or defective or any thing in the same newly happening where before there was no remedy ordained and have need of amending the same Major and Aldâ—rmen and their successors with the assent of the Commonalty of the same City may adde and ordaine a remedy meet faithfull and consonant to reason for the common profit of the Citizens of the same City as oft and at such time as to them shall be thought expedient which Charter was confiâ—med by act of Parliament 43 yeares after in the 7 of Rich. 2 Now if you can produce the like authority granted alone to the House of Commons by the Parliament that they of themselves without the consent of the King and the Lords have power to make lawes for the Kingdome as by this Charter the Lord Major Aldermen and their successors with the assent of the Commons of London haue for the City then you hit the buâ—ines aâ—ight indeed but otherwise I thinke your argument is not true And therefore for after times let me advise you that if you will imitate an argument in the words of it be sure you imitate it also in the proofes of it and let them be as full and cleare for the confirmation of what you affirme for it is not words though never so smooth that proves any thing in matters of fact as this is And truly should I have laid down that argument to prove the power of the Court of Common-councell as unto the making of City laws to bee above the Lord Major and Aldermen and not have proved it de facto by the acts of the Court of Common-councell I should have thought it at least to have been a scandalum Magnatum against the Lord Major and Aldermen and very blame-worthy in my selfe to have done it But perhaps you think the condition of the King and the Lords to bee such as that whatever you speak or publish concerning them tending to the annihilating of their legislative power and authority in Parliament can neither be an offence to them nor a fault in you or if it bee it seemes you regard it not but I hope you will not take it amisse if as I did in that so I desire you in this either to produce a proof dâ— facto to make good that the House of Commons hath by an Act of that House alone conferred a power upon the King and Lords as King and Lords they had not before which are the very wordâ— of your argument or else in plaine English to tell the Readerâ— that though you can transcribe the words of my argument which a childe of ten yeares old can doe as well as you yet now upon second thoughts you must needs confesse you come very short in a parallel proofe of it there neither now being nor never was any act of the House of Commons that doth prove that that House alone and by it selfe did ever make a law which did confer a power upon the King and Lords which as King and Lords they had not before and without this proofe I perswade my selfe no man will beleeve that as unto the making of a law the House of Commons is above the King and Lords though Mr. I. P. affirmes it to bee so And this I give not onely as a solution to this your argument but also to the other arguments which follow viz. concerning the power of the House of Commons alone without the King and Lords to repeale what lawes they think meet and to make laws and rules for all the Courts and people in England to bee steered and acted by and whereunto say you the King himselfe is bound by his Oath and therefore ought in duty to consâ—ut and likewise to that which you say will follow from my logick viz. that the Kingdome representative is inferiour in its power in reference to the government of the Kingdome then the City representative is in reference to the government of the City and to the other Queries which you ground upon them for they all alike hang upon this string and if in the opinion of the Reader to whose judgement I referre it this be â—ut asunder I am sure they must all then needs fall to the ground and therefore I shall not need to trouble my self any more with them And now Mr. I. P. I have endeavoured with all the candor and tendernesse I could to examine your Book and have not I hope let one word fall from mee that in the least measure doth reflect upon your person for it is the matter of your Book and not any of your personall infirmities for alasse the Lord knowâ— I have work more then enough to meddle with and to master my own or other your supposed errors in matters of Religion that I encounter with And if we cannot yet agree in this present difference and debate my earnest desire is and I trust â—y endeavour shall for â—ver be answerable thereunto that wee may manage the matter with that sweet moderation and temper of Spirit as becommeth Christians for of this I am confident that though through weaknesse or error in judgement perhaps mine not yours we cannot agree together to live in one Church fellowship or communion here upon earth yet we shall for ever mutually enjoy communion and fellowship with God the Father with Christ with the blessed Spirit three Persons in one Essence and with the holy Angels and the glorified Saints for ever in heaven And therefore I beseech you while we yet live here in this vale of teares let us remember and obey that counsell the Apostle gives us Philip 3. 15 16. Let us therefore as many as bee perfect bée thus minded and if in any thing you bee otherwise minded God shall reveale even this unto you neverthelesse whereunto we have already attained let us walke by the same rule let us mind the same thing I shall gladly imbrace and entertaine any truth of God which shall by you bee held forth unto mee with the warrant of his Word and as willingly leave and forsake whatever either in opinion or practice I now hold or doe that shall bee made apparent to be dissonant thereto for I solemnly professe unto you that I labour not for Masteries neither desire I to give the last blow I esteem it no shame to be conquered when Christ proves the Victor nor no losse to bee vanquished when the Truth prevailes for it's verity not victory that shall be my comfort A POSTSCRIPT I Have at this time no more to say either to your selfe or to your Book but in one word to let the Reader know that my desire and endevour to afford you all the faire quarter that possibly I could in this our Conflict about this Subject was such That I did upon Saturday the 8 of this instant August in the presence of Mr. Samuel Clarke Pastor of Bennet Fynck London and of Mr. Iames Story and Mr. Henry Overton two of yours and of my owne acquaintance shew you in Writing this my Justification of the City Remonstrance and its Vindication before ever I tendered it either to be Licensed or Printed and desired you to peruse it and if there was any thing in it either for matter of Fact or otherwise that you could justly except against I would expunge it and it should never see the light And when you would not accept of that offer I then read some passages in the Epistle to you which I told you that in my apprehension they were the things which most nearly concerned your Person this I did to manifest my unwillingnesse to let any thing passe from mee that might bee either prejudiciall to the Truth or justly distastefull to your Person and if it be possible to overcome evill with good FINIS In the absence of the Author these following Errata's escaped in the printing of the Vindication which I pray thus Correct Page 2. line 23. for you will charge read you will not charge p. 6. l. 30. for and Sectaries â— of Sectaries p. 7. l. 1. for till r. the p. 8. l. last for stated r. sacred p. 14. l 22 for finde in r. finde it in l. 24. for these their words r. these are their words p. 23 l. 27. for elected r erected p. 26. l. 26. for ones Poesie r Ovids Poesie
viz. The Replyer observing the Remonstran sâ—ascribing onely a share of the supreme Power to the House of Commons proposeth this Question to them Will not you allow so much power to the Kingdome representative in râ—ference to the Kingdome as to the representative City in reference to London And then you come to your fifth Querie in these following words viz. And so doe I Querie will not the Commons of London yeeld or ascribe unto the Commons of England as the Commons of London to themselves will ascribe Answ. I pray maâ—k the termes of your Querie for methinks it is a little defective you say the Commons of London not the Common-Councell but as you propose your Querie I answer affirmatively that the Commons of London will yeeld and ascribe unto the Commons of England as the Commons of London to themselves will ascribe but I say again observe your termes you say the Commons of London not the Common-Councell I shall presâ—ntly shew you the difference the Commons of London are not the City representative but the Common-councell which doth consist of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons is the City representative Then you goe on in these words viz. Therefore Mr. Bellamie to make your absurdities the better appeare in your parallel between the Kingdome representative and the City representative I come upon you thus First you grant that the Common-Councell is the City representative page 2 of your Vindication Answ. I grant it Secondly you grant that the House of Commons in Parliament assembled is the Kingdom representative in the same page Answ. I grant the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to be the Kingdome representative in that sense in which in page 2 of my Vindication I said it was viz. as it is made up of and chosen by the Kingdome collective viz. the Commons of the Kingdome whom in Parliament it onely represents and therefore onely can be the representative body of them and accordingly in all their addresses to the House of Lords they goe in their owne names and in the names of all the Commons of England and desiring the concurrence of the House of Lords in any Act they desire it in their owne names and in the names of all the Commons of England of whom they onely are a representation or whom they doe represent and in that sense I expressed it in page 4 where I called the Kingdome collective the body of the Commons of England not the body of the Kingdom of England And as this representative body viz. the House of Commons is one of the three Estates in Parliament so also in that page I called it the House of Commons in Parliament assembled but I called it not the Parliament so the Lords are called the House of Lords in Parliament assembled but no man cals thaâ— House the Parliament Likewise the Lords and Commons joyning together in any one Act as in the last Propositions sent to His Majesty it is said to be agreed by both Houses of Parliament as in Article 1 5 6 12 c. it appeareth but it is not said to be agreed by Parliament for it had been so agreed why then is the Kings assent to these Propositions prayed for by both Housâ—s of Parliament as in the Proem to the said Propositions in these words it doth appeare Viz. May it please your Majesty Wee the Lords and Commons assembled in the Parliament of England in the name and on the behalfe of the Kingdoms of England and Ireland and the Commissioners of the Parliament of Scotland in the name and on the behalfe of the Kingdome of Scotland Doe humbly present unto your Majesty the humble desires and Propositions for a safe and wel-grounded Peace agreed upon by the Parliaments of both Kingdomes respectively unto which we do pray your Majesties assent and that they and all such as shall bee tendred to your Majesty in pursuance of them or any of them may bee established and enacted for Statutes and Acts of Parliament by your Majesties Royall assent in the Parliaments of both Kingdoms respectively You might also have observed in the same page that when I come to speake of making Laws which is the worke of the Parliament and not of any particular Estate alone in Parliament I there say in expresse termes the Kingdome representative which is the Parliament And sure no man could possibly imagine that my expression should be taken in any other consideration for I did all along in the 14 15 1â— 17 18 pages of my Vindication also hold out this truth that there was three distinct Estates in Parliament viz. the King the Lords and the Commons and doe you thinke that it was probable or possible that I should meane that one of the theeâ— Estates in Parliament should be a representation of all the three Thirdly you say the City representative hath a power to make a Law for those whom it represents Answ. I grant this too Then you thus goe on viz. Fourthly I desire to know whether you allow the Kingdom representative the same power to make a Law for those whom it represents Answ. I crave your favour and patience before you goe any further to present you in this place with these two following considerations First that the House of Commons all the members thereof beâ—â—ing chosen by the collective body of the Kingdome viz. the Commons are in that respect and in that sense truly the representative body of the Kingdome viz. of the Commons of the Kingdome and so have in them in this consideration the full Legislative power of the Commons of England Secondly I pray also consider that though the House of Commons have in them the full Legislative power of the Commons of England yet the whole Legislative power of the Kingdome of England is not concentred in the Commons of England but is as hath before been fully proved in the three Estates of the King the Lords and the Commons of England conjunctim and therefore no one Estate alone and by its selfe can make a Law but to the making of every Law in the Kingdome of England there must be the concurrent consent of all these three Estates conjunctim And this as I humbly conceive makes a cleare way to give an answer to your Querie viz. Whether you allow the Kingdom representative viz. the House of Commons the same power to make a Law for those whom iâ— represents and the answer will bee this It hath in it the full legislative power of the Commons of England whom in Parliament it doth represent but it hath not in it the full legislative power of the kingdome of England it hath in it all the power of the Commons of England towards the making of a Law but it must have the concurrent consent of the other two Estates viz. of the King and of the Lords to the full consummating of a Law and making it obligatory to the Kingdome of England And besides that it is thus setled
receiving into their Honourable House by any pâ—bliâ—e act manifested to the world the least dislike thereof and yet must Lonâ—â—â—s Remonstrance by one of its own members be charged with raising a prejudice against the Parliaments innoceney I pray consider whether by this you doe not first charge the House of Lords for their being well satisfied with that which yet you say doth raise a prejudice against the Parliaments innocencie And secondly whether you doe not prejudge the judgement of the House of Commons and therein breake the Priviledge of Parliament in passing such a sentence and laying such a charge upon that which yet lyeth under their consideration I onely offer these two Quaeries to your after or second consideration But for a â— this you say that this shall bee fully evidenced before you have done Answ. I pray remember what it is that in this you promise and be sure that in the particulars of it you make your Charge good otherwise you must not bee offended nor take it ill if according to the common Proverbe you be judged to be one of them which will undertake more in an houre then you can performe in an age I appeal to the Reader whether as yet either the Moderate reply or this your Remonstrance Remonstrated hath in any one instance which either of you have given or in all that both of you have done done any thing which proves that the City Remonstrance hath raised a prejudice against the Parliaments innocency and tâ—â—ly you must needs beare with me in this that I cannot judge your bare word to be of that Authority as to beleeve it because you affirme it especially considering the honorable House of Commons hath not as yet passed any the least displeasing sentence against it and the honorable House of Lords hath declared that they are wel satisfied with the particulars contained in it And both Houseâ— of Parliament since their receiving of this Remonstrance have in the Propositions sent to his Majesty for a safe wâ—l grounded Peaceâ— even in terminis proposed more to his Majeâ—ty for his Râ—oyall assent as unto Reformation of Religion then the Remonstâ—antâ— have desired in their second third and fourth Petitidus so much condemned by you for the drift of all that they desire is 〈◊〉 an equall conformity of all the Subjects of England to the publike disâ—ipline and doctrine set forth or to bee set forth by Authority of Parliament as by reference to those three Petitions will clearely shew but both Houses of Parliament in their great wisdome faithfulnesse and care for the publike safety and peace of the Kingdome have in the fifth and sixth Articles of the Propositions in these words thus proposed viz. Arâ—ic 5. That Reformation of Religion accordinâ— to 〈…〉 by Act of Parliameâ—â— in such manner as both Hoâ—ses have agreed 〈…〉 agree upon after consultation had with the Assembly of 〈◊〉 And Article 6 it thus followeth For 〈◊〉 much as â—otâ— Kingdomeâ— are 〈◊〉 obligâ—d by the same Covmâ—nâ— to indeavoâ—â— the â—â—arest â—onjunction and unifâ—rmity in matters of Religion that such unity and 〈◊〉 in Religiâ—n according to the Covenant as after 〈…〉 Divines of bâ—tâ— Kingdomes now assembled 〈…〉 shall bee 〈◊〉 agreed â—pon 〈◊〉 Houses of Parliament of England and by the Châ—rch and Kingdome of Scotland be 〈◊〉 by Acts of Parliament of both Kingdomes respectively And therefore were I thought worthy to bee of your Councell I shoâ—ld advise you to bee so ingeâ—â—ous as in this to confesse your error and not to imagine that you see more in the City Remonstranâ—e then either one or both Houses of Parliament can yet discerne and for after times I wouâ—d perswade you to forbeare the thus unjust besmâ—aâ—ing and falsly accâ—sing that City whâ—reof you are a member 〈◊〉 amongst whom under God you enjoy your livelihood You gâ—e on and say 〈…〉 Reply 〈◊〉 with adversary â—pon adversary representiâ—â— the Auâ—hor of the said â—ooke a lyer because 〈◊〉 tells 〈…〉 a friend to the Parliament Ansâ— Truly these are fine 〈◊〉 if they were true to beget 〈…〉 Remonstrance and to ingratiate the opposerâ— in the eyes of the people But I pray what doe you 〈…〉 I must needs say you tread in the 〈…〉 Replyer 〈…〉 and it 's very 〈…〉 the book and the page if you 〈…〉 and tell us the truth you have told 〈…〉 you are called a Lyer and where you are 〈…〉 you are a friend to the Parliameâ—◠〈…〉 be taking with children 〈…〉 The next thing you fall upon is in your fourth page and that is the word Humble Remonstrance and upon this you descant in some similitudes as of Court complements and Cavaliers carriage and then in plaine termes you call it a Remonstrance invective against the Parliament Answ. You are full of charges though never so false and liberall in your expressions though you make nothing good I conceive you thinke your selfe safe and secure and perhaps you are so from ever giving an accompt of these your actions to any earthly authority but yet methinkâ— the words of the ninth Commandement should be of some authority to you and beare some sway with you viz. Thou shalt not beare false witnesse against thy neighbour If not against a particular person then sure not against a Corporation a City whereof your self are a member Then you are offended at these expressions viz. Two late Libells published by two Anonymusses and you aske why I call them Libells before I prove them so Answ. They were so in themselves before I named them so neither called I them Libells for any of those reasons which you would have the world beleeve I did As first because they are written by an Antipresbyter nor yet because they containe in them lies falsities untruths though all these in severall instances are in the vindication made good against them nor because they are little Bookes nor yet singly because they are written against the City or because they are without the Authors Names but for these two last reasons joyntly and together A Libell I call that which is an untrue and therefore an unjust Charge upon or against a Person a Corporation a Court without any name annexed to make good what is there charged and in this respect I appeale to the Reader whether I did not truly and justly call them Libells Lastly before you come to the body of the Booke you have yet another fling against the Title A Vindication of the City Remonstrance that is say you a Vindication of that which is invindicable And therefore say you better it would bee that both the City Remonstrance and the vindication thereof were written in ashes with the finger of vanitie then in marble with the pen of a 〈◊〉 c. Answ. For ought I yet see it is but one 〈◊〉 opinion and he none of the gravest neither that the City Remonstrance is invindicable and what you have said to prove it to be so I desire the Reader to judge
for truly I cannot disâ—ern it But of this I am confident that it is appâ—oved by the Châ—rch of Scotland witnesse the Letter now in Print for all the Kingdome to see which was sent from the Generall Assembly 〈◊〉 the Church of Scotland to the Lord Major Aldermeâ— and 〈…〉 of London June 18. 1646. manifesting theiâ— approbation of it and thankfulness for it And sure I may sayâ— it is appâ—â—ved by the generality of the ablest graveâ— and 〈…〉 witnesse their Petition subscribed by eight Thousâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Hundred thirty and four of their Hands presented the twenty third of Iune 1646. to the Court of Common-Councell giving them Thankes for it testifying their approbation of â—t and desâ—â—ing them to wait upon the House of Coâ—mâ—ns foâ— their gracioâ—s answer to it which Petition is by Order of Coâ—â—t since Printed And me thinkâ— you should not forget that the same Remonstrance for the substance of it was not onely well accepted but also graciously answered by the House of Lords And therefore â—urely in the judgment of all these the City Remonstrance â—s not â—udged 〈◊〉 But perhaps you arâ—e of the â—indâ— of 〈…〉 6. 16. who was 〈…〉 reason And I make as little 〈…〉 yet it is and will be 〈◊〉 all the Reformed Churches in Europe not one excepâ—â—◠〈…〉 Qâ—arrells 〈…〉 is you have to say against the 〈…〉 whether in all probability the Reply and not the Remonstrance hath raised those disturbances for the Subject of the Remonstrance is an earnest desire of the settlement of government by one Uniforme Law for all the Subjects of England to submit equally and alike unto which I am sure must needs tend to peace and quietnesse but the dâ—ift of the Reply is quite contrary and therefore without all peradventure it 's this and its abettors and not that and its promoters which hath desired and occasioned these Divisions both in Church and State In pag. 9 you go about to shew that the Common-Councell by their Remonstrance did act in a direct evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God and for proofe of this in page 11 you give us some Scriptures and some passages in the Remonâ—â—rance which you say or at least would have the world beleeve is in a direct evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God but you never tell the reader how or wherein they are so but thus you deliver them LET US TRY THEN WORD OF GOD CITY REMONSTRANCE Rom. 14. 5. Let â—very man bee fully perswaded in his owne minde That as we are Subjects of one Kingdom so all may bee equally required and here to delude the Reader you insert without making the least change of the character these following words as if they also were in the Remonstrance viz. Be they perswaded in their own minds or not perswaded to yeeld obedience to the government set forth or to be set forth by the Parliament Now I shall wholly all along in these your Parallels leave it to the judgment of the Reader to consider whether there be such an antipathy between these Scriptures and those Petitions of the Remonstrance as in the Remonstrance without your insertion they are exprest and crave your leave in the same way of parallel to set the same Scriptures with some branches of the Propositionâ— sent by both Houses of Parliament to the King and other passâ—ges of Parliament and then desire your judgement whether they also 〈◊〉 a direct eâ—ident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God WORD OF GOD Propositions of both Houses of Parliament Article the 5th Rom. 14. 5. Let every man bee fully perswaded in his owne minde That râ—formation of Religion according to the Covenâ—nt bee setled by Act of Parliament in suâ—h manner as both Houses have agreed or shall agree upon after consultation had with the assembly of Divines  â—CITI REMONSTRANCE Rom. 14. 13. That no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his bâ— others way That all such Sectaries as conform not to the publike Discipline established or to bee established by Parliament saith the Remonstrance but this you leave out may be fully declared against and some effectual course setled for proceeding against such persons Here say you is a stumbling blockâ— viz. a menace in a brothers way Answ. But why doe you leave out the beginning of that prayer in the Petitâ—on which you citeâ—â—t tels you the meaning of the Remonstrants by the words all such Sectaries â—iz Those immediately before mentioned as Anabâ—ptists Brownists Heretiques Schismaticks Blasphemers doe you not by omitting the mentioning of these indeavour to delâ—de the Reader I pray put down that Petition wholly together and let the Reader be fairly deaâ—t with all and have it as in the Remonstrance it is exprest anâ— then see how it is opposite to the Scripture by you set against it 〈…〉 〈…〉 I desire here also in a parallel way to set downe the Scriptuâ—â— by you brought and a passage or two of the Parliaments and 〈◊〉 desire your judgement whether they also be in a direct evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God WORD OF GOD â—Parliaments Declaration upon his Majesties Declaration after the Baâ—taile at Edgebill Pag. 659. Româ— 14. 13. That 〈…〉 put a 〈…〉 bloâ—k or an occasion to fall in his brothers way Had not his Majesty seduced thereunto by that Popish and Prelaticall faction denyed his conseâ—t to the Bil for the Assembly so often by both Houses presented to him wee had long since manifested to the world by a well setled reformation our 〈◊〉 dislike of â—* Brownisme and Anabâ—ptisme Remonstrance of the State of the kingdom page 19. We do declare that it is far from our purpose or dâ—sire to let loose the golden reynes of discipline and government in the Church to leave private persons or particular Congregations to take up what for me of Divine Service they please for wee hold it requisite that there should be throughout the whole realme a confâ—rmity to that Order which the Laws enjoyne according to the Word of God Mâ—t. 7 12. As you would that men should doe unto you so doe untâ— them for this is the Law and the Propheis Page 3. Wee will not receive impression of any forced construction of the Covenant compare this with Page 7. Will you never leave falsâ—fying where doe you finde any such expression in the Remonstrance either in Page 3 or 7. as this is viz. we will not receive impression of any forced construction of the Covenant The House of Commons in their late Declaration of the 17 of Aprill 1646. doe say Wee expect that the people of England should not receive impressions of any forced construction of that Covenant and in obedience thereunto the Remonstrants doe say in page 2 and 3 of the Remonstrance that in pursuance of that Noble resolution of this Honourable House for the due
observation of the Covenant and their expectation of conformity of the people of England thereunto expressed in the late Declaration we doe resolve by the grace of God not to receive impression of any forced construction thereof and is it now become an acting in a direct evident and obvious manneâ— against the expresse Will and Word of God for the Common-Councell to professe their resolutions to yeeld obedience to the desires and expectations of the House of Commons in their not receiving impressions of any forced constructions of the Covenant I desire your leave here also in a parallel way to set downe the Scripture by you here brought and another branch of the Propositions sent by both House of Parliament to the King and to desire your judgement whether that also be in a direct evident and obvious manne against the expresse Will and Word of God WORD OF GOD Propositions of both Houses of Parliament Article the 6th Mat. 7. 12 Aâ— you would that men should do unto you so do unto them for this is the Law and the Proâ—hets For as much as both Kingdomes are mutually obliged by the same Covenant to endeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity in matters of Religion That such unity and uniformity in Religion according to the Covenant as after consultation had with the Divines of both kingdoms now assembled is or shall bee jointly agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament of England and by the Church and Kiâ—gdom of Scotland be confirmed by Acts of Parliament of both Kingdomes respectively  CITY REMONSTRANCE Mat. 7. 1â— As you would that men should doe unto you so doe unto them for this is the Law the Proâ—hets The 4 Petition That no person disaffected to Preâ—byterian government saith the Remonstrance sâ—t forth or to be set forth by the Parliament but according to your usuall course this to blind the reader you stiâ—â— leavâ— ouâ— may be employed in any place of publike trust and theâ— you add which is not at all in that Petition those words viz. But some effectual course setled to proceed against such persons as in the 3 Petition where there is not the shadow of a word tending to any such purpose I confesse the words youâ— cite are in the 2d Petition but not at all in the least manner applyed to persons onely disaffected to Presbyterian government for there is no such word in that Petition nor any thing looking that way neither doth the Common-Councell in any part of their Petitions so much as desire that persons onely disaffected to Presbyterian government should by some effectuall course setled be proceeded against and therefore methinks you should have been a little more considerate before you should thus falsly and unjustly have charged the Common-Councell to act in a direct evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God This I will grant you that in the second Petition the Common-Councell doth desire that all Anabaptists Brownists Heâ—etiques Schismaticks Blasphemers and all such Sectâ—ries as conforme not to the publike Discipline established or to be established by Parliament may be fully declared against and some effectuall course setled for proceeding against such Persons but is there no difference between Anabaptists Brownists Heretiques â—chismaticks Sectaries and persons but disaffected to Presbyterian government I pray tell mee your minde plainly would you have Heretiques and Blasphemers 〈◊〉 such as deny the Scriptures to bee the Word of God such as professe the Scriptures are writings onely probable to be beleeved as the Story of King Henry the eighthâ— such as deny the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence such as call the Trinity a three headed Cerberus â—uch as deny the Divinity of Christ such as deny the immortality of the Soule and such as deny that there is a God or say if there bee a God the Devill is a God such as say God is the author of sin such who hold that all men shall bee saved yea and the Devills too such as say that Christs humane Nature is defiled with Originall sin as well as ours such as hold that all Râ—ligions Worships Consciences whether Paganish Jewish Antichristian c. should bee tolerated would you have these tolerated or would you not have some effectuall course setled for proceeding against such Persons or doe you thinke these to be no more dangerous if permitted to broach these Hereâ—ies and Blasphemies in the Kingdom then to permit persons otherwise every way peaceable godly and orthodox because meerly disaffected to Presbyterian government I desire here also in a parallel way to set downe the Scripture by you here brought and a Vote of the House of Commons of the 30 Iuly 1641. and to desire your judgement whether that also be in a direct evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God WORD OF GOD Vote of the House of Commons die Vâ—neris 30 Iubii 1641. Mat. 7. 12 As you would 〈◊〉 men should doe unto you so doe unto them for this is the Law and the Prophets Resolved upon the Question That this House doth conceive that the Protestation made by them is sit to be taken by every person that is well-affected in Religion and to the good of the Common-wealth And â—herefore doth â—eclarâ— That what person soever shall not take the Protestation is unfit to bear Office in the Church oâ— Common-wealth Thus having given you these Articles of the Propositions of both Houses of Parliament sent to the King for a safe and well grounded Peace and the other passages of both or either House of Parliament which I have placed after your example in a parallel way against the Scriptures by you brought and desired your judgement whether these also do act as you would have the world beleeve the Petitioâ—s in the Remonstrance doth in a diâ—ect evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God I pray you now also seriously to consider of those Petitions in the Remonstrance and compare them together with thesâ— Propositions for Peace and the other passages of both or either House of Parliament and then tell mee what the Remonstrants in those three so much by you condemned Petitions for the substance of them did more desire of the Parliament then both Houses of Parliament have now proposed to the King or hath been formerly by them in these passages of both or either House of Parliament declared to the world Theâ— you say Presbyteriall government is not in the Covenant thereâ—â—re a◠〈◊〉 and this say you you inforce upon others though you will receive no forcâ—d conâ—â—ruction of the same your selves Answ. Where did the Remonstrants say that Presbyteriall government was in the Covenant and if they never said it as they never did why doe you here bring it in as if they had said it I hope that at last you will learne to forbeare falsifying It is true that in page 2 of the Remonstrance they speake of Ordinanceâ— for
conclude the minor and so the Commons are thereby preâ—served from slavery but in another case the major part of the Eâ—states doe conclude the minor viz. when the Lords and Commonâ— doe agree upon a Law for the good and safety of the Kingdome then the King is concluded in that their agreement and ought tâ— set his flat thereunto For the Kings of England are bound by their Oaths to grant such Laws which shall bee for the good and safety of the Kingdome with the accord of their people in 〈◊〉 presented to them as in the preamble of the Statute made in the 25 yeare of â—dward the Third entituled The Statute of provisoâ—s of Benefices made at Wâ—stminster in these words it doth appeare Whereupon the said Commons haâ—e prayed our Soveraigne Lord the King that sith the Right of the Crowne of England and the Law of the said Realme is such that upon the mischiefs and dammâ—ges which â—appen to this Realme Hee ought and is bound by His Oath with the accord of His People in His Parliament thereof to make remedy and law And the King acknowledgeth this for a truth and accordingly Acted as in these following words in the same Statute it appeareth Our Soveraigne Lord the King seeing the mischiefes and dammages before mentioneâ— and having râ—gard to the Statute made in the time of his Grandfâ—ther and by so much as Hee is bounden by Hiâ— Oath to cause the 〈…〉 a Law of His Realme c. by the assent of all the great Men and Commâ—nalty of â—is said Reâ—lme to the honor of God and profit of the said Church of England and of all His Realm◠〈◊〉 Ordâ—ined and esâ—ablished c. Thus farre the words of that Preamble and Statute upon which the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled say thus Viz. Here the Lords and Commons claime it directly as the right of the Crowne of England and of the Law of the Land thaâ— the King is bound by his Oâ—th with the 〈◊〉 of his people in Parliament to make remedie and 〈…〉 the mischiefs and dammâ—gâ—s which happen to this Realme and the King doth not deny it Câ—llect of Declarations p. 229. Lâ—t this suffice as answer to your third Querie Your fourth Queâ—ie is this Whethâ—r â—ee viz. the King be present as a distinct Estate if so if one distinct Estate may bee present in power quatenus an Estate and absent in person mâ—y not a second Estatâ— be so present though absent in body yea a third Estate sâ— present and yet absent in body and so we shall have the Estates in Parliament and not a man amongst them this is a Riddle indâ—ed Mr. Bellamie I pray you unfold this also Answ. At your request â—e undertake the taske your owne words grant that â—s well in Parliament as in all his inferiour Courts of Justice the King is present in his power these are your words viz. I know Sir hee is present in power in all his inferiour Couâ—ts of Iustice as well as in the Parliament 24. Now in Parliament there is no power but the power of the three Estates viz. King Lords and Commons and therefore all the Acts that are enâ—cted by the power of Parliament are enacted by the power of the three Estates conjunction It is possible that the King may withdraw his person from the Parliament as now hee hath done but hee can never withdraw his power no not his power as a distinct Estate for in the making of every Act of Parliamâ—nt there is present in Parliament the power of all the three Estates without all which conjunctim no act can bee made But there is an Act made this Parliament by the free consent of all the three Estates in Parliament that this Parliament shall not be dissolved prorogued or adjourned without the consent of both Houses of Parliament first had and obtained viz. Anno 17 Caroli Regis entituled An Act to prevent inconveniences which may happen by the untimely adjourning proroguing dissolving of this present Parliament In 〈◊〉 Act are these words viz. Be it declared and enacted by the King our Soveraigne Lord with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same That this present Parliament now assembled shall not bee dissolved unlesse it be by Act of Parliament to bee passed for that purpose nor shall bâ—e at any time or times during the Continuance thereof prorogued or adjourned unlâ—sse it be by Act of Parliament to be likewise passed for that purpose Now then thus I argue if at the passing of this Act of Parliament there was present the power of all the three Estates in Parliament viz. King Lords and Commons and by vertue of this Act of Parliament the Parliament cannot be dissolved prorogued or adjourned unlesse it be by act of Parliament to bee passed for that purpose then the power of all the three Estates viz. King Lords and Commons must needs continue in Parliament till by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose this Parliament bee dissolved prorogued or adjourned But at the passing of this Act of Parliament there was present the power of all the three Estates in Parliament viz. King Lords and Commons vide the Act 〈◊〉 supra and by vertue of this Act of Parliament the Parliament cannot be dissolved prorogued or adjourned unlesse it be by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose vide also the Act 〈◊〉 supra Therefore the Power of all the three Estates in Parliament viz. King Lords and Commons must needs continue in Parliament till by Act of Parliament to bee passed for that purpose this Parliament be dissolved prorogued or adjourned And thus the particular by me affirmed is clearly proved viz. That though the person of the King bee absent from the Parliament yet the power of the King viz. as one of the three Estates in Parliament is present with the Parliament I now come briefly to the second part of your Querie and will endeavour herein as you call it to unfold your Riddle the other two Estates in Parliament viz. Lords and Commons cannot be absent from the Parliament neither in power nor yeâ— in person thus farre â—e grant you that many of the members of either House may bee absent from either of their respective Houses and yet the two Estates of Parliament continue entire in Parliament for there must be at least three Lords present in the House of Lords to make it a House and so an Estate in Parliament and forty Commons with the Speaker in the House of Commons to make it an House and so an Estate in Parliament and therefore there cannot bee as you affirme three Estates in Parliament and not a man amongst them and this I give as an answer to your fourth Querie and if you please you may also let it passe for the unfolding of your Riddle In the â—ifth place in page 24. you have these words
by the fundamentall Constitution of the Kingdome I humbly also conceive that there is just reason for it too and that not onely from the relation which these three Estates have one to another but also because of that interest which one Estate hath in another The King being no otherwise King of England but with relation to the subjects of England and so he hath an interest in them and they are his liege that is his lawfull Subjects or his Subjects according to the Law And likewise the Lords and Commons of England are no otherwise Subjects of England but with relation to the King as hee is the King of England in whom also they have the like reciprocall interest and so he is their liege our lawfull Soveraigne or their King according to the Law and thus runs the formes of our Laws viz. Bee it enacted by the King our Soveraigne Lord with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled But the City of London by the Charter of Edw. 3. in the 15 yeare of his Reigne hath a power granted to the Major and Aldermen and their successors with the assent of the Commonalty to make lawes for the common profit of the Citizens of the same City by vertue of which grant the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in Court of Common-Councell assembled being therin as one entire Court the representative Body of the City doe to this day make Laws which are alwayes binding to the Citizens of the same City And there is no other consent required to the consummation of these Laws but the sole and onely authority of this Court and therefore all our Acts of Common-councell are made in the joint names of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in the Court of Common-councell assembled and by the authority thereof and in the addition of any branch in an act of Common councell it is still thus exprest It is by this Court further Ordered c. Or this Court doth further Order c. which doth fully prove that all the power of making or altering or adding to the City lawes rests wholly and alone in the body of that one Court of Common-councell or the greater number of them which doth alwayes consist of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons but all the power of making or repealing or adding to the lawes of the kingdome doth not rest wholly and alone in the House of Commons but the concurrent consent of the other two Estates viz. the King and the Lords is necessarily required to this of the Commons for making or repealing of the Laws of the Kingdome And thus I hope I have answered your first head of Queries arising from that question viz. wherein resides the Supreme power of the Kingdome I shall now likewise endeavour to give a solution to your Argument and all the satisfaction I can to the second head of your Queries For a foundation to build your Arguments upon you produce an Argument of mine out of my Book entitâ—led A Plea for the Commonalty of London thus it is That Court which hath a power to make a law and by that law to conferre a power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before must needs bee quoad hoe as unto the making of a law above the Lord Major and Aldermen But this Court of Common-councell hath c. Ergo this Court of Common-councell so farre as to the making of a Law must needs bee above the Lord Major and Aldermen Answ. I owne the Argument and for confirmation of what I tâ—â—re affirmed concerning the power of the Court of Common-councell I made it good and proved it dâ— facto by an act of Common-councel made in the sixth yeare of Hen. 7. upon the 15 of Aprill concerning the choice of the Chamberlaine of London and the Bridge-masters of the City as by reference to the said Book appeareth and I would willingly see what you have to say against it But upon this in your 25 page you thus argue That Court which hath the power to make a law and by that law to conferre a power upon the King and Lords which as King and Lords they had not before must needs be quoad hoc unto the making of a law above the King and Lord But the House of Câ—mmonâ— which say you speaking of mee is the kingdome representative even as the Common-councell is the City representative upon your supposâ—tion hath a power c. Ergo the House of Commons so far as unto the making of a law must needs bee above the King and Lords But I pray you tell me is there no difference between the Court of Common-councell and the Commons in Common-councel I told you even now in page 42 that the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in Common-councell assembled being therein one entire Court are the representative body of the City I never said the Commons in that Court were so and if you had been pleased to have perused that Booke of mine you cite to this purpose and out of which you take my argument viz. The Pleâ— for the Commonalty of London in page 10. where I instance in four severall acts of that Court viz. the removing of Deputy Aldâ—n from the Court Mr. Iohn Wilde from being Town Clerk Mr. Tho. Wiseman from being the City Remembrancer and divers Aldermens Deputies from their places of Deputyship you might there have found that I thus conclude it viz. And all this by the joint and concurrent power of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in this Common-councell assembled And what though the Court of Common-councell which alwayes consisteth of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons have a power to conferre upon the Lord Major and Aldermen that power which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before as I fully proved and therefore without the least mutation am still of the same mind and in that respect as unto the making of a Law are above the Lord Mâ—jor and Aldermen as the whole is above a partâ— But will it hence follow that the Commons in Common-councell alone and by themselves have either this power to conferre a power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before or that they are above them If you will argue from my assertion bee sure you keep my terms and then see how it will advantage you for the confirmation of your argument I grounded this power of making City Laws from the Charter of Edw. 3. in the 15 yeare of his Reigne And in the same Book of mine out of which you took my argument you might also have had my authority for it it is in page 7 in these words Wee have granted further for us and our heires and by this our present Charter confirmed to the Major and Aldermen of the City aforesaid that if any customes in the said City hitherto obtained and used be in any part difficult