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. Fiennes, Nathaniel, 1607 or 8-1669. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A41285 of text R8459 in the English Short Title Catalog (Wing F878). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 33 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 12 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2017 A41285 Wing F878 ESTC R8459 12993332 ocm 12993332 96360 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A41285) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 96360) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 259:E196, no 35) 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. Fiennes, Nathaniel, 1607 or 8-1669. [2], 20 p. s.n.], [London? : 1641. Reproduction of original in Thomason Collection, British Library. eng Church and state -- England. Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1625-1649. A41285 R8459 (Wing F878). civilwar no A second speech of the honourable Nathanael Fiennes, (second son to the right honourable the Lord Say) in the Commons House of Parliament. T Fiennes, Nathaniel 1641 5959 7 0 0 0 0 0 12 C The rate of 12 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the C category of texts with between 10 and 35 defects per 10,000 words. 2006-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-11 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-01 Celeste Ng Sampled and proofread 2007-01 Celeste Ng Text and markup reviewed and edited 2007-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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. A 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 , yet 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 onely 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 onely 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 prerogative , 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 onely 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. ( 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 , onely 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 such 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 what 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 amongst 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 , onely 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 upon 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 onely 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 , onely 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 they 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 and 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 thereof , they lay it downe for a certaine ground , which the holy Synod knew full well , that other Sects ( which they extend not onely to Brownists , and Separatists , but also to all persons , that for the space of a moneth , 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 be 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 . It 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 alteration . 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 onely , or onely 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 contrary 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 onely 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 it 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 onely the Clergy , but all that take degrees in the Vniversities 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 of 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 administred 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 onely adde a word or two concerning two Canons more , which seeme to be Canons of Reformation . The first is , concerning excommunication , to bee pronounced onely 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 , onely the grave Divine is to bee his Servant , to execute his Sentences , and hath such a kind of managing the spirituall sword allowed onely 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 them 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 onely 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 onely , of the breach of that Law without any presentment , or any other just ground , that no citations , grounded onely as aforesaid , 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 onely 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 manner what doe they call obstinate inconformity ? If 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 onely 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 .