of Parliament and that inviolably by the 42 of Edw. 3. enacting that if any statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none and consequently the Act of Parliament so called against that Priviledge of the Bishops was ipso facto null and void by robbing the King of his Negative voice of his power in the Militia by making Ordinances without him yea against him and so practically denying what they verbally swore that he was the only supreme Governour in all Causes and over all Persons By their electing new members warranted only by a counterfeit Seal By their taking upon them to create new Judges Justices and other Officers without the Kings consent For Laws and Liberties says J. Jenkins p. 146. have not the prevailing party in the two Houses destroyed above an hundred Acts of Parliament and in effect Magna Charta and Charta de Forestâ which are the Common Laws of the Land And p. 135. The Writ of Summons to this Parliament is the Basis and Foundation of the Parliament if the Foundation be destroyed the Parliament falls The Assembly of Parliament is for three purposes Rex est habiturus colloquium tractatum cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus super arduis negotiis concernentibus 1. Nos 2. Defensionem Regni nostri 3. Defensionem Ecclesiae Anglicanae The King says the Writ intends to confer and treat with the Prelates Earls Barons about the arduous affairs relating to 1. our Royal self 2. the defence of our Realm 3. the defence of the Church of England This Parliament says the Judge hath overthrown this Foundation in all three parts 1. Nos Our Royal self the King they have chased away and imprisoned at Holmbey they have voted no Prelates and that a number of other Lords about forty in the City must not come to the House and about forty more are out of Town the conference and treaty is made void thereby for the King cannot consult and treat there with men removed from thence 2. The defence of our Realm that is gone they have made it their Kingdom not his for they have usurp'd all his Soveraignty 3. The defence of the Church of England that is gone By the Church of England must be understood necessarily that Church that at the Teste of the Writ was Ecclesia Anglicana they have destroyed that too So now these men would be called a Parliament having quashed and made nothing of the Writ whereby they were summoned and assembled If the Writ be made void the Process must be void also The House must needs fall where the Foundation is overthrown thus he And all this was done before those Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian were many of them imprisoned and others forcibly secluded by the violence of the Army So that 't is very wonderful how this Rector of Bramshot could be either so ignorant or so impudent as to utter such an assertion especially since in his own following words which it seems he fancied to be a proof of its Truth a very considerable Argument is suggested to evince it an egregious Falshood For quoth he They had voted the Kings Concessions a ground sufficient for the Houses to proceed on to settle the Nation and were willing to cast whatsoever they contended for upon a legal security Now in that very Treaty at the Isle of Wight the Presbyterian party wrested such Concessions from the King as did in their own nature subvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom as is evident from the speech of Mr. Pryn himself concerning those Concessions 3. Edit p. 38. wherein he confesses that the Kings of England have always held two swords in their hands the sword of Mars in time of War the sword of Justice in time of Peace And p. 37. he tells us that in those Concessions the King had wholly stript himself his Heirs and Successors for ever of all that power and interest which his Predecessors always enjoyed in the Militia Forces Forts Navy Magazines p. 36. not only of England but Ireland Wales Jersey Guernsey and Barwick too so as he and they can neither raise nor arm one man nor introduce any foreign Forces into any of them by vertue of any Commission Deputation or Authority without consent of both Houses of Parliament and that he had vested the sole power and disposition of the Militia Forts and Navy of all these in both Houses in such ample manner that they should never part with it to any King of England unless they pleased themselves A security says Mr. Pryn so grand and firm that none of our Ancestors ever demanded or enjoyed the like nor any other Kingdom whatsoever since the Creation for ought that I can find and such a self-denying condescension in the King to his people in this particular as no Age can Precedent Thus the sword of Mars which themselves confess the former Kings of England always held was insolently wrested out of the late Kings hands and consequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation subverted in this particular Besides some Parliaments says he p. 40. in former times have had the nomination of the Lord Chancellor some of the Lord Treasurer some of the great Justiciary or some few Judges of England only but never any Parliament of England claim'd or enjoy'd the nomination and appointment of any the great Officers Barons Judges or Treasurers places in Ireland nor yet of the Lord Warden of the Cinque-Ports Chancellors of the Exchequer and Dutchy Secretaries of State Master of the Rolls or Barons of the Exchequer of England yet all these the King for peace-sake hath parted with to us And p. 41. we have the disposal he might have added Horresco referens of all these Officers in England and Ireland both Military and Civil of his sword of War and Peace his Justice his Conscience his Purse his Treasury his Papers his publick Records his Cabinet his Great Seal more than ever we at first expected or desired Thus horridly was the sword of Justice also wrested out of his Majesties hands and consequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation subverted in that particular likewise Another Concession was that no Peer who should be after that Treaty made by the King his Heirs and Successors should sit or vote in the Parliament of England without consent of both Houses of Parliament which says Mr. Pryn p. 43. gives such an extraordinary new power to the House of Commons as they never formerly enjoyed nor pretended to By which provision p. 44. the Commons are made not only in some sence the Judges of Peers themselves which they could not try or judge before by the express letter of Magna Charta cap. 29. and the Common Law but even their very Creators too And if the House of Commons might justly be term'd any part of the Fundamental constitution of our Nation what was this but to subvert the Fundamental Government By other Concessions the Houses were enabled p. 45.
men impowred by them judged it to be at least convenient to take away his life in that way of Trial their murdering of Him in that way was not contrary but agreeable enough to the Solemn League and Covenant Yea to imagine that by that League Scotland was bound to rescue the Kings person from the Parliament of England because of their Voting that no farther application or Addresses should be made to his Majesty under pain of High Treason is called a slandering of the Covenant in that humble Edenburgh-Remonstrance p. 45. Nor is either the Protestation of May 5. 1641. or the Oath of Allegiance or the word of God more wisely or pertinently urged by those London Ministers against those murderers since all those obligations do as much forbid and condemn fighting against the King and dishonouring and dethroning him which Presbyterians were abundantly guilty of as they do putting him to death which the Independents did 't is true but after the Presbyterians had first stript him of his honour and Royal State and so politically killed him All which considered 't is very admirable to me that those Presbyterian Ministers of London especially Mr. Love could so confidently talk thus in vindication of their own Innocency and in opposition to those Independent malefactors as also with what face they could as our Author tells us they did p. 52-62 warn and exhort men to pray for the King that God would restrain the violence of men that they might not dare to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign To use his own words Let prudent men weigh things in the balance of reason and tell us whether it were not a piece of practical Non-sence and contradictious hypocrisie for those Priests who had imployed themselves so many years together in cursing those that fought not against the King and blessing those that did to warn and exhort men at last to pray that God would restrain the violence of men and not suffer them to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign If they had exhorted men to put up such a petition in the time of the Wars would they not thereby have exposed themselves to the scorn and derision of their Auditors Yea would not their own Lords and Commons have treated them as Incendiaries Malignants evil Instruments or were they so sottish as to imagine that there 's so great difference between a Camp and a Scaffold between an Army of Rebels and a single Executioner that 't was a duty to pray to God to protect the King from the danger of the one but no duty to pray for his safeguard from the assaults of the other Or did they indeed believe if the King had been mortally wounded in the Field at Edge-hill Newbery or Naseby by one or more of the Presbyterian Souldiers that this had not been violence or that the Presbyterian Lords and Commons had not thereby drawn upon themselves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign I seriously profess that the more narrowly I search into these things the more reason I have to fear what indeed this very Vindication suggests that had the Kings life been taken away either by Presbyterian Armies in the Field the law of the Sword or by order of Presbyterian Judges on a Scaffold the Sword of their Law for the advancement of the Presbyterian Interest they would easily have believed such a manner of death or way of Trial agreeable enough to and consistent with all the obligations here spoken of even the Covenant it self as to which says Price in his Clerico-Classicum p. 27 28. We were bound to preserve and defend the Kings person when we first took this Covenant and at that time you Presbyterian Ministers of London know very well you stirred up the people to fight against his Army though his person was the leader thereof which presumes either 1. That you perswaded the people against the dictates of your own Consciences or 2. That you conceived that though his Person should be smitten into the chambers of Death by those that aid fight against his Army yet they did not break the Covenant If so then there is a case wherein the King's Person may be cut off without breach of Covenant Thus he and appositely enough and therefore I say again Let prudent men weigh things in the balance of Reason Our Author goes on and asks Is there any thing in the nature of Prelacy that frames the mind to obedience and loyalty or is there any thing in the nature of Presbytery that enclines to rebellion and disobedience A. If he means by the nature of Prelacy the principles of Prelatical Protestants and by the nature of Presbytery the principles of Presbyterians I maintain the affirmative in both Questions and suppose I have already abundantly evinc'd it as to Presbyterians both Scotch and English and as for Prelatical Protestants if this Author or any body else can produce any such enormous and seditious principles out of their Writings as I have here quoted out of Presbyterian Authors let those writings by my consent and together with them Mr. Pryn's Soveraign Power of Parliaments by which word Parliaments he means the two Houses without and against the King undergo the same Fate with David Pareus his Commentary and the Presbyterian League and Covenant and if any of their practises have been suitable let those mens persons also have the odious character of Rebellion and Disobedience affixt unto them But that any such Prelatical Protestant can be produced is more than I know or have any reason to believe Certain I am that English protestant Prelatists profess their assent to and practically own those principles mentioned p. 24 25. Which Principles do in their own nature and where they are cordially enbraced frame the minds of English Subjects to obedience and loyalty and therefore let this Author prove if he can that since a Protestant Prelacy was erected among us our Kings have had any such tedious conflicts with Prelates as he says they had in ancient times and for a series of many Ages As for the Popes Prelates they are so near of kin to Presbyterians that 't is no great wonder if they create trouble to Princes If says he Presbytery and Rebellion be connatural how comes it to pass that those States or Kingdoms where it hath been establisht or tolerated have for any time been free from broils and commotions One would think there were a sufficient answer comprehended in the words of the Question For those Presbyterians are rebellious with a witness that will embroil even those States and Kingdoms where their Form of Worship and Polity is either establisht or tolerated and yet the French Protestants are abused by a late Reflecter on the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance if notwithstanding this they are not too prone to Rebellion and that on account of their Principles What an exception says he p. 42. of his Reflexions terrible to
1. Their suppressing Lectures and Afternoon Sermons which is nothing to the purpose unless he had proved also that these are of Divine Institution or are necessary means of unfeigned Faith and holy Life 2. A book for sports and pastimes on Sundays enjoyn'd to be read by Ministers in their Parish Churches under penalty of deprivation What so as to exclude either Common-Prayer and preaching in the Morning or Divine Service and Catechizing in the Afternoon or so as to licence the absence of any Parishioner from that service either part of the day 3. Superstitious Innovations introduc'd Si accusâsse suffecerit quis erit innocens 4. A new Book of Canons composed and a new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy inforc'd By whom were not this Oath and those Canons composed in Convocation by our Church-Governours were they not confirmed and imposed by the Royal Assent And why I pray was the new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy establish'd by Law more superstitious than the newer Oath for destroying that Hierarchy so established Far be it from me says he p. 32. 42. to impute these things to all that were in judgment Episcopal for I am perswaded a great if not the greater part of them disallowed these Innovations These Innovations what Innovations The word must in reason refer to the particulars just now enumerated viz. The new Book of Canons the new Oath the Book for sports and pastimes on Sundays But are these men in justice and Reason of State to be protected and encouraged who dare to call new Laws either of State or Church or both occasioned by new emergencies Innovations or new practices superstitious meerly because not commanded in Gods word Now these things are so far from being a proof of the inconsistency of Prelacy with the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel with the upholding of all Divine Institutions a laborious and efficacious Ministry c. that the contrary is evident from the instance of the Right Reverend Bishop Morton whom this very Author I believe hath scarce confidence enough to accuse as a Delinquent in those particulars since p. 67. 77. he reckons Bishop Morton in the number of those Episcopal Divines whose Doctrine is entirely embrac'd by the Presbyterians Who yet did not only approve of but had the chief hand in contriving and publishing that Declaration which allowed some Sports and Pastimes as that which was then the most probable course to stop the current of Popery and profaneness as appears from the story of that Bishop's life publish'd by Dr. Barwick p. 80 81. So 't is evident also from the Augustan Confession c. 7. De Potest Ecclesiasticâ and Mr. Calvin's Institutions that both he and the Lutheran Reformers were far enough from thinking the Lords day of Divine Institution who yet were for a lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel and a laborious efficacious ministry In some following Pages the Author pretends to manifest that the Presbyterian Interest will never be extinguished while the State of England continues Protestant For says he p. 34. 44. let but the Protestant Doctrine as 't is by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd and 't will raise up a genuine off-spring of this people whose way is no other than the life and power of that Doctrine But I as confidently affirm on the other side that if the Protestant Doctrine by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd 't will raise up such a genuine off-spring of true English Protestants as shall own Prelacy and the Churches Authority in appointing Ceremonies both which are establisht by that Doctrine but rejected by Presbyterians If their way be no other than the life and power of that Doctrine they act suitably to these Principles viz. That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith Artic. 20. That whosoever through his private Judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God and be ordained and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly that others may fear to do the like as he that offends against the Common Order of the Church and hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren Every particular or National Church hath authority to ordain change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying Artic. 34. They practically own the Kings power within his Realms of England Scotland and Ireland and all other his Dominions and Countries as the highest power under God to whom all men as well inhabitants as born within the same do by Gods Laws owe most loyalty and obedience afore and above all other Potentates in Earth They act as if they believed his Majesty to have the same Authority in causes Ecclesiastical that the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church They use the Form of Gods worship in the Church of England establisht by Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments without surmising it to be either corrupt superstitious or unlawful or to contain any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures They are obedient to the Government of the Church of England by Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons and the rest that bear office in the same not fancying it to be either Antichristian or repugnant to the word of God They do not combine themselves together in a new brotherhood accounting the Christians who are conformable to the Doctrine Government Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England to be profane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Christian Profession They imagine not 1. that any of the 39. Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or 2. that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law establisht are wicked Antichristian or superstitious or such as being commanded by lawful Authority men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them or as occasion requires subscribe to them or 3. that the sign of the Cross used in Baptism is any part of the substance of that Sacrament They hold that things of themselves indifferent do in some sort alter their natures when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magistrate and may not be omitted at every mans pleasure contrary to the Law when they be commanded nor used when they are prohibited These are parts of the Doctrine establisht by Law in the Church of England as is evident from the 1 2 4 7 9 5 6 30. Canons legally framed and ratified But where are those English Presbyterians to be found whose way hath been no other than the life and power of this Doctrine Have not their practises too loudly proclaimed to the world that they have
without all question are more dangerous not that their Doctrine is as yet so absurd as the Puritans in matters pertaining to Manners Government and Order of Life nor that their Intent is manifested as yet to be more malicious against both Church Commonwealth Prince and Peer than the Puritans are but because the means and their manner of proceeding is more covert more seeming substantial more formal and orderly in it self and therefore are the more dangerous because of the two they are more like to prevail by managing of whatsoever they take in hand and the rather for that their grounds are more firm their perswasions more plausible their performance more certain as having many singular fine wits among them whereas the Puritans have none but Grossum Caputs so that if matters come to hearing and handling between Jesuits and Puritans the latter are sure to be ridden like Fools and come to wrack In the second Article the same Author proposes this Question Whether the Jesuits Doctrine abstracted from matters of Faith and Religion come nearer in matters of life and manners to the Protestants or to the Puritans His Answer whereunto is That Jesuits are in this respect all wholly Puritans and therefore says he do some for distinctions-sake call the one Puritan-Papists and the other Puritan-Protestants Then he lays down a parallel between the Jesuits and the puritans in twenty five particulars Some whereof are That they agree in calling themselves the Saintlybrotherhood in scoffing scolding and ignominious disgracing speeches Puritans against the Bishops and English Clergie Jesuits against the Bishops and Prelates of Rome in refusing to have any Superiors in acknowledging no obedience due I suppose he means to any Ecclesiastical dignity though dissemblingly they will yield it The Puritans labour to pull all Bishops down and to have none but Superintendents in England and have already made havock of all such in Scotland and the Jesuits will let no Bishops be in either Realm if they can keep them from the superiority over them The Jesuits check and controul both Pope and Prince as at least their equals and the Puritans controul both Princes and Prelates as if they were their superiors c. At last he concludes that the Jesuits and Puritans do come nearest together in platforms though both opposite one to another in intention as far as may be The use that may be made of these passages is this since the Puritans of former times were if these pictures of them be rightly drawn of such an ugly complexion 't is no great wonder 1. That the hatred of Prelatical Protestants against Puritans was as that Venetian Agent observes greater than against Catholicks those Catholicks I presume he means who were of the Widdringtonian perswasion in reference to the obedience due from subjects to Kings and Princes for the Widdringtonian Catholicks were more opposite to those Jesuitical principles and practices which are so prejudicial to the Authority of Kings and Princes than such Puritans were Nor is' t a wonder 2. That the hatred of such Catholicks was greater against Puritans than against Prelatical Protestants for such Protestants differed from such Catholicks not so much about matters of Government and obedience as matters of Faith but such Puritans were opposite to them in both in a very high degree Nor 3. was it wonderful that the hatred of Puritans was greater against such Catholicks than such Protestants Because such Catholicks are more opposite to such Puritans than Prelatical Protestants are for these Protestants differ not so much from those Puritans about matters of Faith as of Order Discipline and Government but those Catholicks differ from them in both Nor is it strange 4. That both such Catholicks and such Protestants did easily combine together for the ruine and rooting out of Puritans for those Puritans entertained such principles as were inconsistent with that obedience which both such Catholicks and such Protestants Widdringtonian Catholicks and prelatical Protestants acknowledged to be due from subjects to their Soveraign upon which score also both those parties were eagerly bent against Jesuits And now much good may these notable observations out of the Venetian Agent 's story do this Author who p. 39. 49. thus argues Papists impose the name of Puritans on such as retain the old Protestant spirit of antipathy to Rome therefore in the Puritan party lies the heart and strength of averseness and enmity to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church Which is so far from being what he is pleased to term it a good Argument that 't is a mere sophism unless he can prove that Papists therefore call some men Puritans viz. merely because of their averseness to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church but that they do not call any so on that ground is evident from this that they do not call all by that Name who are resolute enemies to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church The Venetian Agent by this mans own confession p. 38. 48. called that Faction in the Church of England Puritans because being seasoned and initiated with the Doctrine of Calvin they judged the English Reformation imperfect and so refused submission to that Form of Policy endeavouring to introduce a purer and more perfect Form of their own This is Puritanism in opposition to that old Protestant spirit which animated our 39. Articles and the Canons Ecclesiastical ratified by Q. Elizabeth and K. James Besides suppose there were any Truth in this assertion that the heart and strength of averseness and enmity to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church lies in the Puritan party yet unless they are enemies also to those seditious and rebellious principles maintained by some Papists they are not true English Protestants and consequently they deserve not to be protected and encouraged by England's King If mere averseness from Popish Idolatries and Innovations were a good Argument of a good Protestant 't would prove Socinians the best in the world Those Bishops said he in the Church of England who were heartily averse from Popish Innovations were more benign and favourable to Puritans Which signifies little unless he could prove it true of all such Bishops but it may be he understands by Popish Innovations either the old Ceremonies enjoyned by Law or some new Ceremony permitted and allowed perhaps recommended by Law and it had been strange if such kind of Bishops as were heartily averse from such Ceremonies because they fancied them Popish Innovations should not favour Puritans And again If some Bishops in the Church of England were more benign and favourable to Puritans 't is no great wonder since the same Bishops were it seems counted Puritan by the adverse party Indeed both King and Bishops were more benign and favourable to many of them than they deserved which gave them leisure and opportunity to grow numerous to increase and strengthen their party till at last they were too strong both for King and Bishops for the loyal
Nobility Gentry and Commonalty and when they had got the power in their hands O what grateful and ingenuous returns they made them for that benignity and favour They ruin'd the Bishops not sparing even those most heartily Protestant Bishops who had been so benign and favourable to them they raised a War against the King plundered sequestred murthered those that adhered to him and by degrees extorted from himself such grand diminutions of his Royal Prerogative as that they left him little more than the Title of a King And are such men as these such true English Protestants so good Christians as that they ought in justice and reason of State to be still treated benignly and favourably Nay rather should not King Nobles and Commons p. 40. 50. remember their darling Protestantism I mean that good English Protestantism contained in the 39. Articles by Law establisht in the Church of England that true mean between Fanatick and Jesuitical Protestantism Should not I say King Nobles and Commons remember this their darling and in reason of State abandon that sort of persons who have contributed so much to the destruction of it Let them not sleep securely while the seeds-men of the envious one sow the Tares of Division in our Field not only to weaken and hinder but to choak and eat out our English Protestant Faith Order and Government And let our gracious Soveraign still shew himself gracious where his undeserved clemency is like to produce happy permanent effects but on the other side let the mischiefs that befel his Royal Father through the stubborn Insolency of ingrateful and disloyal Presbyterians make him wary in time and circumspectly provident for his own and the Kingdoms safety lest himself also know and feel by sad experience what it is to protect and encourage presbyterians P. 41. 51. The Author takes upon him to vindicate Presbyterians from the many Calumnies with which he tells us they are loaded The first that he mentions is their plucking from the Civil Magistrate his power in Causes Ecclesiastical and erecting Imperium in Imperio Which says he is a groundless and gross mistake and to prove it so he urges the declared judgment of the Highest of that way according to their own words which are these To the Political Magistrate is allowed a Diatactick ordering regulating power about Ecclesiastical affairs in a Political way so that he reforms the Church when corrupted in Divine Worship Discipline or Government But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may assume to themselves the power of judging whether there are such corruptions or no and whether the Civil Magistrate reforms those corruptions in a warrantable manner or no and consequently of checking him in both respects if he chance to judge otherwise than they do witness the next He convenes and convocates Synods and Councils made up of Ecclesiastical Persons to advise and conclude determinatively according to the word of God how the Church is to be reformed and refined from corruption how to be guided and governed when reformed But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may challenge to themselves a power of convening without yea against the Civil Magistrate's command and here they actually challenge the power of conclusively determining how the Church is to be reformed and governed He ratifies and establishes within his Dominions the just and necessary Decrees of the Church in Synods and Councils by his Civil Sanction But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may claim the power of determining whether its own Decrees be just and necessary or no and of puting them in execution though the Civil Magistrate deny to ratify them by his Civil Sanction He judges and determines definitively with ae consequent and political judgment or judgment of Discretion concerning things judged and determined antecedently by the Church in reference to his own Act. But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may take upon them to controul the King as well as private persons if his difinitive Judgment of discretion which they allow to every private person p. 20. 30. in reference to his own act should chance to contradict their antecedent determinations He takes care politically that even matters and Ordinances merely and formally Ecclesiastical be duly managed by Ecclesiastical Persons orderly called thereunto But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may imagine that in case the King refuse to take this Political care themselves may appoint Ecclesiastical Persons to manage them and that their so doing is an orderly call to those Persons to act accordingly He hath a compulsive punitive or corrective power formally Political in matters of Religion in reference to all sorts of Persons and things under his Jurisdiction But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For holy Kirk may deny her self to be in matters of Religion under his Jurisdiction He may Politically compel the outward man of all Persons Church-Officers or others under his Dominion unto External performance of their respective duties and offices in matters of Religion punishing them if either they neglect to do their duty at all or do it corruptly But notwithstanding this also there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may fancy themselves the only or chief Judges of what are the duties and offices belonging to such and such Persons and whether they neglect or corruptly perform them So that if Presbyterians grant no more power to belong to the King of England in Ecclesiastical matters they deny his Supremacy and consequently erect Imperium in Imperio How they who give up themselves to the sole direction and Authority of the holy Scriptures p. 24. 34. can in reason acknowledge a spiritual power over the Conscience as intrinsecally belonging to the Church I leave him to inform us who would have us believe p. 43. 53 that Presbyterians do not claim for the Convocation or any other Ecclesiastical Convention an Independency on Parliaments That they do not claim it for a Convocation of Bishops and Episcopal men I am apt enough to believe But I cannot entertain any reasonable hope that they who have Covenanted so deeply in the behalf of the Scotch Discipline and Form of Government as to swear an endeavour of reforming things in England according to the example of the Kirk of Scotland as one of the best reformed Churches will acknowledge the ratification of the decrees of all Ecclesiastical conventions to depend on Parliaments For if Bishop Bramhall deceive us not Fair Warning p. 9. 'T is a Scotch maxime that Parliamentary ratifications can no way alter Church-Canons concerning the worship of God for Ecclesiastical Discipline ought to be exercised whether it be ratified by the Civil Magistrate or not The want of a Civil Sanction to the Church is but like lucrum cessans not damnum emergens as it adds nothing
of the Scotch Discipline and Government which so manifestly erects Imperium in Imperio may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent in Scotland 2. Why they who swear to endeavour to bring the Churches of God in England Scotland and Ireland to Uniformity in Discipline and Church-Government and consequently to endeavour the Introduction of that Scotch Form of Church-Government into England may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy in England also and render it too impotent by setting up there also Imperium in Imperio 3. Why they who swear the extirpation of Prelacy that is Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops c. may not justly be look'd upon as men that would enervate the power of that Monarchy which esteems that Form of Church-Government as a very considerable support and strengthening to it Witness the Aphorism of that wise Monarch King James No Bishop no King the truth whereof King Charles found by sad experience * Dum Episcoporum Jurisdictionem invadunt Anarchae caveant Principes Scitè admodum monet Poeta Tunc tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet ubi enim Episcoporum ditio expugnanda obsidetur ibidem proximè imo potissimè in Regum Principatus irruptio tentabitur S. Clara Apolog. Episc p. 20. 4. Why they who when they had power in their hands constrained our former Soveraign to grant such Propositions as left him only a titular Kingship may not justly be look'd upon as persons that would whensoever 't is in their power again enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent When he hath given a satisfactory answer to these Queries I may possibly trouble him with some more of the like import for I believe there are so many grounds of making this objection that in probability the only reason why this Author could find no other rise of it than what he mentions was because he would not seek it That which he is pleased to mention as the rise is That the Presbyterians were not willing 1. To come under any Yoke but that of the Laws of the Realm Or 2. To pay arbitrary Taxes levied without consent of Parliament To the 1. hoping that whatsoever this Authors words imply to the contrary they were willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of God also at least such of them as they thought would not lie too heavy upon their Necks I answer 1. If they had been willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of the Realm they would long ago have ceased to be Presbyterians that is shakers off of the yoke of Prelacy and Ceremonies establisht by those Laws 2. If they had been unwilling to come under any other yoke they would not have come under the yoke of the Covenant since it was not injoyned by any Law of the Realm 3. They have not shewed themselves willing to come under the yoke of the Oath of Supremacy imposed by Law since they have been far from a practical acknowledgment that the King of England is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and all other his Dominions and Countries in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes and that the reforming ordering corrrecting of them is by a Statute 1. Eliz. for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm but on the contrary themselves usurpt the power of reforming ordering correcting them without yea against his consent and in so doing they enervated our Monarchy and rendred it too impotent in a chief part of its Prerogative nay too many of them are so far from acknowledging the Kings Supremacy in their actions that they refrain even from a verbal acknowledgment of it in their prayers for when they pray for the King they make a halt at the end of those words Defender of the Faith as if the confessing him Supreme Head in all Ecclesiastical causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons were either Error Heresie or a piece of Treason To the 2. I answer by demanding 1. Whether there be not as much if not more Law for the Kings imposing Taxes in some cases without the consent of Lords Temporal and Commons than there is for their imposing them without the Kings consent 2. Whether the King and his Privy Council are not more competent Judges of the exigency of times and cases in reference to such impositions than Presbyterian subjects 3. Whether any Law of the Land forbids the payment of Taxes imposed by the King without consent of the three Estates viz. Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons 4. Whether it does not equally forbid the payment of Taxes imposed by the three Estates and much more by two only without the King 5. Whether Presbyterians were not willing enough to pay arbitrary Taxes to the Presbyterian Lords Temporal and Commons though levied without the Kings consent and therefore without consent of Parliament and consequently whether that be not false which this Author tells us that they were not willing to pay Taxes levied without consent of Parliament 6. Whether in so doing they did not abundantly manifest that 't was not the arbitrariness of the Taxes but either their being imposed by the King or else their being imposed to such ends as did not serve the Presbyterian Interest that was the main reason of their quarrelling with and contending against those Imposition 'T is therefore too evident that the Presbyterians had a design to enervate our English Monarchy since though they refused not to pay arbitrary Taxes to some Lords Temporal and Commons levied without the Kings consent and on purpose to carry on a War against him yet they were unwilling to pay arbitrary Taxes to the King though levied for the defence of his person and Authority because levied without consent of Parliament Upon which pretence also their great Advocate Mr. Prynne would fain have perswaded them to deny the payment of the Assessments imposed by those powers that routed the Presbyterian Lords and Commons That Author in his Reasons why he would not pay Taxes viz. to the Independent Lords and Commons tells us p. 1. That by the Fundamental Laws and known Statutes of this Realm no Tax Tallage Aid Imposition Contribution Loan or Assessment whatsoever may or ought to be imposed or levied on the Free-men and people of this Realm of England but by the will and common assent of the Earls Barons Knights Burgesses Commons and whole Realm in a free and full Parliament by Act of Parliament all Taxes not so imposed and levied though for the common defence and profit of the Realm being unjust oppressive c. This is sound Doctrine it seems when Independents domineer but in the time of the Presbyterian Tyranny Taxes might be imposed and levied by some Lords Temporal and Commons only without Act of Parliament and yet not be accounted either unjust or oppressive or inconsistent with the Liberty of the Subject The reason was because Presbyterian ambition was cherish'd and
danger rashly and unnecessarily at first nor afterwards by unlawful means preserved themselves from a legal Trial and the stroke of Justice for those misdemeanors But when resisting evil and those that offer it can be reconciled with not resisting it or them and with the suffering of real and much more pretended injuries When raising War against our Royal Soveraign and continuing it for several years can justly be interpreted making peace When the applying Curse ye Meroz yea curse ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof Judg. 5. 23. to those that came not forth to fight against the King and his loyal subjects can consist with blessing and praying for those that are supposed despitefully to use and persecute us when Dove-like harmlesness and Wolfish cruelty cease to be contradictories when to wrest the power of the Militia out of the Kings hands and to deny him his Negative voice is to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's when Covenanting against Prelacy and our Church-Discipline and Orders is all one with the observing and doing what our lawful Governours require when putting up our swords into their sheaths and loving doing good to and forgiving our enemies is compatible with reproaching their persons with ruining themselves and their Families with turning them out of their legal possessions with plundering their Goods sheathing swords into their bowels and spilling their innocent and loyal bloud then and not till then will Presbyterian practises be reconcileable with Christ's precepts and agreeable to that Religion which he taught the world and which as this Author well observes is not variable according to the will of man but indispensably binds every Soul and is grounded upon an unchangeable eternal Truth which if the English Independent J. Goodwin or Bucanan the Scotch Presbyterian had believed heretofore they had not made such an ugly Fanatick Apology as they did for subjects taking up Arms against and murdering their Soveraign De jure Regni P. 50 55. and if the Presbyterian professors of this Religion and of their own true knowledge and sense of the Nature of it had acted suitably to such a profession they had never thought it expedient to reduce his late Majesty to such dismal straits at the Isle of Wight where they constrained him to grant them so much liberty as miserably enfeebled the Monarchical and Legal power of the Kings of England whereby whatsoever he cants in the following lines of a King 's ruling over a free people Presbyterians have sufficiently taught us that they take more delight in making good Kings their slaves than in manifesting themselves to be good subjects To be a powerful Monarch says he p. 48. ever a free people is the freedom and glory of our Soveraign Lord above all the Potentates of the Earth The more disloyal creatures were those presbyterians who in that fatal Isle treated with such a Soveraign Lord and once powerful Monarch to such bad purposes as to despoil him of his Royal Freedom and Glory and by their imperious demands to dwindle this potent and glorious Monarchy into a slavish ignoble titular Kingship whence we may conjecture what a licentious treasonable liberty it is that such Free-born subjects breath after and how insolently they 'l again exercise it over our Soveraign Lord the King if by his Majesties connivence and indulgence they meet with the like opportune advantages of winding themselves by degrees into the like power From which premises I conclude that notwithstanding any thing produced here by this Author to the contrary this second Charge against the Presbyterians that they are Anti-Monarchical is a true accusation not a calumny The third Calumny as he calls it with which Presbyterians are loaded is the charge of Disobedience and Rebellion and this says our Author were a crying sin indeed But yet he thinks it necessary to speak something Apologetical at least to mitigate the business and remove prejudice and therefore p. 49. he tells us The Presbyterian party in England never engaged under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament A. The word engaged is of dubious signification 1. Did they never engage that is subscribe the Engagement to be faithful to the Commonwealth as establisht without King or House of Lords under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament 2. Did they never engage that is raise and foment jealousies against the King reproaches against the Bishops or preach Division Sedition and Schism instead of Union Loyalty and Obedience under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament Nay 3. Did they never engage in fighting against the King under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament Is he ignorant that two thirds and more of the Lords deserted that house because of those frequent Tumults which drave the King from London and that the major part of the House of Commons left that House also for the same reasons and that new men See Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 35. were chosen in their places against Law by the pretended warrant of a counterfeit Seal Is he Ignorant that his late Majesty in a Declaration 1642. occasioned by the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons for the assessing men a 20th part of their Estates hath these words Our good Subjects will no longer look upon these and the like results as upon the Counsels and Conclusions of both our houses of Parliament though all the world knows even that authority can never justify things unwarrantable by Law They well know how few of the persons trusted by them are present at their Consulations of above 500 not 80 and of the House of Peers not a fifth part that they who are present enjoy not the Priviledge and Freedome of Parliament but are besieged by an Army and awed by the same Tumults which drave us and their Fellow-members from thence to consent to what some few seditious schismatical persons among them do propose Is to fight under the banner of such a minor part of both Houses or of the superinduced major part illegally chosen to engage under no less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament nay not only illegally but treasonably chosen for to counterfeit the great Seal and by such a Seal they were chosen is Treason by the 25 of Edw. 3. 4. Suppose they had engaged that is fought against the King under the Authority of both Houses legally called sitting in their full number and remaining free yet even then they had fought against their Soveraign upon no higher Authority than Subjects could give them which was none at all to that end for the two Houses though consisting of all three Estates Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons are no more than Subjects whatsoever this Author insinuates to the contrary in the following Lines I have read says he that the Parliament of England hath several capacities and among the rest these two 1. That it represents the people as subjects and so it
of Canonists Civilians Schoolmen nor is it to my knowledge contradicted by any that the Legislative power is delegable that such a concurrence is no Argument of supremacy or of such a mixture as some would infer out of it Some call it therefore apparens mixtura because it seems to destroy a simple Form of Government and to make a mixture in the power it self but doth not though otherwise they acknowledge it to be such a mixture as doth remit the simplicity thereof Grotius affirms to this purpose de Imperio summ potest circa sacra c. 8. N. 11. Illam legislationem quae alii quà m summae potestati competit nihil imminuere de jure summae porestatis He speaks this of Laws made by general Conventions whose concurrence he saith doth not in the least manner diminish the Rights of Majesty Such a mixture of the three Estates hath been in other Monarchies which all men acknowledge to have been absolute in respect of power as in the Persian which appears from Dan. 6 7 8 9. and the Roman Empire And not only whole representative Bodies but divers particular free Cities have the same priviledge yet have not supreme Authority As for the enacting Authority attributed in latter times to the Lords and Commons in the beginning of some Acts he affirms p. 101. That 't is only a power of assenting for it hath been resolved by the Judges that this clause Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and the Authority of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament is no more in substance and effect than that which was used anciently The King with the assent of the Lords and Commons establisheth the words assenteth and enacteth being equivalent in this case and p. 45. he tells us that though the two Houses have Authority granted them by the King to assent or dissent yet the Legislative power belongs to the King alone by the Common Law the Authority that animates a Bill agreed upon by the two Houses and makes it differ from a dead letter being in the King who is the life and soul of the Law which was resolved also by divers Earls and Barons and by all the Justices in the time of Edw. 3. For one Hardlow and his Wife having a controversie with the King and desiring to have it decided in Parliament a reference being made to divers Earls and Barons and to all the Justices to consider of the business it was resolved that the two Houses were not coordinate with the King in the legislative power but that the King alone made Laws by the assent of the two Houses that he had none equal or coordinate with him in his Realm and that he could not be judged by the Lords and Commons From all which it appears 1. That that part which the two Houses have by Law in the Legislative power is not a sufficient medium to perswade us that they have a part in the supremacy and 2. That they have no share at all in any power which may properly be called Legislative I mean in that sence in which the words Legislative power are now adays commonly taken viz. for a power of making Laws For among the Romans Legem ferre was no more than Legem ad populum in concionem quasi in medium afferre proponere and Legislation was no more than Legis Rogatio à populo the proposing the matter of a Law to the Roman Citizens and asking their assent in order to its establishment I conclude therefore that the supremacy is wholly in the King notwithstanding this insinuation to the contrary For the proof whereof if this Author stand in need of more Arguments I refer him to the Rebels Plea examined p. 11 12. to Dr. Pierce's Impartial Enquiry into the Nature of sin Appendix p. 210 211 c. To Mr. Sheringham's Remonstrance of the King 's Right or the King's supremacy asserted To Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 7 8 9. Indeed this consideration alone is sufficient to evince it that by the Oath administred to all that sit in the lower House the King is acknowledged the only Supreme Governor in all Causes then in Parliament-Causes says J. Jenkins Lex Terrae p. 127. over all Persons then over the two Houses ibid. which Oath every Member of the House of Commons is enjoyned by Law to take or else he hath no Voice in that House 5 Eliz. c. 1. Lex Terrae p. 67. Therefore the King is by Law the only supreme Governor and consequently it may not be thought that a part of the Supreme Power doth reside in the two Houses Our Author goes on And this part of the Supreme Power is capable indeed of doing wrong but how it might be capable of Rebellion is more difficult to conceive 1. Here he confidently takes it for granted that the two Houses are part of the Supreme Power whereas in the precedent words he spake more modestly and told us only it might be thought that a part of the Supreme Power did reside in them not peremptorily inferring that it doth reside in them And indeed he could not rationally have so concluded unless he had produced more cogent Arguments to make good that conclusion 2. Whereas he acknowledges the two Houses capable of doing wrong and tells us only that 't is difficult to conceive how they may be guilty of Rebellion 1. Notwithstanding this Apology the Presbyterians that acted in and by Authority derived from the two Houses may have been guilty of Rebellion since the difficulty of conceiving how they might be thus guilty will not evince their innocence 2. I demand of him whether 1. they are capable of doing such wrong to the King as the Law makes Treason and Rebellion whether 2. if they do such wrong it be not easie to conceive that they are guilty of Rebellion and Treason The Law of the Land 25 Edw. 3. ch 2. makes it treason to levy war against our Lord the King in his Realm or to be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving to them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere and also to counterfeit the Kings Great or Privy Seal or Money The resolutions of all the Judges of England upon the said Statute have been that to seize upon the Kings Ports Forts Magazines for War is high Treason Lex Terrae p. 77. as likewise to levy War either to alter the Religion or any Law establisht p. 22. 40. or to remove the Kings Counsellors p. 22. Yea these things were acknowledged to be Treason not only by Sir Edw. Cooke in his Institutes printed by an Order of both Houses dated May 12. 1641. but also by Mr. Solicitor S. John and Mr. Pym in their speeches touching the Earl of Strafford Where as J. Jenkins quotes them Lex Terrae p. 187 188. they likewise affirm it Treason to usurp the Royal power to raise rumors and give out words to alienate the peoples affections from the King to subvert the
Fundamental Laws to impose unlawful Taxes or new Oaths to levy War within the Realm without authority from the King 'T is confessed also by Sir Edw. Cooke that no priviledge of Parliament holds or is grantable for Treason Felony or breach of the Peace 4. Institut 25. If not to any one Member says J. Jenkins p. 15. not to two nor to ten nor to the major part Now I suppose this Author is not either so ignorant or so perverse as to deny that the two Houses did levy War against the King that they counterfeited the Great Seal that they seized upon the Kings Ports Forts Magazines for War that they usurpt the Royal power raised rumors and gave out words to alienate the people from the King imposed a new Oath unlawful Taxes and levied War without yea against the Kings Authority From which premises I discern not any difficulty in deducing this genuine though sad and dismal consequence that those two Houses and the presbyterian party which adhered to them and gave them aid and comfort were guilty of Disobedience Treason and Rebellion If the major part of a Parliament commit Treason they must not be judges of it for no man or body can be judge in his own cause and as well as ten or any number may commit Treason the greater number may as well says J. Jenkins Lex Terrae P. 15 16. In this high and tender point it belongs not says our Author to me to determine The main reason of which scrupulosity is most probably no other than this that he 's so much a Presbyterian that either his blind and deluded understanding or rather his disloyal and rebellious heart will not suffer him to determine the Question on the Kings side For if this Rector of Bramshot be not mis-reported he was heretofore a Preacher in a two-Houses-Garrison and Chaplain to the Governor of that Garrison and at that time I presume this was not look'd upon by him as a point too high and tender But now tempora mutantur and yet not so chang'd it seems but that this Author still dares to insinuate Apologies for the former damnable Presbyterian practices of fighting against the King witness these following words p. 50. 60. And as touching the much debated point of resisting the higher Powers without passing any judgment in the great case of England I shall only make rehearsal of the words of Grotius a man of renown and known to be neither Anti-Monarchical nor Anti-Prelatical which are found in his Book de jure Belli Pacis by himself dedicated to the French King Si Rex partem habeat summi imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis justa opponi poterit quia eatenus Imperium non habet Quod locum habere censco etiamsi dictum sit belli potestatem penes Regem fore Id enim de bello externo intelligendum est cum alioqui quisquis Imperii summam partem habeat non possit non jus habere eam partem tuendi L. 1. c. 4. sect 13. which Chapter by the way is proved to be dangerously Anti-Monarchical by the Author of the Observations on the original of Government p. 34 c. but Here I demand 1. Whether this Author can reasonably be imagined to produce these words of Grotius to any other end than to justifie the War of the Presbyterian Lords and Commons against the King 2. Whether therefore his pretending not to pass any judgment in the great case of England in not sillily and yet sadly hypocritical especially considering 1 That in the precedent p. he takes it for granted that the two Houses had a part in the supreme power 2. That the same Author who insers their having such a part from their having as he fancies a part in the Legislative power quotes this very passage out of Grotius to justifie the two Houses and himself in fighting and encouraging others to fight against the King which Author yet ingenuously promises that he will offer his Head he meant I suppose his Neck to justice as a Rebel when 't is proved that the King was the highest power in the time of the divisions and that he had power to make that War which he made He here implicitly confesses says Dr. Pierce Impartial Enquiry Postscript p. 14 15. the King was once the highest power and implies he lost it by the divisions but that he never could lose it and that demonstrably he had it I have made most evident in the Appendix of this Book which concerns Mr. B. as much as Mr. H. at least as far as I have proved the supremacy of the King § 78. And that the King had power to make that War which he made in defence of pars sua viz. the ordering of the Militia his Negative voice in Parliament his right to the possession of all Castles Ports Ports Magazines within his Dominions c. is as clearly the opinion of Grotius in this passage as 't is that the two Houses in partem non suam involantes had power to make that War which they made to defend their own violation of the Kings Rights The truth is those words of Grotius are no argument of the justness of the late War on either side and therefore they are impertinently produced to such a purpose till these minors are well and soundly proved 1. That the two Houses had legally a part in the supremacy which Grotius himself denies can be concluded from that part which they had in Legislation And 2. that the King did involare in partem summi Imperii non suam invade any such prerogative or part in the supremacy for of that only Grotius speaks as did by Law belong to the two Houses For though it could be proved that the King did intrench upon some priviledge of theirs yet if that priviledge did not belong to them quatenus having a share in the Soveraignty Grotius his words though they should be granted of infallible truth will not justifie their fighting against the King upon that account But this sly discourser was perswaded it seems that when he had rehearsed this hypothetical major Si Rex partem habeat summi Imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis just a opponi poterit Every Presbyterian that understood Latin and had engaged against the King under the Authority of the two Houses would willingly take the minor for granted Sed Senatus ille qualis qualis partem habuit summi Imperii in eam partem non suam involavit Rex and thence very hastily and joyfully conclude Ergò vis à Senatu isto vel potius Senatûs quisquiliis retrimentis Regi opposita erat justa even by the verdict of Grotius that man of renown At this Presbyterian rate of disputing are Arguments hudled up in the Book called The Covenanters Plea against Absolvers the sophistry of some parts of which
to make an Act of Parliament for raising of moneys and ordering the Militia though the King denied his Royal Assent which power was never challenged by nor granted to both Houses in any Kings reign before and takes away the Kings Negative voice as to those particulars To pass by other instances for I am quite weary of raking in such a stinking Dunghil these are enough to manifest what kind of creatures Presbyterians were in point of loyalty when they had power in their hands to be impunè disloyal and how willing to subvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom since by vertue of these propositions which they had the imperious confidence to tender to his sacred Majesty in that deplorable condition to which they had reduced him they denuded him of his Royal power and vested themselves with all the considerable parts of Soveraignty and when they had thus subverted the Fundamental Constitution of the English Monarchy and had pass'd that Vote which this Author mentions touching the Kings Concessions and were thereupon deprived by the Army of that power of imposing on his Majesty and the Kingdom which they had so Tyrannically abused these secluded and imprisoned Members wrote a Vindication of themselves from the Aspersions cast upon them by the Army in one passage of which Vindication p. 8 9. they give us reason enough to suspect that if their own prosperity had continued they would yet more unworthily have insulted over his Majesty and have taken such a cruel advantage of those great infelicities into which themselves had cast him as to tender and extort from him some more diminutions if possible of that little power and no greatness which the former had left him for say they by this Vote viz. that the Kings Concessions were a ground sufficient for the House to proceed upon to settle the Nation the House did not determine as we conceive the having no farther Treaty with his Majesty before a concluding and declaring of peace nor were the Houses so bound up thereby that they could not propose any thing farther wherein the Kings Answers were defective or from making any new Propositions for the better healing our breaches or more safe binding up a just and righteous peace It seems then those Lords and Commons had some more such signal testimonies in pickle of their Presbyterian loyalty some more demonstrations that when they took and imposed the Covenant they had no thoughts and intentions to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness It seems they had some clearer explications in their Budget of their meaning in those words in the preface to the Covenant Having before our eyes the honour and happiness of the Kings Majesties person and his posterity which words interpreted by their actions must signifie that they had it before their eyes only as a mark to shoot at But God deliver us for the time to come from the Presbyterian reserves of such a disloyal and corrupt majority wherein they abundantly manifested how tractable Scholars they were to Scotch Teachers and how able and willing to imitate yea transcend that ungodly pattern which they had set them who when the King had before granted them more than was fit for such persons to receive had the insolent confidence to ask moreover such things as 't was not fit for the King to give And thus the English Presbyterians by enlarging their desires as Hell fill'd up the measure of that Scorch iniquity which he that runs may read in his late Majesties large Declaration of the Tumults in Scotland printed Ann. 1638. Our Author proceeds thus In those times the Presbyterian Ministers of London in their publick Vindication thus declare themselves We profess before God Angels and Men that we verily believe that that which is so much feared to be now in agitation the taking away the life of the King in this present way of Trial is not only not agreeable to the word of God the principles of the Protestant Religion never yet stain'd with the least drop of the bloud of a King or the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom but contrary to them as also to the Oath of Allegiance the Protestation of May 5. 1641. and the Solemn League and Covenant from all which or any of which Engagements we know not any Power on Earth able to absolve us or others To which I answer 1. Though the Presbyterian Ministers of London were granted not guilty of the death of the King yet they might be guilty of disobedience and rebellion against him which was the objection p. 48. 58. to which objection therefore this Apology is impertinent 2. Nor is the Apology at all satisfactory as to the taking away of the Kings life in some other way of Trial it being designed only against that present way of Trial for 't is only with that limiting specification that they vindicate themselves for they say that the taking away the Kings life in this present way of Trial is not agreeable to the word of God c. Whence all that I can conclude in reason is that they did not imagine it agreeable to the word of God or the principles of the Protestant Religion or the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom or the Oath of Allegiance Protestation Covenant to take away his life in that way of Trial viz. by that High Court of Justice set up by the Independent party but notwithstanding this they might deem it consistent with the word of God and the principles of the Protestant Religion c. to take away his life in a way of Trial appointed and modelled by the corrupt majority of the two Houses the Presbyterian Lords and Commons And if the Author of Clerico-Classicum deceive us not p. 35. of his Answer to the London-Ministers letter to the General and Council of War Jan. 18. 1648. Mr. Pryn allows of a capital proceeding against Emperors Kings and Princes in his Appendix to the fourth part of his Soveraign power of Parliaments p. 190. ad 194. It I am not deceived also a man called Mr. Christopher Love who I think deem'd himself a Minister of Jesus Christ I am sure he was a Presbyterian Minister of London did in a thing called a Sermon at Vxbridge Treaty justifie yea urge the taking away of the Kings life in as bad a way of Tryal for in that Sermon having spoken of the bloud-guiltiness of the King yea intimated unnaturalhorrible-bloud-guiltiness in him and thereby made him the troubler of England as Achan was of Israel he hath these words p. 32. 'T was the Lord that troubled Achan because he troubled Israel Oh that in this our State-Physicians would resemble God to cut off those from the Land who have distempered it melius est ut pereat unus quà m unitas Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est but yet more plain p. 37. men who lye under the guilt of much innocent blood are not meet persons to be at peace with till all the
guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Mr. Love says that Author will not say that the King was not guilty of much innocent bloud left he should contradict himself neither will he say that bloud-guiltiness can be expiated but by bloud lest he should contradict the Scriptures neither can he say but the King was cut off either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Whence I conclude that according to those Principles of Mr. Love the King 's being put to death in that way of Tryal was neither contrary to the word of God nor the Principles of the Protestant Religion c. but a work fit and expedient to be done and 't will be well for English Presbyterians if when the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open it be not revealed to the world that the main reason why they deprecated the putting the King to death in that way of Tryal was because he was not tryed and condemned by Presbyterians nor for their advantage but by those men who hated Presbytery and would not suffer it to domineer any longer For these very men could notwithstanding both the word of God and the principles of the English Protestant Religion notwithstanding the protestation and Solemn League and Covenant yea notwithstanding the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom and the Oath of Allegiance I say maugre all these obligations to the contrary if at least one of them be such an obligation these very men could join with the Presbyterian Lords and Commons in making War against the King and send an Army to shed his bloud in the high places of the Field and therefore if Presbyterians be Protestants and their Religion the Protestant Religion 't was not their Loyalty but the divine goodness and providence wonderfully interposing for the Kings safety that in so many battels kept the Protestant Religion from being stained with the bloud of a King especially as to Edge-Hill-fight if that be true which is affirmed in Fabian Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 79. that Blague a villain in the Kings Army had a great pension allowed him that he might give notice in what part of the Field the King stood that they might the better know how to shoot at him who accordingly gave notice of it and if God had not had a greater care of his Anointed than of their Rebellious pretences that Bullet from the Earl of Essex his Canon which graz'd at the King's Heels as he was Kneeling at his prayers on the side of a bank had taken away his life and the Presbyterian Religion such as it is had been stained with the bloud of a King And though the Presbyterians as the Apology for Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament tells us p. 69. would excuse themselves that they never intended the Kings destruction yet that is a frivolous and foolish excuse For as Sir Walter Rawleigh says truly Our Law doth construe all levying War without the Kings Commission and all force raised to be intended for the death and destruction of the King not attending the sequel and so 't is judged upon good reason for every unlawful and ill action is supposed to be accompanied with an ill intent The Lord Cook as the Apologizer goes on p. 70. speaking fully of all kinds and degrees of Treason 3 Institut p. 12. saith Preparation by some overt act to depose the King or take the King by force and strong hand and to imprison him until he hath yielded to certain demands is a sufficient overt Act to prove the compassing and imagination of the death of the King For this upon the matter is to make the King a Subject and to despoil him of his Kingly office of Royal Government and so it was resolved by all the Judges of England Hill 1 Jac. Regis in the case of the Lord Cobham Lord Grey and Watson and Clark Seminary Priests and so it had been resolved by the Justices Hill 43 Eliz. in the case of the Earls of Essex and Southampton who intended to go to the Court where the Queen was and to have taken her into their power and to have removed divers of her Council and for that end did assemble a multitude of people which being raised to the end aforesaid was a sufficient overt Act for compassing the death of the Queen The Presbyterians says he did offend in this kind notoriously and therefore committed Treason manifestly for they imprisoned the King in divers places and at length in a remote place in the Isle of Wight and all this done by them who were for the most part Presbyterians out of their design to compel the King to yield to their projects to overthrow the Bishops and to take their Lands and their revenues From this we may judge how agreeable Presbyterian actions were to the Constitution and Law of this Kingdom and how manifest it is that they must in Law be reckoned King-killers as well as the Army and if the Law of the Nation damn them to such a guilt and punishment on earth there is no Gospel that I know of will save them from Hell without a repentance proportionable to their Crimes which for ought I see they are hitherto so far from thinking a duty that they rather go about to justifie their former actings by returning again as far as they dare to the same follies that ushered in their former war and at first embrued the Nation in bloud Nor do I believe that they who took away the Kings life in that way of Trial acted upon any more treasonable and rebellious Principles than are owned and taught by some Presbyterian writers of the first magnitude both French Scotch and English The truth whereof I doubt will be very evident to him that can get and will peruse these Presbyterian Scripts Buchanan's de jure regni apud Scotos Knox's Appellation Vindiciae contra Tyrannos by Junius Brutus supposed to be either Beza or Hottoman David Paraeus his Commentary on Rom. 13. burnt at London and Oxford in King James his reign for its seditious Maxims Goodman an intimate Friend as 't is said of John Knox's his book of the same nature and tendency Rutherford's Lex Rex I find in Bishop Bancroft's Dangerous Positions B. 1. Ch. 2. speaking of Calvin's reforming at Geneva these words Since which time as I suppose it hath been a principle with some of the chief Ministers of Geneva but contrary to the Judgment of all other reformed Churches for ought I know which have not addicted themselves to follow Geneva that if Kings and Princes refuse to reform Religion the inferiour Magistrates or people by direction of the Ministry might lawfully and ought if need required even by force and Arms to reform it themselves And Ch. 4. This Position is quoted out of Knox that the punishment of such crimes as touch the Majesty of God doth not appertain to Kings and
chief Rulers only but also to the whole body of the people and to every member of the same as occasion vocation and ability shall serve to revenge the injury done against God That the people are bound by Oath to God to revenge to the utmost of their power the injury done against his Majesty That if Princes be Tyrants against God and his Truth their Subjects are freed from their Oath of obedience And out of Bucanan these That the people may arraign the Prince bestow the Crown at their pleasure that the Ministery may excommunicate him that an excommunicate person is not worthy to enjoy any life on earth that it were good that rewards were appointed by the people for such as should kill Tyrants And Ch. 5. To this objection God places Tyrants sometimes for the punishment of his people this answer given by the Reverend Bucanan so doth he private men sometimes to Kill them And this new Divinity says the Bishop of dealing thus with Kings and Princes is not held only by Knox and Bucanan but generally for ought I can learn by most of the Consistorians of chief name beyond the Seas who being of the Geneva humour do endeavour by most unjust and disloyal means to subject to their forged Presbyteries the Scepters and Swords of Kings and Princes as Calvin Beza Hottoman Ursin as he cometh out from Newstadt vindiciae contra Tyrannos Eusebius Philadelphus c. These also B. 2. Ch. 1. I find out of Goodman Evil Princes ought by the Law of God to be deposed and inferiour Magistrates ought chiefly to do it It is lawful to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants when Magistrates cease to do their duties in thus deposing or killing Princes the people are as it were without officers and then God gives the sword into their hands and he himself is become immediately their Head for to the multitude a portion of the Sword of Justice is committed And out of him and a Book of Obedience these If neither the inferiour Magistrates nor the greatest part of the people will do their Offices in punishing deposing or killing of Princes then the Minister must excommunicate such a King any Minister may do it against the greatest Prince God will send to the rest of the people who are willing to do their duty but not able some Moses or Othoniel by the word of God a private man having some special inward motion may kill a Tyrant Or otherwise a private man may do so if he be commanded or permitted by the Commonwealth Now if some inferiour Magistrate a handful of the people yea one man may kill a Tyrant an evil Prince one that refuses to reform Religion this implyes that the same person or persons may be a Judge or Judges whether such or such a King be a Tyrant an evil Prince a refuser to reform and consequently one that deserves death or no. Upon such wicked principles as these dictated and taught by Presbyterian Oracles in conjunction with this minor that the late King was a person so criminal as to deserve death which they that ordered his Trial took upon them to be Judges of as they might well by these now mentioned principles horrid Regicide was pathetically recommended to his Auditors at Vxbridge-Treaty by Mr. Christopher Love a Presbyterian Minister of London and long after that perpetrated by Order of a part of the people some Commons and the High Court of Justice who adjudged the King to be thus criminous and apologiz'd for by John Price Citizen of London in his Clerico-Classicum as an Act agreeable enough to the declared judgment of many protestant he means Presbyterian Divines in testimony whereof he quotes several passages out of Presbyterian Authors p. 32. to 35. which pamphlet if the Title-page deceive us not may serve as a brief answer to that Vindication of the London Ministers here spoken of And indeed 't is a discourse so abounding with strong and rational Arguments ad homines that I doubt 't is beyond the skill of a Presbyterian to give a solid and satisfactory reply to it From all which it follows that either the presbyterian Ministers of London must damn the now mentioned Principles and Tenents of those their presbyterian Ancestors and their own opinions also at the Vxbridge-Treaty if they were the same with Mr. Love's one of their Tribe or else they must justifie this inference That the taking away the life of the King in that then present way of Trial was rather a duty than a crime Which though it be a wretched and Traiterous conclusion yet is very regularly deducible from those principles And I appeal to any intelligent and ingenuous persons and desire them to tell me whether the murderers of the late King did infer that bloudy Corollary from any more treasonable and rebellious Theorems and Consectaries than these which I have now produced and whether Independents did not in justifying that horrid Fact write exactly after those Copies which Presbyterians both ancient and modern had set them And hence I think I may reasonably affirm that those principles of the Protestant Religion which are contrary to King-killing are no otherwise owned by such Presbyterians as I have now spoken of than as most Presbyterians say that Papists own some Articles of our Faith viz. damnably because they hold together with them other principles which consequentially overthrow those Articles And therefore 't was but a vanity in the London Ministers to vindicate themselves by speaking of those principles as opposite to that way of Trial a greater folly was it to produce the solemn League and Covenant which in the third Article talks so loosely and crudely of defending the Kings person and Authority that Presbyterians might without offering any violence to the words plunder him of all his Authority and both they and the Independents take away his life notwithstanding that Article whensoever they should think fit to determine that the true Religion and Libertie of the Kingdoms could not be defended and preserved unless the Kings person and Authority were destroyed But in the fourth Article there 's as clear and smooth a way opened to the commission of that heinous sin as the most forward Actors in it needed to desire for there the Covenanters are bound with all faithfulness to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Incendiaries Malignants evil Instruments that they may be brought to publick Trial and receive condign punishment not only as the degree of their offences required or deserved but also as the Supreme Judicatories whether de facto or de jure we are not certified of both Kingdoms respectively or others having power from them for that effect should judge convenient So that since the men who ordered the Trial of the King were at that time de facto the supreme Judicatory of England and since they look'd upon him as an Incendiary and evil Instrument and therefore to be brought to publick Trial and the
Divine Law and moreover that by an Oath imposed by a Lawful Magistrate that which before was free and indifferent is made necessary to the takers p. 65. S. 19. and that the obligation of an Oath thus imposed results from Divine Institution p. 62. S. 11. from God's Law p. 64. Sect. 13. By which Concessions they do not only condemn all those Nonconformists who refused compliance with Episcopal Impositions because forsooth their Christian Liberty in things left indifferent by God ought not to be prejudiced and restrained by man but also they overthrow 1. that principle That nothing is a duty especially in Gods worship which is not commanded by God and 2. that principle that no part of worship is lawful which is not commanded of God and yet both these principles are owned by Presbyterians if this Author deceive us not p. 88. 98. where he tells us they hold that Scripture only is the Rule of instituted worship wherein both addition and diminution is alike forbidden and p. 84 85. that whatsoever instituted worship is not ordained of God is unlawful whence it sollows that men ought not to swear or Covenant for or against any thing that 's left indifferent in the Divine Law not for any thing which God's word commands not nor against any thing which it does not forbid For so to do is to worship God by taking such an Oath and entring into such a Covenant as is not ordained by him but is only of humane Institution and determination Now the Solemn League and Covenant was not either instituted or imposed by God in his Law either of Nature or Scripture even by their own confession who on Saturday Aug. 5. 1648. affirmed in the House of Commons that the Covenant it self was not jure Divino though the keeping of it being taken was Hist of Independ 1 Part p. 125 126. but only by men and 't is acknowledged by those pleaders to have been a Vow only freely and voluntarily entred into and not by vertue of any Divine command in the first takers and imposers and therefore since 't is owned also as a sacred religious Act of worship 't was in them and others not only a piece of Schism against the Church of England and of Sedition against the King and Laws of England but also a solemn piece of superstition will-worship as that signifies in their own dialect a worshipping God in such a manner as himself hath not prescribed in his Word and therefore on the score of Presbyterian principles an Act of high and hainous disobedience to the Law of God and therefore their taking an Oath thus imposed was to violate their principles for the advancement of their Interest and yet these are the men that are so fixt and constant as none more Besides this Author tells us p. 85. that Presbyterians hold that that Ceremony which is instituted by men not by God which is of mystical signification and though it may naturally yet does not actually signifie without humane institution and is by men appropriate to Divine worship is upon that account a part of Divine worship and p. 88. 98. they hold that all such sacred Ceremonies not commanded by God are neither good nor lawful But say I this was the very case in the taking of the Covenant for the Ceremony with which the Covenanters did take it viz. lifting up the hand was appropriate to that Oath which they deemed a piece of religious worship It did not actually signifie that the Takers did swear either by Divine or Natural but by Humane Institution and that novel too the usual Ceremony of taking an Oath in this Nation before being tactis sacrosanctis Christi Evangeliis laying the hand upon and afterwards kissing the holy Evangels to which indeed that Covenant was so contrary that 't is no wonder the Covenant was so contrary that 't is no wonder the Ceremony was altered and exchanged for that of lifting up the hand which is not of Divine Institution or prescribed by God the Father in the Old Testament and much less by God the Son in the New whom yet Presbyterians hold to be the only Master of ordaining Ceremonies for the Christian Worship and some of them it seems are yet to learn that any examples oblige them but those of Christ and his Apostles and consequently no Old Testament examples Discourse of Liturgies p. 60. And that that Ceremony was of mystical signification I prove by that medium which this Author himself makes use of p. 87. 97. to prove the Cross in Baptism such a Ceremony viz. It is used as a sealing sign of our obligation to Christ and therefore it 's in that respect Sacramental so say I was the lifting up of the hand in the swearing the Covenant used as a sealing sign of the Covenanters obligation to God and Christ Although indeed and in truth by that Covenant sealed with that Ceremony they dedicated themselves to the disservice of him that died on the Cross to a real and practical defiance of Christ the King of his Church and his Vicegerent in this Nation King Charles Thus a Ceremony of humane Presbyterian institution for the ratification of a seditious Covenant ordained and imposed against Law by an illegal power for the satisfying of the Scotch appetite and promoting the Presbyterian Interest is a Camel easily and greedily swallowed by the capacious throat of a Presbyterian Covenanter who yet at the same time can either blindly or perversly strain at the Gnat of a Ceremony instituted by lawful Authority establisht and enjoyned by the Laws of the Land and Constitutions of the Church If I had some Books about me fit for such a purpose I believe I could add some sheets of pertinent instances to Bishop Bancroft's Collection in that 26. ch of his Survey of Presbyterian Levity in opinion and inconsistency with themselves and with others of their own Faction when self-interest prompted them to such variations I shall at this time mention only one proof more 'T is a repeated principle of the Covenanters in their Plea and their discourse of Liturgies that neither the Parliament nor any power under Heaven can discharge them from the obligation of an Oath This is good Doctrine it seems when applied to the Covenant and understood in a sence advantageous to Presbytery but when the Question was about the obligation of the Oath of Allegiance wherein they swore that they would defend his Majesty his Heirs and Successors to the uttermost of their power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which should be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any Sentence or Declaration of the Pope or otherwise and that they are in conscience resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve them of that Oath or any part of it I say when this was the Question then Presbyterian practises manisested that they accounted the contrary good Doctrine viz. that