A SECOND SPEECH OF THE honourable 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 copy, 1641.   

A SECOND SPEECH OF THE honourable 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 we are about to brand these Canons in respect of the matter contained in them, it is the proper time to open the foulness thereof: and though much of this hath been anticipated in the general debate, yet if any thing hath been omitted, or if any thing may be farther cleared in that kind, it is for the service of the House, that it should now be done.  
Sir, I conceive these Canons do contain sundry matters, which are not only contrary to the laws of this Land, but also destructive of the very principal and fundamental laws of this kingdom. I shall begin 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 be not proper to a Parliament▪ i 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 tenderness and circumspection, than these bold Divines have done. And surely as this was an act of such presumption as no age can parallel: so is it of such dangerous consequence as nothing can be more. For they do not only take upon them to determine matters of this nature, but also under great penalties, forbid all Parsons, Vicars, curates, Readers in divinity &c. To speak any other ways of them then as they had defined, by which means having seized upon all the Conduits, whereby knowledge is conveyed unto the people, how easy would it be for them in time, to undermine the King's prerogative, and to suppress 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 took upon them to determine a matter that belonged not to their Judicature, but only 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 laws of Nature, from whence it will follow that all other forms of government, as Aristocracies, and Democracies, are wicked forms of Government contrary to the Ordinance of God, and the Prime laws of nature, which is such new Divinity as I never read in any book, but in this new book 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. I know I am upon a great and high point, but i speak by as great and as high a warrant, if Saint Peter's chair cannot err (as Saint Peter's Epistles cannot) thus he teacheth us, Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King as supreme, or to the governor, 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 Lord's sake, and truly their power is as just, and their subjects allegiance as due unto them, though we suppose them to be first ordinances of men, and then confirmed, and established by God's Ordinance, as if we 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 pastor, in the Church, or founded in the prime laws of Nature, as the power of a Father in a Family; then it would certainly follow, that they should receive the fashion and manner of their government, only from the Prescript of God's Word, or of the laws 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 laws without Parliaments, they may make laws 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 do it out of Parliament: and that this was their meaning, they express it after in plain terms, for they say that Subsidies and taxes, and all manner of aids are due unto Kings by the Law of God, and of nature. (Sir) if they be due by the Law of God and of nature, they are due, though there be 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 aids taken, without consent in Parliament, is clearly that addition, that they subjoin unto it, that this doth not take away from the Subject the propriety he hath in his goods, for had they spoken of Subsidies and aids given by consent in Parliament, this would have been a very ridiculous addition, for who ever made any question, whether the giving Subsidies in Parliament did take away from the Subject the propriety he hath in his goods, when as it doth evidently imply they have a propriety in their goods? for they could not give unless they had something to give: but because that was alleged as a chief reason against ship-money, and other such illegal 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 seem 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 easy 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 Noah, but whether they have power to say what is Treason, and what not? But now (Sir) that I am upon this point, i would gladly know what kind of power that is, which is exercised by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, &c. Coactive certainly it is, all the kingdom feels the lash thereof, and it must needs be independent, if it be jure Divino, as they hold it, for they do not mean by an independent power, such a power as doth not depend on GOD. Besides if their power be dependent, of whom is it dependent? not of the King, for the Law acknowledgeth no way whereby ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be derived from his majesty, but by his commission under the great Seal, which as I am informed, they have not: I speak not of the High Commission, but of that jurisdiction which they exercise in their archiepiscopal, episcopal, archidiaconal Courts, &c. and therefore if their own sentence be just, we know what they are, and what they have pronounced against themselves. But (Sir) it were worth knowing what they aimed at in that independent, coactive power, which they term popular. I will not take upon me to unfold their meaning; but we know Doct. Beale had a hand in the making of these Canons, and if we apply his Paraphrase to the text, it may give us some clearness. i remember amongst other notes of his this was one, that we did acknowledge the King's Supremacy, but would join 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 joining of an assistant to the King, in whom solely he placeth the power of making laws, and that it is but of grace, that he assumeth either the Lords, or Commons for the making of laws 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 fabric and frame, of the policy and government, but of Grace, or by Commission, as Doctor Beale affirmeth. I have done with the first Canon, only i shall add this, that considering the Principles and positions that are laid down therein, and comparing them with a clause towards the end of the Canon, that in no case imaginable it is lawful for Subjects to defend themselves, we may judge how far forth these Canons were to prepare men's minds for the force that was to follow after; if the accusation against my Lord of Strafford be laid aright. For the matter itself, I hope there will never be any need to dispute that question, and i do believe they had as little need, to have published that position, had it not been upon design. As for the second Canon, therein also they have assumed to themselves a Parliamentary power, in taking upon them, to appoint holidays, whereas the Statute saith in express words, that such days shall be only kept as Holy days as are named in the Statute, and no other, and therefore though the thing may be bonum, yet it was not done been, because not ordained by Parliament, notwithstanding what hath been alleged to the contrary: it seemeth to me to be the appointing of an Holy day, to set a time a part for Divine Service, and to force men under penalties to leave their labours, and business, 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, enjoining two books 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 sum.  
As to the third Canon, I shall pass it over, only the observation that my neighbour of the long Robe made upon it, seems unto me so good as that it is worth the repeating, that whereas in the Canon against Sectaries there is an especial proviso, that it shall not derogate from any Statute, or Law made against them (as if their Canons had any power to disannul 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 drawn some colour of exemption, from the penal laws established against them from this Canon,, because it might seem 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 again by the Justices.  
For the fourth Canon against Socinianism, therein also these Canon-makers have assumed to themselves, a Parliamentary power, in determining an heresy not determined by Law, which is expressly reserved to the determination of a Parliament. It is true, they say it is a complication of many heresies, condemned in the four first Conncills, but they do not say what those Heresies are, and it is not possible that Socinianism should be formally condemned in those councils, for it is sprang up but of late; Therefore they have taken upon them, to determine and damn a heresy, and that so generally, as that it may be of very dangerous consequence, for condemning Socinianism for an heresy, and not declaring what is Socinianism, it is left in their breasts whom they will judge, and call a Socinian. I would not have any thing that I have said to be interpreted, as if i had spoken it in favour of Socianism, which (if it be such as i apprehend it to be) is indeed a most vile and damnable heresy, 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 down for a certain ground, which the holy Synod knew full well, that other Sects (which they extend not only to Brownists, and Separatists, but also to all persons, that for the space of a month, do absent themselves without a reasonable cause, from their own Parish Churches) do equally endeavour the Subversion of the Discipline, and Doctrine of the Church of England with the Papists, although the worst of them do not bear any proportion, in that respect to the Papists, i say besides that they make them equal in crime, and punishment to the Papists, notwithstanding the great disproportion of their tenants, there is an other passage in this Canon relative to that against Socinianism, which I shall especially offer to your consideration, and that is this. If a Gentleman coming from beyond Seas should happen to bring over with him a book, contrary to the Discipline of the Church of England, or should give such a book to his friend, nay if any man should abet, or maintain an opinion contrary thereunto, though it were but in Parliament, if he thought it fit to be altered, by this Canon he is excommunicate ipso facto, and lieth under the same consideration, and is liable 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 own Nature indifferent, if in things disputable, it shall be as heinous to abet or maintain an opinion, as in the most horrible and monstrous heresies, that can be 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 oaths, upon the King's Subjects. (Sir) under favour, of what hath been alleged to the contrary, to impose an Oath, if it be 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 than any other Law, and I should much rather choose that the convocation should have a power to make laws, to bind my person and my estate, then that they should have a power to make oaths to bind my conscience: a Law binds me no longer than till another Law be made to alter it, but my Oath binds me as long as I live. Again, a Law binds me either to obedience, or to undergo the penalty inflicted by the Law, but my Oath binds me absolutely to obedience. And lastly, a Law binds me no longer than I am in the Land, or at the farthest no longer than I am a Member of the State; wherein and whereby the Law is made, but my Oath once being taken, doth bind me in all places, and in all conditions so long as I live. Thus much i thought good to speak concerning the power of imposing new oaths: as to the matter of this new Oath, it is wholly illegal. It is against 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 laws of this kingdom; And that, no obscure laws, nor concerning any mean, or petty matters. It is against the Law of the King's supremacy, in that it maketh Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, &c. to be jure Divino, whereas the Law of this Land hath annexed to the imperial crown of this realm, not only all ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, but also all Superiority, over the ecclesiastical State, and it is to be derived from him by Commission under the great seal, and consequently it is Jure humano. again, it is against the Oath of Supremacy, established by Law point blank, for therein I am sworn not only to consent unto, but also to assist, and to the uttermost of my power, to defend all Jurisdictions, pre-eminence, &c. annexed to the imperial crown of this realm, of which this is one (and that which immediately precedeth this Oath in the Statute, and whereunto it doth especially relate) That his majesty may exercise any Jurisdictions, or ecclesiastical government by his Commission under the great seal directed to such persons, as he shall think meet, so that if he shall think other persons more meet, than Arch-bishoos, Bishops, &c. I am sworn in the Oath of supremacy not only 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 i shall swear never to consent unto such an alteration. In the like manner it is against the Law, and Light of Nature, that a man should swear to answer, (&c.) to he knows not what. It is against the Law and light of Nature, that a man should swear never to consent, to alter a thing, that in its own 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 swear aright, that he swear in Judgement, in Truth, and righteousness: he that shall take this new Oath, must needs break all these three Rules. He can not swear in judgement, because this Oath is so full of ambiguities, that he can not tell what he swears unto; not to speak of the unextricable ambiguity of the &c. There is scarce one word that is not ambiguous in the principal parts of the Oath, as First. What is meant by the Church of England, whether all the Christians in England, or whether the clergy only, or only the Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, &c. or whether the Convocation, or what? In like manner it is as doubtful what is meant by the Discipline, and what by the Doctrine of the Church of England, for what some call superstitious Jnnovations, if others affirm to be consonant to the Primitive, and that the purest Reformation in the time of Edward the 6. and in the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and so for the Doctrine of the Church of England, if all the Positions that of later years have been challenged by some of our Divines to be Arminian and Popish, and contrary to the Articles of our Religion, and which on the other side have been asserted and maintained as consonant to the Doctrine of our Church, and if the Articles of Religion were gathered together, they might make a pretty volume, nay Sancta Clara will maintain it in despite of the Puritans, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, is the Doctrine of the Church of England. truly it were very fit that we knew, what were the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England before we swear to it, and then (Sir) give me leave to say, that i should be very loath to swear to the Discipline, or to the Doctrine and tenants of the purest Church in the World, as they are collected by them, farther than they agree with the Holy Scriptures. Lastly, it is as doubtful what is meant, by the Doctrine and Discipline established, and what by altering and consenting to alter, whether that is accounted, 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 only 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 shown, but these are enough to make it clear, that he that shall take this Oath cannot swear in judgement. Nor can he swear in truth, for it is full of untruths. It is not true that Discpline is necessary to Salvation. It is not true, that Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, &c. are jure Divino, as they must needs be, if the lawmakers ought of right to establish them, as they are established: for the lawmakers are not bound as of right, to frame their laws to any other than the laws 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 years, but that Archbishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, &c. should be jure Divino, I do not know that ever any Christian held it before and yet he that taketh this Oath must swear it. Lastly as he that taketh this Oath cannot swear in judgement nor in truth, so neither can he swear in righteousness, for it is full of unrighteousness, being indeed, as hath been well opened, a Covenant in effect against the King and kingdom; for if the whole State should find it necessary, to alter the Government by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. a great part of the kingdom, especially of the Gentry (for not only the Clergy, but all that take degrees in the universities are bound to take it) will be preingaged not to consent to it, or admit of it. Again it is a great wrong to those that shall be Parliament-men, that their freedom shall be taken away being bound up by an Oath, not to consent to the altering of a thing, which it may be fit and proper for a Parliament to alter. And suppose that for the present it be no hindrance to the service of God, nor yet burdensome, to the King, and kingdom, yet if it should prove so hereafter▪ for a man to be 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 kingdom in their peace and welfare, and therefore this Oath cannot be taken in righteousness. For the other Oath de parendo juri Ecclesiae, & stando mandatis Ecclesiae, though it make less noise than the other, yet it is not of less dangerous consequence. If I remember well the Story, this was the Oath that the Pope made King John to take, and when he had sworn stare mandatis Ecclesiae, the Pope commanded him to resign his kingdom to him, and truly be he Gentleman or Nobleman, or what ever else when he hath once put his neck into this noose, his Ghostly Fathers may drag him whither they will, for they have the quantity and the quality of the penance in their own breast, and if they shall enjoin him to give any sum towards the building of a Church, or the adorning of a chapel, he must pay it, or if they should enjoin him any servile or base action (as there are not wanting examples of that kind in the time of Popery) they are sworn stare mandatis Ecclesiae, and so cannot recede, but must perform it. Nay I dare not warrant any man from the rods of Henry the second, or of Raymond of Tholouze; what hath been done may be done, i am sure the power is the same. And that other Oath also (though more usual in practice, and more confirmed by th●se new Canons) which is administered to churchwardens, would be looked into. For it is hardly possible for them that take it not to be for sworn, being they swear to so many particulars, that they cannot mind, and to some that they cannot understand, as how many churchwardens are there in England, that understand what Socinianism is, in case they be sworn, to present the offenders against that Canon, which concerns that matter. I shall only add a word or two concerning two Canons more, which seem to be Canons of Reformation. The first is, concerning excommunication, to be pronounced only by a Divine, wherein it is alleged for the framers of these Canons, that if they have not more Law on their sides, yet they may seem to have more reason. For my part, as in all other things, I think they have so mended the matter, that they have made it far worse, for before that which was found fault with was this, that a layman did that which the grave Divine should have done, and now the grave Divine must do what ever the layman would have done, for the cogniscance of the cause, and the power of judicature is wholly in the layman, only the grave Divine is to be his Servant, to execute his Sentences, and hath such a kind of managing the spiritual sword allowed only unto him, as the Papists in some cases were wont to afford unto the civil Magistrate, in respect of the temporal sword, for as if the civil sword by an implicit Faith had been pinned, to the Lawn-sleeves, they condemned men of heresy, and then delivered them over to the Secular power; but what to do? Not to have any cognisance of the cause, nor to exercise any power of judicature, but only to be their executioners, and to burn the heretic whom they had condemned, and so they judged men excommunicate, and then the civil power was to send out write 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 spiritual or civil governor is called upon to strike, he must be allowed to see and judge whom and wherefore he strikes, otherwise he will be able to give but an ill account to God, of the managing of the sword, wherewith he is instructed. The other Canon is the last Canon against vexatious citations, wherein they seem to have some sense of the great grievances that poor people lie under, by occasion of vexatious citations, and molestations in ecclesiastical Courts, and I verily believe that there is not a greater oppression in the whole kingdom 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 only, of the breach of that Law without any presentment, or any other just ground, that no citations, grounded only as aforesaid, shall issue out, except it be under the hand and seal of the chancellor, Commissary, archdeacon, or other competent Judge, so that (if there be any sense in these words) though there be no presentment at all, nor any other just ground, yet a citation may issue out, so it be under the hand and seal of the chancellor, Commissary, or other competent judge, and the party shall not be discharged without paying his fees, nor have any relief by this Canon. But suppose the citation be not under the hand and seal 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, unless first contrary to the law of nature, there being no presentment nor just ground of accusation against him, he shall by his oath purge himself of pretended breaches of Law, and then too he shall only have the fees of the Court remitted, but shall have no satisfaction for his troublesome and chargeable journey, and for the loss of his time, and being drawn away from his aff●ires. Nay lest they should seem to have been too liberal of their favour, they add a Proviso in the close of the Canon, that this grace of theirs shall not extend to any grievous crime, as schism, Incontinency, misbehaviour in the Church, or obstinate inconformity. And what do they call misbehaviour in the Church? If a man do not kneel at the Confession, or have his hat on, when the Lessons are reading. In like manner what do they call obstinate inconformity? If a man will not think what they would have him think, if a man will not say what they would have him say, if a man will not swear what they would have him swear, 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 do what ever they would have him do, than he is an inconformist, and after that they have duly admonished him, primò, secundò, tertiò, all in one breath, than he is contumacious, than he is an obstinate Jnconformist.  
Now (Sir) my humble motion is, that in consideration of all the premises, and what besides hath been well laid open by others; we should proceed to dam these Canons, not only as contrary to the laws of the Land, but also as containing sundry matters, destructive of the rights of Parliaments, and of the fundamental and other principal laws of this kingdom, and otherwise of very dangerous consequence.  
FINIS.