Question 1.

WHether the King (considering his Oath at Coronation to protect the Clergy and their Priviledges) can salvâ conscientiâ consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy?

Affirmation.

When I consider, first, That there is no hope of the Kings or Kingdomes safety, without an union between our King and Parliament. Secondly, that such an union is tantum non impossible, unlesse the King condescend in the point of Episcopacy. Thirdly, for the King to condescend renitente conseientiâ, though it might gratifie us, it would be sin­full to him, and so he should forfeit inward to procure outward peace, and be represented to times in the glasse of Conscience, to adventure the Heavenly to retaine an earthly Crowne. Fourthly, the Oath taken at the Kings Coronation hath been prest by some learned pens with that probablity, that may stumble a right intelligent Reader, neither have they that I know, received any sa­tisfactory Answer in print. I conceive it may be a work worthy some paines to resolve this case, and cleere your objections, that while they stand unanswered, cast an ill reflexion both upon the King in condescending to abrogate Episcopacie, and the Parliament in pressing him to it. Now the bond of the Kings Oath may be taken off two wayes. Either by cleering the unlawfulnesse of it that it was vinculum iniquitatis, and so voide the first day, for qui jurat in iniquum obligatur in contrarium. And if Prelacy in the Church be an usurpation contrary to Christs institution, then to maintaine it is to sinne, and all bonds to sinne are frustrate. And truly, as Prelacy stood with us in England, ingrossing all ruledome in the Church into the hands of a few Lord Bishops, I thinke it may be cleered to be an usurpation by this one Argument. That Power that despoyles any of Christs Officers of any Priviledge, or duty indulged or injoyned them by the word of God; that power is an usurpation against the word. But this Prelacy did, as it stood in England. Ergo, English Prelacy was [Page 2]an usurpation against the word of God. The Major is cleere of it self. The Minor is thus proved. Presbyters are by Christs warrant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their owne Congregations, as well as preach; see 1 Tim. 3.5. and 5.21. Heb. 13.17. 1 Thess. 5.12.

Now as Prelacy stood in England, the Presbyters were not onely excluded from all society in Rule, but which was much more pre­judiciall to the dignity, and liberty of the Ministery, were subje­cted to a lay Chancelour; and was not here usurpation against Gods direction?

But though this way of invalidating the Kings Oath be most sa­tisfactory to some, yet to those that are not convinc't of the unlaw­fulnesse of Episcopacy it will not hold, and so it would cast the resolution of this doubt about the Oath, upon another Question touching the lawfulnesse of Episcopacy, which is a larger field. I shall therefore indeavour to shew that though for Argument sake it be granted that Episcopacy be lawfull, yet notwithstanding that his Oath, the King without impeachment may in this circumstance consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy.

The usuall way of cleering this assertion is thus. The King is sworne to maintaine the Lawes of the Land in force at his Corona­tion. Yet no man questions, and the constant practise shewes; that it is not unlawfull after to abrogate any upon the motion or with the consent of his Parliament. The meaning of the Oath being knowne to be to maintaine the Lawes while they are Lawes, but when they are abrogated by just power in a regular way, they are then wiped out of his charge and Oath. So the King by his Oath is bound to maintaine the rights of the Clergy while they continue such. But if any of their rights be abrogated by just power, he stands no longer ingaged to that particular: And this I conceive to be a sound resolution. For the Kings Oath is against acting or suffering a tyrannous invasion on Lawes and rights, not against a Parliamen­tary alteration of either.

A namelesse Author in a Book implea­ding all war against the King.But here steps in my first opponent, and though he dispute mo­destly, onely proposing what he holds forth to serious considerati­on, yet he objects subtlely and his discourse runs thus. The Oath for maintenance of Lawes is made populo Anglicano to the people of Eng­land, and so may be taken off by a future Act, because it is by their owne [Page 3]consent represented in Parliament. But the Oath to maintaine the privi­ledges of the Clergy, is made to such a part of his people clero Anglicano, and particularly taken by him after his Oath to the whole Realme, which were needlesse unlesse it meant some other obligation. This seems (saith the learned Author) to make it a distinct obligation, and not releasable without the Clergies consent.

I answer. Taking it for granted that the Oath is thus taken by the King. That Oath was so framed, when Clerus Anglicanus the Clergy of England, was a distinct society or Corporation (as I may so say) à populo Anglicano, from the people of England. This distinction between the Clergy and Laity we may observe in our Historians. Daniel in the life of William the first, gives this for a rea­son why the Clergy did so willingly condescend to him, because they had their Province apart, whence they supposed a security to their Priviledges, however the Laity were inslaved.Dan. in the life of William the first, pag. 36. The same di­stinction of the Clergie and Laity is observed by him in the life of Henry the second, pag. 83. And this was not onely in England, but in other Nations, as it is observed by Marsilius Patavinus a Lear­ned writer in Popish times. Secularium petentes fastigia in legum lati­ones seorsum ab iis quae Civium universitatis proruperunt: omnem Cle­i [...] abbine decernentes exemptum: Civile sebismas, & principatuum supremorum pluralitatem inducentes ex lipsis, quam velut impossibilem humane quieti certam [...]jus inducentes experientiam demonstravimus 17^o. 1 [...]. Marsilius Patavinus defensi pacis, part. 2. cap. 23.Hence are they stiled by Tindall in his practise of Popish Pre­lates, corpus neutrum. Now be­ing the Clergy and Laity were distinct bodies; the Clergie holding their rights by Priviledge distinct from the Lawes of the Land; an Oath to maintaine the Lawes of the Land secured not them: But as another body they had another Oath for their security. But now this distinction of the Clergie from the Laity, that they should be a distinct Province of themselves, being a branch of Popery, is with it quite extinguisht: And Laity and Clergie are now one bo­dy Politick, and under the same power and Rule. For all privi­ledges of the Clergie that are contrariant to the Lawes of the Land, were abolisht in the reigne of Henry the eight. As undoubtedly that was, that any society should be exempt from secular power, for that was to set up two Supremacies. And therefore though the Oath be continued in that order that it was when the Laity and Clergie were distinct bodies; yet now that this distinction is abrogated, [Page 4]and they are made one, the oath to the Clergie cannot be stronger or more inviolable, then that to the Layetie for the preservation of the Lawes of the Land. Both subject to regular alteration.

Who knowes not that one of the priviledges of the Clergie was, for the Bishops to sit and vote in the house of Peeres, yet that is abolisht as incongruous to their calling. And then why may not the removall of their Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be consented to, as well, if it prove inconvenient and prejudiciall to the Church? The abolition of the one is no more against the oath, then of the other.

Againe, when this oath was framed, the Church was indued with the ignorance of the times, with divers unlawfull immunities, in all which respects the oath was invalid, being vinculum iniqui­tatis, and some were pared off as light shined forth. And why may not the great Revenues of the Bishops with their sole jurisdiction in so large a circuit, be indicted and convict to be against the edifi­cation of the Church; and it be found more for the glory of God, that both the Revenue be divided to maintaine a preaching Mini­stery, and their jurisdiction also, for the better oversight and cen­sure of manners. And then is there as good a plea, notwithstan­ding the oath, to alter this uselesse Anti-Evangelicall pompe and domination of a few, as to antiquate other immunities arising from the errour of the times, not the tenure of Scripture. Were indeed the priviledges in question, such as were for the advantage of the Church, to further her edification; or had the Prelates been good Stewards and innocent in the use of them; then had the plea car­ried a fairer shew: But there having been so many forfeitures by abuse, and those great promotions and jurisdictions, being as un­wieldy to a Spirituall souldier, as Sauls Armour to David; and so doe not further, but hinder the work of the Gospel, where strong holds are to be vanquisht not by carnall pompe, but spirituall fur­niture mighty through God, 2 Cor. 10.4. I see no just ingagement to maintaine such combersome greatnesse, adding onely glory to the person, not vigour to the maine work of a Minister of the Gospel.

Againe, thus I angue. If the King may consent to alter the Lawes of the Nation, notwithstanding his oath, then so he may also the Clergies immunities. For those rights and immunities, they either [Page 5]hold them by Law or otherwise. If by Law, then the Parliament which hath power to alter all Lawes, have power to alter such Lawes as give them their immunities, and those Lawes altered, the immunity ceaseth, and so the Kings ingagement in that particular. If their immunity be not by Law, it is either an usurpation with­out just title, which upon discovery is null. Or it was given by Pa­pall power in times of darknesse, which being an Antichristian usurpation is long since abolisht in this Kingdome.

The Author illustrateth the force of his argument by an example hold­ing forth an inconvenience. Where publique Faith is given for money, it is not releaseable by Parliament, without consent of the party: for if it be, it is in effect no engagement: so &c.

An. There's a great deale of difference between an ingagement made to persons, on valuable consideration, and that which is made gratis to an office or society subservient to publike good. Of the former kinde, is the ingagement to pay summes of money of whom they were borrowed for publike good, which is indispensable with­out the consent of the lender? Of the latter sort, is this ingagement to the English Clergy. Now ingagements to a Society to main­taine their rights, indulged for the personall worth of present in­cumbents, or to promote the usefulnesse of that office. If in their matters they prove prejudiciall to the office, or the succeeding offi­cers by their ill demeanour forfeit them, their ingagement be­comes alterable: There's no injustice done to make a Law to over­rule, or alter this ingagement. There's no question of power in the Parliament to over-rule it: for in the former case of money, if King and Parliament should ordaine release of the ingagement, the in­gagement were gone in Law though not in equity; The Order would be valid in Law though injurious: So if there be no injurie, the King and Parliament may cancell any obligation. And where there is forfeiture by miscarriage, or the priviledge indulged to a Ministery (which ought to hold nothing but for publike good) proves prejudiciall; the abrogation will be just as well as Legall, there will be no injury done.

But take it at the worst, it is but for the King to get the Clergies consent, and I hope in this case they will not be so tenacious of their wealth, and honour, as to let the Crowne runne an hazard rather then lay down their Mitres, and indanger the whole Land to be [Page 6]brought to nothing rather then themselves to moderation: I can­not but have a better conceit of the major part of them at this time, which will amount to a consent, and that in this Authors judgement takes off the scruple about the oath.

Besides this Argument, there be other insinuations brought in by the faine Author, that it would be dishonourable to the Kings memory, to be an unfortunate instrument to pull downe Cathedralls, and impoverish them, &c.

Ans. To abolish Prelacy, and seize the revenues of Prelates to private or civill Interest, undoubtedly could neither want staine nor guilt. Such kind of impropriation as happened in the dayes of Henry the eight was cried out of all the Christian world over. Il­lam bonorum Ecclesiasticorum dissipationem cum detestando sacrilegio con­junctam, tecum, & cum bonis omnibus deploramus, scelus universo erbi commune, saith Beza in resp. ad Sarac. de gradibus minist. pag. ult. But who knowes not the great defect amongst us, of congruous maintenance for parochiall Pastors, by whom the worke of the Ministery is chiefly to be performed? And if those large revenues of the Prelates were diverted to supply with sufficient maintenance all the defective Parishes in England, there would be no danger of Sacriledge: And this would not be to ruine, but to rectifie the devotion of former ages, and turne pompe into use, and impedi­ments into helps. A work, for which following generations should not need to pity the King, as put upon it by misfortune: but rise up and c [...]ll him blessed, whose many other disasters ended in so good, and usefull a work.

Had the motives of Heary the eight been as honest to cast off Pa­pall usurpation, as the Act was holy; and the improvement of Abby Lands, as conformable to Divine Law, as the dissolution of Abbies to the Rules of Divine wisdome; He might not onely have been honourable in our Annals: but if I may so speak, a Saint in our Calender. It was the defective circumstances of actions in them­selves glorious, which made them a dishonour to him, though ad­vantagious to the Church, which ill circumstances being avoided in the thing in question, God and good men will highly approve it, which is the onely reall, and regardable honour. Thus far my first opponent.

My second Antagonist exceeds the first, both in subtlety, and pe­remptorinesse; [Page 7]for he plainly affirmes,A Book cal­led The re­view of the covenant. pag. 72. 73. 74. that the King cannot de­sert Episcopacy without flat perjury; and hence falls foule, both on those that would force him to it, and also on those moderate Courtiers that for peace sake counseld it. He disputes thus There's difference between Lawes and Oathes; where the supreme jus Dominii is, there is a power above all Lawes, but not above their owne Oathes, in whom that power is; for Law bindes onely while it is a Law, that is, till it be repealed. But an Oath bindes as long as it pleaseth him to whom it is taken: The reason is, because the subject of supreme Power may cede­re jure suo, and oblige himselfe where before he was free: which if they doe by promise, Justice bindes them to performance; but if by an Oath (the matter being lawfull) then are they bound in Religion, and Conscience, for an Oath addes a religious bond unto God. If this were not so, no Oath were binding to them.

I answer. First, it's a ground laid downe by this Author in the same place; that no Oath is obligatory beyond the intention of it; and then I first propose it to consideration, whether the intention of this Oath be not only against a tyrannous invasion on the rights of the Clergy, not against an orderly alteration of them, if any prove inconvenient, and to protect them against violence, not a­gainst legall wayes of change. For, first, this is as much as it is ra­tionall for a King to undertake, and therefore in right reason the Oath should have no other sense, if the words of the Oath will beare it, as the words of this Oath will. Secondly, this Oath to the Clergy, must not be intended in a sense inconsistent with the Kings Oath to the people, first taken for their protection in their Lawes, and Liberties; for then the latter Oath would be a present breach of the former, and so unlawfull. Now one of the priviledges of the people is, that the Peeres and Commons in Parliament, have pow­er with the consent of the King, to alter whatever in any particular estate is inconvenient to the whole. And therefore he cannot after­wards ingage himselfe to any partionlar estate, to exempt it from this power; for by that Oath at least cessit jure suo, in this Authors judgement. The Clergy and their priviledges are subject to the Parliament, or they are not; I hope they will not now claime an exemption from secular power. But if they be under Parliamen­tary power, how can it rationally be conceived to be the meaning of the Kings Oath, to preserve the priviledges of the Clergy, against [Page 8]that power to which they are legally subject? or how were the Oath in that sense consistent with the priviledges of the Nation, formerly sworn to by the King? If the Oath had such a sense in the times of Popery, when the Clergy were a distinct corporation; yet when that exemption was abolisht, as a branch of Antichristian usurpation, the change of their condition must needs change the intention of the Oath, unlesse they will say, that the Crown stands still ingaged to them, to maintaine such priviledges, as by Act of Parliament were long since abolisht; which is to make his Oath to them contrariant to that taken before, for the maintenance of the against legall alteration of their priviledges by Parliament, makes it unlawfull, and so not obligatory. And if it be not intended against legall alteration, the King may passe a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacy, when his Houses of Parliament think it convenient, and petition for it without violation of his Oath.

Secondly, I answer from the expressions in the Oath it selfe, as they are set downe by the same Author, pag. 74. To protect the Bi­shops, and their priviledges to his power, as every good King in his King­dome in right ought to protect, and defend the Bishops, and Churches un­der their government. Here you see the engagement put upon 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 doe it without sin­ning against God, and being injurious to the rest of his people. When then he hath interposed his Authority 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 blood of his good Subjects, and those unwilling too to ingage their lives for the o­thers priviledges; I thinke none need question, but that he hath gone to the extent of his power, and as farre as good Kings are bound in right, for it is not equall to ingage the lives of some to uphold the honour of others; that were to be cruell to many thousands, to be indulgent to a few. Suppose a King put a Com­mander into a City, and give him an Oath to maintaine the privi­ledges of it, and keep it for him to his power; and this Comman­der keeps this Towne till he have no more strength to hold it, un­lesse he force the Townes-men to armes, against that priviledge which he hath sworne to maintaine; If this Governour now sur­render [Page 9]this Towne upon composition, doth he violate his Oath? I thinke none will affirme it; Such is the case with the King in this particular; when he hath gone as farre in their protection as is consistent with the weale of other his Liege people, which he is sworne to tender; he hath protected them to his power, and his obligation is no further by the words of the Oath.

The onely 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.

Ans. If the King should be peremptory in denyall, what help would this be to them? such peremptorinesse in this circumstance might indanger his Crowne, not save their Mitres. Besides, though it be in his power to deny assent to their abolition, in a naturall sense, because voluntas non potest cogi, yet it is not in his power in a Morall sense, because he cannot now deny consent without sinne; for if he consent not, there will evidently continue such distracti­on and confusion, as is most repugnant to the weale of his peo­ple, which he is bound by the Rule of government, and his Oath to provide for.

Thirdly, I answer, that this opponent in this dispute, argues upon this ground, that the Supremum jus Dominii, even that which is above all Lawes, is in the King; which under favour, I conceive in our State is a manifest errour. There's a Supremacy in the King, and a Supremacy in the Parliament; but the Suprema­cie, or the Supremum jus Dominii, that is over all Lawes, figere or refigere, to make or disanull them at pleasure, is neither in the King nor in the Houses apart, but in both conjoyn'd. The King is the Supreme Magistrate from whom all power of execution of Lawes is legally derived. The Parliament is the Supreme Court, by which all other Courts which derive their power for executi­on of Lawes from the King by his Commissions are to be regu­lated; and the King and the Parliament are the Supreme Power to make and disanull Lawes. Sith then this Supremum jus Domi­nii, that is over all Lawes, is not in the King, He cannot lawful­ly make any ingagement to any, against the Lawes, and Legall rights of others; for that were not cedere jure suo, but alieno. This Oath then to the Clergy, cannot ingage him against the legall Pri­viledges of the people, or Parliament; which he is bound to main­taine; [Page 10]one of which is to be ready by confirming needfull Pills, to relieve them against whatsoever grievance they suffer from any. And thus, I thinke the case is sufficiently cleered, that notwith­standing the Kings Oath to the Clergy at his Coronation, he may consent to the extirpation of Prelacy out of the Church of England.