſſioners, are to be regulated; and the King and the Parliament are the ſupream power to make and diſanul laws. Sith then this ſupremum jus Dominij, that is over all laws, is not in the King: He cannot lawfully make any engagement to any againſt the laws, and legal rites of others; for that were not cedere jure ſuo, ſed alieno. This oath then to the Clergie cannot engage him againſt the legal priviledges of the people, or the Parliament, which he is bound to maintain; one of which is, to be readie, by confirming needful Bills, to relieve them, from whatſoever grievance they ſuffer from any. And thus, I think, the Caſe is ſufficiently cleared, that notwithſtanding the Kings oath to the Clergie at his Coronation, he may conſent to the extirpation of Prelacie out of the Church of England.