Book is scarce exceeded by Knot 's Volume against Chillingworth In it several hypothetical majors are to be met with but the minors are either not mentioned or else presumed to be true without any attempt made to prove them so Now Zachary Crofton tells us in his Berith Anti-Baal p. 62. that Ifs are no proofs or demonstrations What good duty justice morality or religion may not be ruined if a mans fancied If be reason enough against it This way of disputing as apparently Jesuitical irrational Machiavellian barbarous The Rector of Bramshot thus proceeds with reverence to soveraign Majesty I crave leave to speak this word of truth and soberness Parturiunt Montes one would think some very sage and important Oracle should forthwith drop from the Pen of this Reverend Dictator In a knowing age quoth he flattery doth not really exalt or secure the Royal Prerogative Quid nascitur Such a Triobolary Truth as I believe there 's scarce any Presbyterian so simple as to be ignorant of it But there 's something suggested in it that I am afraid will one day be found a notorious and fatal falshood viz. that this hath been a knowing Age as to those parties who have opposed and sought against the Royal interest whereas I doubt 't is far easier to prove that in that respect it hath been either the most ignorant I mean of most grand concerning Truths or the most maliciously wicked profligated and debauched Age that ever Protestant England knew The Authority of Parliaments being depressed and undervalued is the more searched into and urged By Parliaments here 't is evident enough he means the two Houses in contradistinction yea opposition to the King But says Lex Terrae p. 80. The Lords and Commons make no more a Parliament by the Law of the Land than a Body without a Head makes a man for a Parliament is a body composed of a King their head Lords and Commons the members all three together make one body and that is the Parliament and none other The two Houses are not the Parliament but only parts thereof and by the abuse and misunderstanding of this word Parliament they have miserably deceived the people And his late Majesty in answer to their Declaration of May 19. 1642. and to that part of it wherein they complain that the Heads of the Malignant party have with much Art and Industry advised him to suffer divers unjust scandals and imputations upon the Parliament to be published in his Name has these words If we were guilty of that aspersion we must not only be active in raising the scandal but passive in the mischief begotten by that scandal We being an essential part of the Parliament And we hope the just defence of our self and our Authority and the necessary Vindication of our innocence and justice from the imputation laid on us by a major part then present of either or both Houses shall no more be called a scandal upon the Parliament than the opinion of such a part be reputed an Act of Parliament And we hope our good Subjects will not be long misled by that common expression in all the Declarations wherein they usurp the word Parliament and apply it to countenance any resolution or Vote some few have a mind to make by calling it the resolution of Parliament which can never be without our consent p. 5. Neither can the vote of either or both Houses make a greater alteration in the Laws of this Kingdom either by commanding or inhibiting any thing besides the known Rule of the Law than our single direction or mandate can do to which we do not ascribe the Authority And now let this Author search his Law-Books with the exactest diligence and skill he can and then let him tell us by what Law the two Houses abstracted from the King have any Parliamentary Authority Indeed his own following words do clearly enough imply that they have no such Authority For p. 51. 61. he is so inconsiderately bold as to assert that Concerning the utmost bounds and limits of Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary power the Law in deep wisdom chooses to keep silence for it always supposes union not division between King and Parliament Whence all that I shall conclude is that the power of a Parliament truly so called viz. King Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons is not limited by Law and thence I gather either that some Acts of Parliament are no Laws or that that part of some Acts wherein 't is declared that any following statutes contrariant to such and such preceding statutes shall be utterly void is vain and ridiculous But 2. That the two Houses when they usurped the power of a Parliament as well as the name and acted in opposition to the King had no Law on their side to justifie their actings For if the Law always supposes union between King and Parliament it speaks nothing of the Rights and Priviledges of the two Houses in case of their division from and opposition to the King And 3. That the Kings power and prerogative is absolute and notwithstanding all Law of this Nation infinite for if the Law be silent and that in deep wisdom too as to the utmost bounds of the Royal Prerogative it hath very wisely lest it unbounded which latter conclusions and the first also are so prejudicial to the Presbyterian Interest and Party that I doubt they will conclude him either the veryest Fool if indeed he knew not that the Kings Prerogative was bounded by Law or the most Malignant Flatterer that this knowing Age hath brought forth His next Argument to evince Presbyterian Loyalty is that The subversion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom could never be effected till those Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian were many of them imprisoned others forcibly secluded by the violence of the Army and the rest thereupon withdrew from the House of Commons An assertion so notoriously false that it puts me in mind of the proverb in the late War that some men would not swear but they would lye basely The truth is the subversion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom both in Church and State was the great work of the Long-Parliament which they effected in the Church by overthrowing the Hierarchy and that Prelacy in which the Holy Church of England was founded Stat. of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. recited 25 Edw. 3. in the State by passing and pressing upon the King that Bill against the Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament who were in all Parliaments either personally or by Proxy since we had any who were once of the States of Parliament and in the Act of Parliament 8 Eliz. c. 1. acknowledged one of the greatest States of this Realm all whose Liberties and Priviledges and consequently that of sitting in Parliament to which they ought to be summoned ex debito Justitiae Cookes Institut 4. c. 9. are confirmed to them by Magna Charta which was it self ratified by 32 Acts
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
Practice But the latter clause that they teach obedience active in all lawful things and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the higher power may justly make an impartial Reader that reflects upon their actions for several years together to wonder what this man means by the higher power by things unlawful by obedience active and passive If in the days of the Long Parliament Presbyterian Doctrines and practices in this point were suitable and correspondent the words must be thus paraphrasad Presbyterians taught obedience active in things unlawful enjoyned by the two Houses whom Mr. Herle's as 't is reported seditious invention made only co-ordinate with the King and disobedience active even to bloudy Rebellion in things lawful enjoyned by the King whom by Oath they acknowledged to be the only Supreme Governour of this Kingdom I have read in Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 23. that in 1642 Presbyterian Pulpits flamed with seditious invectives against the King and incitements to Rebellion and that the people running headlong into it had all manner of countenance and encouragement but those Ministers that preacht obedience and sought to prevent Rebellion were sure to be imprisoned and put out of their places for it Was this for Presbyterians to preach either Faith or Holiness or Obedience active to the King or were those men so good Subjects so good Christians as either actively or passively to obey his Majesty or preach such obedience when they took themselves and exhorted others to take that Solemn League and Covenant which the King in his Proclamation against it calls a Traiterous and Seditious combination against himself and the establisht Religion and Laws of the Kingdom We do therefore says his Majesty strictly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever upon their Allegiance that they presume not to take the said seditious and traiterous Covenant And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose administer or tender the said Covenant as they and every of them will answer the contrary at their utmost and extremest peril What therefore was the taking of this Covenant and tendering of it to others was it obedience either active or passive to the King No but on the contrary 't was active disobedience to his Majesties command and the taking up Arms against the King in prosecution of this Covenant thus taken and cursing those that did not was Treason and Rebellion by the Lawes of the Land and damnable resistance by the Law of Christ And these and other Presbyterian practices were such a palpable contradiction to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance that in some late reflexions on those Oaths 't is admired with what face presbyterians can now either take or urge them It 's a wonderful mystery p. 41. how it should come to pass that our English Presbyterians c. should especially now of late with so much willingness and greediness themselves swallow these Oaths and so clamorously urge them on others Is it because the Oath of Supremacy has so peculiar a conformity to their principles and that of Allegiance to their practices or that they are so ready and pressing to disclaim and condemn all that themselves have done these last twenty years And a little after Who ever heard or knew to flow from the Tongue or drop from the Pen of a Presbyterian so Christian a Position as is sincerely avouched both by English Protestants and the general body of Roman Catholicks viz. that even in case a Christian or Heathen Prince should make use of his Civil Power to persecute Truth that power ought not upon any pretences to be actively resisted by violence or force of Arms but though they cannot approve they must at least patiently suffer the effects of his mis-used Authority leaving the judgment to God only If this Rector can answer this Question in the affirmative and then prove it true of any one Covenanting Presbyterian Scotch or English within the compass of this last twenty years let him I shall be glad to see it Whether he can do so much or no I doubt as I do likewise whether that Reflecter can prove that that Position as he has worded it is owned by the general body of Roman Catholicks but that he cannot do it of Presbyterians generally or any considerable number of them I am pretty well assured if he can 't will follow that the generality of Presbyterians or a considerable number of them most wretchedly detained that Truth in unrighteousness and for several years together acted most horrid things contrary to their Light Knowledge and Conscience But 't is observable that this crafty Impostor instead of proving that Presbyterians teach obedience active in things lawful and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the King's Majesty affirms only that they teach such obedience in things enjoyned by the Higher power not telling us whether they mean the higher power de jure or de facto only nor whether their Doctrine will not comprehend the higher power de facto though themselves acknowledge it no power de jure if so be that power will in the main comply with the advancement of the Presbyterian Interest What the presbyterians meant by the higher power in the late divisions was too evident by their practises viz. that parcel minor part of the Long Parliament which favoured Presbytery which opposed the King and made War against him which elected a multitude of new Members by vertue of a counterfeit treasonable Seal Prove that the King was the Higher power in the time of the Divisions says Mr. Baxter Pref. to his Holy Commonwealth p. 23. They declared May 26. 1642. that the Soveraign power resides in both Houses of Parliament as the Author of Veritas Inconcussa quotes them p. 29. who also p. 91. informs us That the Parliament could not be called a Parliament when they had driven away the King who is the Head and Life of it nor they be said to be two Houses of Parliament when there was not at that time when they first raised a War above a third part of the House of Peers nor the half part of the House of Commons remaining in them and what those few did in their absence was either forced by a Faction of their own or a party of Seditious Londoners for indeed the War rightly considered was not betwixt the Parliament and the King but a War made by a Factious and Seditious party of the Parliament against the King and the major part of the Parliament So that a factious seditious part of a parliament was heretofore owned by Presbyterians as the Higher power Nay the chief Presbyterian Advocate was such a learned man such a good Subject and Christian he did so fear God and honour the King as to be able and willing to distinguish between the supreme Governour and the supreme Power of this Nation Sover power of Parl. p. 104. and to teach that the King was indeed the
THE Presbyterians Unmask'd OR ANIMADVERSIONS UPON A Nonconformist Book CALLED The Interest of ENGLAND IN THE Matter of RELIÌ„GION Nihil â—cci diciâ— 3 Iâ—o Nihil Fateris QVISEQVITUR ME NON AMBULAT IN TENâ—â—RIS Non Quis sed Quid. Not Who but What. LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to his most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner 1676. THE PREFACE THough perhaps there have been several Junctures since 1661. wherein the publishing of these Animadversions which were then finished would have been judged more seasonable yet I must profess my self in the number of those men who believe nothing of this nature can come out unseasonably till either the Old cause cease to be thought good or else the good old cause cease to be on the Anvile And who can imagine but that it is so still when men still endeavour to support factious Parties in opposition to the Laws of the Land Nay have the impudence to inveigh even against the Laws themselves that were designed to secure the State for the future against the malignant influences and the disturbing pernicious attempts of Presbyterian as well as other Sectarian Spirits witness that late vile Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Countrey in which the able but more daring Author accuses the Act for regulating Corporations as keeping many of the wealthiest worthiest and soberest men out of the Magistracy of those places The Act which settled the Militia as establishing a standing Army by a Law and swearing us into a Military Government Whereas nothing does more justify the necessity of a standing Army of which such a jealousie is pretended than the cross-grain'd seditious humours of those men who exclaim most against it The Five-mile Oxford Act as imposing a most unlawful and unjustifiable Oath and the Act for Uniformity as that which rendered Bartholomew-day fatal to our Church and Religion in throwing out a very great number of worthy learned pious and Orthodox Divines In which glorious Titles the Presbyterian Divines were without doubt intended to have the greatest share and the Lay-Presbyterians in the forementioned character of the Wealthiest Worthiest and Soberest men 'T is a wonder he did not add and most loyal Subjects but it may be he was not so intimately acquainted with them as this John Corbet was who is so profuse and lavish of his praises as to commend Presbyterians Interest of England p. 66. 2. Edit even on this score too We affirm boldly says he that those for whom we plead viz. Presbyterians must needs be good Subjects to a Christian King and good members of a Christian Commonwealth The Man I confess has an excellent knack at whitening Aethiopians and putting Wolves into sheeps clothing But he must not be angry if we endeavour for our own and other mens security to strip them of that covering lest under the specious disguises of Religion Reformation and Liberty they once more rend and tear us and make us a prey to Atheism Confusion and Tyranny It concerns us to have the Presbyterian vizor taken off and these worthy learned sober serious Gentlemen of the padd exposed in their proper shape and features that so they may be too well known to be suffered to rob us any more of our Laws Government Order Peace and tranquillity And therefore he does a very good office who at any time gives men warning to take heed of these devouring Sepulchres And because this demure Author had taken so much pains to make them appear beautiful outwardly I thought it worth mine to pare away the grass and to set a fresh mark upon them that so honest men might not fall into them unawares nor permit themselves to be again defiled with Presbyterian uncleanness Imprimatur Maii 2. 1676. G. Jane R. P. D. Henr. Episcopo Lond. Ã Sac. Dom. ANIMADVERSIONS on a Book Entitled The Interest of ENGLAND in the matter of RELIGION THE Author having told us Page 16. 26. 2. Edit that among the various disagreeing Parties within this Kingdom two main ones appear above the rest viz. the Episcopal and Presbyterian and that the disunion between these Parties must be removed either by the abolition of one Party or by the coalition of both into one or by a toleration indulg'd to the weaker side he proceeds p. 17. 27. without staying to inform us how disunion of Parties may be said to be remov'd either by the abolition or toleration of one Party to that which he presumes the great case of the time and therefore proposes it as the subject of his discourse viz. in which of these three ways Abolition Coalition or Toleration the true Interest of the King and Kingdom lies And the first thing that he enquires into is Whether in Justice or reason of State the Presbyterian Party should be rejected and depressed or protected and encouraged Which Party he distinguishes from Prelatists by these Characters which p. 20. 30. he calls their main and rooted Principles 1. They admire and magnify the holy Scriptures and take them for the absolute perfect Rule of Faith and life without the supplement of Ecclesiastical Tradition yet they deny not due respect and reverence to venerable Antiquity 2. They assert the study and knowledge of the Scriptures to be the duty and priviledge of all Christians yet they acknowledge the necessity of a standing Gospel-ministery and receive the directive Authority of the Church not with implicit Faith but the Judgment of Discretion 3. They hold the teaching of the Spirit necessary to the saving knowledge of Christ yet they hold not that the spirit brings new Revelations 4. They exalt divine ordinances but debase humane inventions in Gods worship particularly Ceremonies properly religious and of instituted mystical signification yet they allow the natural expressions of reverence and devotion as kneeling and lifting up of the hands and eyes in prayer as also those meer circumstances of decency and order the omission whereof would make the service of God either undecent or less decent 5. They rejoyce in Christ Jesus having no confidence in a legal righteousness but desire to be found in him who is made unto us righteousness by gracious imputation yet withal they affirm constantly that good works of piety towards God and of justice and charity towards men are necessary to salvation 6. Their Doctrine bears full conformity with that of the Reformed Churches held forth in their publick confessions and particularly with that of the Church of England in the 39 Articles only one or two passages peradventure excepted so far as they may import the asserting of Prelacy and humane mystical Ceremonies 7. They insist much on the necessity of Regeneration and therein lay the ground-work for the practice of Godliness 8. They press upon themselves and others the severe exercise not of a Popish outside formal but a spiritual and real mortification and self denial according to the power of Christianity 9. They are strict observers of the Lords
dedit ea quae commoda ipsi visa erant instituendi praescribendi Ex hoc genere regimen Ecclesiasticum Ceremonias dicimus quia non simpliciter in Fundamento aut Verbo Dei ut perpetuò observanda traduntur sed arbitrio Ecclesiae Magistratuum relinquuntur Sic nos de his docemus tenemus persuasi sumus nihil usquam in sacris literis repugnans sed potius his consona reperiri Quòd si objicias multos inter nos socus sentire respondeo Generale hoc esse Ministrorum Ecclesiarum Anglicanarum de his Judicium etiamsi unus fortè aut duo ex centenis aut millenis secus opinentur These things viz. the Hierarchical Government and Discipline are truly said to be of Christ though they are not commanded and prescribed by Christ but the Church forasmuch as Christ hath given the Church Authority to institute and prescribe those things which to her seem expedient of this kind we affirm Ecclesiastical Government and Ceremonies to be because they are not simply and immediately founded on the Word of God or delivered there as immutable Constitutions but are left to the pleasure of the Church and Magistrates This is our Doctrine and opinion touching these things and we are perswaded that nothing can be found in sacred Writ repugnant but several passages agreeable to these sentiments And if it be objected that many among us are of another mind I answer That this is the Judgment of the generality both of the Ministers and Churches in England though perhaps one or two among a hundred or a thousand opine otherwise But now it seems the Presbyterian party is so variable and alterable from these its quondamopinions and principles as to imagine those Rites and Forms which the Church hath prescribed unlawful and that the Hierarchical Form of Church-Government ought to be extirpated And if they are now changed in their science and practice though to the worse from what they were heretofore why may we not hope that if not meerly length of time yet some afflicting contingencies may make them change hereafter for the better from what they are now I doubt I should rather enquire whether there be any thing besides this Authors bare word to secure us that they will not still grow worse and worse deceiving and being deceived Certain I am the more unalterable they are in these their Fancies the more mischief they are like to do in that State that encourages them But what kind of Argument is this The Presbyterians will not vary from themselves therefore they ought in justice and reason of State to be protected and encouraged by his Majesty Is not this as good The Jesuits will not vary from themselves those Principles of Science and practice which they own and are actuated by are of that firm and fixt nature that new contingencies will not alter them nor length of time wear them out Ergo Jesuits ought not in justice or reason of State to be rejected and depressed but protected and encouraged by our King and Kingdome One may suspect by this manner of arguing in the behalf of the Presbyterian party that the Author of it was either a Jesuit since his reasoning is so favourable to that society or an half-witted Presbyterian so dull as not to discern that several of his arguments conclude as forcibly for the encouragement of Jesuits among us as Presbyterians But in this P. 29. 39. 't is suggested that the Presbyterians are a numerous Party and that the imposing of such matters of Controversie as by so many are held unlawful cannot procure the peace of the Kingdom I might here ask whether the Anabaptists or Quakers are not altogether as numerous as that Presbyterian party which holds our Church-Ceremonies unlawful Nay are not the Independents themselves as numerous for I confess I am in good hopes that there are comparatively but very few Presbyterians given up to such blindness of mind such strong delusions as to believe our Ceremonies unlawful But my answer is this If that Party be indeed so numerous that the endeavouring to reject and depress them will probably prove pernicious to the King and Kingdom perhaps State-policy will dictate that it should not be endeavoured But I affirm withal that though they were twice as numerous yet unless their Practice contradict their Doctrine there is no such danger will accrue to the King or Kingdom by their rejection For if this Author does not grosly abuse and impose upon his Readers p. 54 55. The Presbyterians are such learned knowing creatures as to teach faith and holiness as also obedience active in all lawful things and passive in things unlawful injoyn'd by the higher power Now they that are resolv'd to be passively obedient will not be instruments of mischief in a Kingdome though they are never so numerous they will live peaceably neither railing with the Tongue nor smiting with the First of wickedness and therefore if the Presbyterians are indeed such good men and such good Christians in this particular they may notwithstanding their number be rejected and depressed in State-Policy because of their other perswasions repugnant to the publick profession of the Nation since their suppression will not prejudice the peace of the Church or Kingdome In p. 30. 40. after some non sensicalcontradictious canting in praise of Presbyterians for how can the inward spirit of Presbytery be said to actuate their whole body to knit them each to other and to remain in full strength and vigour if some principal members of that body fall off and turn praevaricators Our Author enquires what those great things are for which this sort of men contend Surely says he p. 31. 41. they are no other than the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel the upholding of all Divine Institutions particularly the strict observation of the Lord's day a laborious and efficacious ministry taking hold of the conscience and reaching to the heart a Godly Discipline correcting true and real Scandals and disobedience in a word all the necessary and effectual means of unfeigned Faith and holy life that the Kingdome of God may come in power And for these things sake they are alienated from the height of Prelacy and the Pomp of Ceremonious worship Say you so It seems these godly Disciplinarians do not look upon disobedience to the Laws establishing Prelacy and Ceremonious worship as true and real disobedience nor the scandal arising from that disobedience as true and real Scandal or else they implicitely confess that the Presbyterians thus scandalously disobedient were not chastis'd by the Bishops so severely as they deserv'd It seems they fancy that Prelatists are enemies to the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel to some divine Institutions to a laborious and efficacious ministery to Scripture-Discipline to some necessary and effectual means of unfeigned Faith and holy life whereas the only proof he offers of this Prelatical guilt is
to it so it takes nothing away from it If there be any clashing of Jurisdictions or defect in this kind they lay the fault at the Magistrates door accounting it a great sin or wickedness for the Magistrate to hinder the exercise or execution of Ecclesiastical Discipline But we say they do give Christian Magistrates a Political power to convocate Synods to preside in Synods to ratify the Acts of Synods to reform the Church we make him the keeper of both Tables Take nothing says the discerning Bishop and hold it fust Here are good words but they signify nothing for they teach that this power of the Christian Magistrate is not privative and destructive to the power of the Church but cumulative and only auxiliary or assisting Which very Doctrine is taught by the highest of the Presbyterian way here in England in their Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici where their concessions just now mentioned by this Author are to be found but p. 77. with this restriction All the former power say they that is granted or may be granted circa sacra to the Magistrate is only cumulative not privative he may help her in Reformation not hinder her in reforming her self convening Synods her self as in Act. 15. otherwise her condition were better without than with a Magistrate The Christian Magistrate much less ought to prejudice her herein otherwise her state were worse under the Christian than under the Pagan Magistrate Thus the Presbyterian Authors or Author of that Book Besides the power as the Bishop goes on which they abusively call authoritative but is indeed ministerial of executing their Decrees and contributing to their settlement they ascribe to the Magistrate concerning the Acts of Synods that which every private man hath a judgment of discretion but they retain to themselves the judgment of Jurisdiction and if he judge not as they would have him but suspend out of conscience the influence of his Political power where they would have him exercise it they will either teach him another part of Popery that is an implicit Faith or he may perchance feel the weight of their Church-censures and find quickly what manner of men they be as our late gracious King Charles and before him his Father his Grandmother and his great-Grandmother did all to their cost See more p. 11 12. Mr. Parker in his discourse concerning Puritans printed 1641 though he talk sometimes extravagantly enough in their favour yet now and then he has his Lucida intervalla wherein he speaks more agreeably to Truth and Reason Having mentioned some Tenents concerning Spiritual and Temporal Jurisdiction maintained by that great Arch-Prelate Mr. Calvin p. 28. according to the Popish Grounds p. 29. he tells us that that method of Mr. Calvin ' s is the way to crect Regnum in Regno and to maintain such concurrent Jurisdictions as cannot possibly stand together p. 31. for all being subject to sin and offence as well the Spiritual as Temporal either the one or other must go unquestioned and this may produce division or else both and that will cause most certain confâ—â—sion Both sides here seem says he sâ—rangely puzzled of which assertion he subjoyns not so much as a seeming reason as to the Episcopal side but proceeds thus The rigidest of the Episcopal Faction allow Princes a coercive power over Priests and Prelates where they perform not what their duty is in their Functions or Jurisdictions and this power requires an higher power of summoning arraigning and legally trying them and yet the moderatest of the Presbyterian Faction would have Princes questionable tryable and punishable by the Spiritualty Which sufficiently implyes that he thought not any Episcopal men guilty of that crime From which premisses I conclude that notwithstanding any thing produc'd here by this Author to the contrary this first charge against Presbyterians is a true accusation not a calumny He proceeds to a second and tells us p. 43. 53. There goes a voice that Presbyterians are Antimonarchical as if 't were vox praeterea nihil But are their Principles inconsistent with Monarchy or any impeachment to the same These are contained in the character above written But what if that Character of them be traiterously partial and in reference to the Question here treated of ridiculously impertinent and abominably deceitful whereof if this Author or any of his Brethren desire farther proof I may chance to satisfy their desires before I conclude these Animadversions In the mean time let 's listen to his fine Apologies Peradventure says he p. 44. 54. the exact Presbytery that is the parity of degree and Authority in all Ministers is that against which this charge is directed Judge then whether that forementioned character where that which is exact Presbytery is altogether concealed be an exact description of Presbytery Although this parity is not insisted on Was it not insisted on at the Isle of Wight Treaty or urged to the breach of peace He did but think p. 20. that most Presbyterians here in England allowed in order to peace Episcopum Praesidem but here he 's more peremptory and withal it seems so scandalously ignorant as to believe that Tumults Riots Covenanting and fighting in the behalf of Scotch-Presbytery is no breach of peace Neither is it essential to Presbytery whence I gather that exact Presbytery is not essential to Presbytery but was it not essential to the Presbytery contended for at the Isle of Wight was it not essential to that Form of Government which they had before Covenanted to introduce Yet what reason can be rendred why this may not comport with Kingly Government A. Even the self-same reason which some of his own party have as I take it made use of to prove that Episcopacy cannot comport with Kingly Government viz. that it pretends as some men discourse of it to be Jure Divino which since presbyterian parity also pretends to 't is upon that score inconsistent with Monarchical Government as much as Episcopacy the argument is as good against both Forms as against either But 2. Since this Author is guilty either of such gross ignorance or such Treasonable dishonesty as to make us believe either that there is or that he knows not any ground of this Accusation but what is fetcht from the presbyterian parity I shall for his and other such mens better information take the pains to transcribe part of the Answer to a Letter written at Oxford and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof Examine says the Answerer p. 15. the Presbyterian principles and you will clearly find Kings and they cannot stand together for either you consider that new Government in the Scottish sence which allows no appeal to any other power and then it 's plain that where men admit this they admit of a Supremacy which doth not reside in the King and by consequence of two several supremacies within the bounds of the self-same Kingdom which can
no more stand with Monarchy than it can with Monogamy to be married to two several Wives and though 't is said that this Presbyterian Government meddles only with spiritual things which concern the good of the Soul and so it cannot hurt Regal power yet this is but only said and no more for 't is well known that in ordine ad spiritualia and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this rank as they have been by the Church of Rome this Government intrudes upon what things it pleaseth and where a supremacy is once acknowledged no wise man can think that it will carry it self otherwise so that King James his maxim was undoubtedly most true No Bishop no King For that most prudent Prince did soon discern that if a power were once set up which at least in the legal execution of it did not derive it self from the King there was no doubt to be made that it would ere long destroy the very King himself Or consider the Presbyterian Government in the English sence as it 's now set up by the two Houses at Westminster which is a Government limited by an Appeal to the Parliament for either by Parliament here they mean the two Houses excluding the King and then 't is as plain as before they set up two supremacies his Majesties and their own or else by Parliament they mean the King with both Houses and then 't will follow that either there must be a perpetual Parliament which sure the King nor Kingdom can't have cause to like or else the supremacy will be for the most part in the Presbytery because whenever a Parliament sits not there will be no Judge to appeal to or if it be said the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive Appeals in such Ecclesiastical causes then either in this Committee the King hath no Negative and in that case 't is clear that the Ecclesiastical supremacy will be not at all in the King or else the King hath a Negative but yet is joyned with persons whom he himself chuseth not and so most probably will be chek'd and affronted in any sentence he intends to give and this clearly overthrows that which is already declared by Parliament to be a right in the King as inherent in his Crown that Ecclesiastical Appeals may be made to him alone in Chancery for the Statute names no other and that his Majesty alone may appoint what Commissioners he pleases for their final decision I say consider the Presbyterian Government in the English Parliament sence and in the sence of the English Assembly for the Presbyterians there are wholly for the Scottish Form as appears by their quarrels at what the Houses have already done in their Ordinances and 't will appear that their aim is not only to set up a new Government but in plain terms a new Supremacy and hence to say truth he must see very little who discerns not that though the Presbyterian party seems to strike at the Bishops yet their main aim is at the King whose supremacy they endure not as being a flower which they intend for their own Garland and so though they hypocritically cry out that they may abuse the people against the pride of the Lordly Bishops yet in the mean time the wiser sort must needs see that they intend to make themselves no less than indeed Kingly Presbyters Thus he And if this Author thinks this reasoning insufficient to prove Presbytery Antimonarchical let him tell us why In the mean time it follows p. 44. 54. Or would his sort of men Presbyterians have no King to reign over them A. None if he will not comply with their humours Doth a Republick better please them A. Not an Independent or Anabaptistical Republick but time hath been when a Presbyterian Republick some parcels of the two Houses did please them far better than an Episcopal King Did the English or Scottish Presbyters ever go about to dissolve Monarchy and to erect some other kind of Government In no wise quoth he for in the Solemn League and Covenant they bound themselves to endeavour the preservation of the Kings person and Authority and declared they had no intent to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness Of the justness of which power themselves would be judges But did not all Covenanters do so as well as Presbyterians The man sure would make us believe either that our Monarchy was not dissolved and another kind of Government exected or else that 't was done by some that were not Covenanters For why is not this Argument as good Independents Covenanted to preserve the Kings person and Authority Therefore they never went about to dissolve Monarchy This is a much better consequence Neither the English nor Scottish Presbyterians endeavoured to preserve the Kings Authority just power and greatness the Justness whereof must be judged of by Law not by the dictates of insolent minds puft up with prosperity therefore either they never bound themselves and intended to preserve it or else they practised contrary to those obligations and intentions If he has the confidence to deny the Antecedent I may chance to evince it to him before we part Indeed his next words suggest a very considerable proof of it After the violent change of Government they the Presbyterians came slowest and entred latest into those new Engagements imposed by the Vsurpt powers Which is an implicit confession 1. That those Engagements were inconsistent with fidelity to Monarchical Goyernment and the Kings Authority 2. That yet at last the Presbyterians did enter into them whence I gather 1. That whereas the third Article of the Covenant obliged them to endeavour not only sincerely but also constantly with their Estates and Lives to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Authority just power and greatness they ceased to do so at last when they entred upon those new Engagements and consequently did then break their Covenant And 2. That the Presbyterians are not such fixt and unalterable Creatures as he would needs have perswaded us p. 29. 39. they are since they did upon changes in Government vary by degrees from themselves and either deserted those principles which kept them from engaging with the foremost or else contradicted them by engaging at last though slowly And truly that they did so is tacitly acknowledged by this Author p. 45. 55. where he tells us that the generality of conscientious Presbyterians never ran with the current of those times which sadly implies either that the generality of Presbyterians were not conscientious since they generally ran with the current at last or that some conscientious Presbyterians did notwithstanding the dictates of their conscience run with the current For either he must mean that the generality of Presbyterians otherwise conscientious did in that particular by an error of Conscience run with the current but this seems not to have been this Authors meaning for then it follows by his own confession that the
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.
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
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
Princes the French Calvinistical Church hath made in their Confession of Faith speaking of obedience due to the Supreme Magistrate appears at least every Sunday in all their hands in Print where they acknowledge such Obedience due to them except the Law of God and Religion be interessed on condition that Gods Soveraignty remain undiminish'd which clause says he what it means their so many and so long continued Rebellions do expound What turbulent things Scotch and English presbyterians have been those very practises of theirs which these sheets have mentioned to which many more might be added are a competent Testimony But this Quaere shall not scape so let 's view it again If 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 A. 1. It may be 't was because though their minds were always enclined by their principles to rebellion yet they had not power and opportunity to act suitably to those inclinations with hopes of success 'T were a sad thing indeed if Rebels should be able at all times to put their traiterous Designs in execution 2. It suffices in reference to the grand Question now disputed if Presbyterian spirits are prone to Rebellion in case their way of Worship be not either est ablisht or tolerated For they deserve not to be so much as tolerated in any Kingdom that will when they have power rebel against Kings if they be not tolerated 3. If this Quaere implies any good proof that Presbytery and Rebellion is not connatural by which he means I suppose not usually conjoyn'd it does as strongly imply that Jesuitism and Rebellion are not connatural since those States and Kingdoms where Jesuits have been tolerated have for some time been free from broils and commotions It follows Or how comes it to pass that Presbyterians have never disclaimed or abandoned their lawful Prince As if to let pass other Instances English Presbyterians did not disclaim and abandon the late King when they denied him to be in a condition to Govern H. of Comm. Decl. 28. Nov. 1646. when they denied him the exercise of that power in the Militia which themselves acknowledged did belong unto him Veritas inconcussa p. 147. 168. When they affirmed that the Soveraign power resided in both Houses of Parliament that the King had no Negative voice that whatsoever the two Houses should Vote was not by Law to be questioned either by the King or Subjects that it belonged to them only to judge of the Law Declar. of May 26. 1642. as if likewise they did not make others to disclaim and abandon him by making them swear that they would neither directly nor indirectly adhere unto or willingly assist the King in his War and Cause But he proceeds How comes it to pass that they have never ceased to solicit and supplicate his regards and favour even when their power hath been at the highest and his sunk lowest Whereas I read in Philips his Veritas inconcussa his Book that proves K. Charles 1. no man of bloud these words p. 124. Indstead of offering any thing which was like to bring peace they the Presbyterian Lords and Commons caused men and women in the first year of their war to be killed because they did but petition them to accept of a peace And in the third and fourth year of their war plundered and robbed them that petitioned them but to hearken to it And put out of Office and made all as Delinquents in the seventh year of their war that did but petition them for a Treaty with the King and refused all the Kings many very many messages for peace not only when he was at the highest of his success in the war but when he was at the lowest and a prisoner to them and conjured them as they would answer it at the dreadful day of judgment to pity the bleeding condition of his Kingdomes and People and send propositions of peace unto him and years and half-years and more than a whole year together after the battel at Naseby insomuch as their fellow-Rebels the Scotch Commissioners did heavily complain of it were at several times trifled away and spent before any propositions could be made ready Was this perpetually to supplicate their lawful Princes regards and favour And p. 126. We are told they were so unwilling to have any peace at all as that 6 or 7 Messengers or Trumpeters could come from the King before they could be at leisure or so mannerly as to answer one of them but this or that message from the King was received and read and laid by till a week or when they would after And p. 128 129. When they did treat they desired the granting of such propositions as were purposely contrived and stood upon to hinder a peace and were not to be asked or granted by any that could but entitle themselves to the least part of reason or humanity c. And p. 68. The King complains that although he had used all ways and means to prevent the distractions and dangers of the Kingdom all his labours had been fruitless that not so much as a Treaty earnestly desired by him could be obtained though he disclaimed all his Proclamations and Declarations and the Erecting of his Standard as against his Parliament unless he should denude himself of all force to defend him from a visible strength marching against him And when the business of the Treaty 1647 as I suppose came into discourse the Assembly of Divines quickly resolved all of them but four to be against it See considerations touching the present Factions in the King's Dominions p. 6. And yet this Brazen-face would perswade us that Presbyterians never ceased to solicit and supplicate the Kings regards and favour It seems their voting 1647 that they would receive no more messages from the King and that no man should presume to bring any from him and that they would make no farther applications and addresses to him was so far from being a disclaiming and abandoning him that 't was not so much as a ceasing to supplicate his regards and favour statuimus i. e. abrogamus what shall be done unto thee O thou false Tongue and ridiculous Flatterer The other part of his Quaere is How comes it to pass that the Presbyterians suffered themselves rather to be trodden under foot than to comply with men of violence in changing the Government A. 1. 'T was because they were unable to make their parts good against those men of violence here intended Independents had cheated them out of that power which before they had 2. Themselves were the men of violence that did first of all really change the Government by acting without and fighting against the Kings Person and Authority Independents took away the name King but Presbyterians had long before destroyed the thing 3. 'T were no great wonder if Presbyterians suffered
so far from suffering themselves humbly peaceably and patiently to be trodden under foot that their Tongues were sharpned like Serpents Adders poyson was under their Lips stinging and poysoning the name and repute of the Army p. 16. calling them a Rebellious Army a generation of Vipers a Viperous brood c. And that on Sabbath-days and Fast-days in Preaching and Praying they still girded at the Parliament viz. the Independent majority as men that declined their Solemn League and Covenant hindred reformation minded nothing but their own Interest He tells us also p. 14. That the morning Lectures which they called the Ark of God in their frequent removals moneth after moneth from place to place were so modelled and constituted that in them a lamentable slaughter was made of the sweet affections of love kindness gentleness goodness patience each toward other p. 2. That that Ark of theirs seems frequently to be drawn by Bulls of Basan tossing and goring the Parliament and Army and their dissenting Brethren from day to day maliciously fomenting contentions strifes and divisions p. 3. That the London Ministers did by conjunction of Counsels and debates in Sion-Colledge London's nay England's distemper conceive sinful resolution to engage and tamper privately with chief Citizens in publick places as Common-Council-men c. and publickly in Pulpit and Press stirring up the people by all possible means under the pretence of the glory of God a blessed Reformation the keeping of the Covenant c. to set all together by the ears and raise a new War p. 18 19. From which premises I may for ought I see well enough conclude that this Author instead of pretending that Presbyterians suffered themselves rather to be trodden under foot than to comply with men of violence in changing the Government should in Truth and Justice have thus represented them That rather than they would comply with the men of violence when they presumed they were about to change the Government they endeavoured to prevent the being trodden under foot by them by imbittering mens spirits against them in their preachments and direful Prayers by sowing the seeds of contention and division and by inflaming mens minds to take Arms resist and destroy them and when notwithstanding all such English and Scotch endeavours Independents had effected the change of those small remains and parcels of the English Government which Presbyterian violence had left unchanged that Party generally did by degrees so far comply even with that change also that rather than they would be trodden under foot outlawed and sequestred they engaged to be faithful to the Commonwealth of England as then establisht by the men of violence without King or House of Lords it seems they who thus act are said in the Presbyterian dialect to suffer themselves to be trodden under foot And now judge whether statuimus must not here again signifie abrogamus Let us as our Author proceeds further examine Are the persons that adhere to Prelacy more conscientious in duty to God and Man than those that affect Presbytery Are the former only sober just and godly and the latter vicious unrighteous profane A. Though I could speak something to these Questions from my own experience having lived both in Episcopal and Presbyterian Families and places and being acquainted with divers Persons Ministers and others of both perswasions yet because comparisons of this kind are odious I shall answer only in reference to the main thing in Question that there 's more reason of State for the pro ecting a drunken Royalist than a sober Rebel and yet I am fully perswaded that neither of them so remaining have holiness enough in this world to render them capable of happiness in the next Nor do I doubt but it may be as much the lot of some Traiterous spirits to be sober as 't is if this Author tell truth in the following lines of some that adhere to Prelacy to be loyal but whether I have not already said enough to prove that Presbyterian principles encline to Rebellion and the principles of English prelatists to Loyalty let all impartial Readers judge If this be not answer sufficient to those Quaeries I shall supply the defects of it with transcribing for this Authors sake a passage or two out of the writings of his fellow-Rebels The first shall be out of William Sedgwick's Leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of the Nations p. 36. Of the two 't is more strange to see that the Presbyterian who the other day was opprest by the Bishop for his conscience in point of the Sabbath c. who could not long since live without the favour of the Bishop should now thrust out those under whom he lived for not taking the Covenant which is contrary to their conscience and shew less favour to them than he received from them and do that which he condemned in others and this upon weak and fleshly grounds admiring his own way which is to pray and preach longer and more than another to be strict in repetition on Sabbath-days and some such poor formal things to set up this as the power of Godliness and Reformation to the ruine of another who it may be is a man of more justice ability and wisdom more sobriety more stability more patience and constancy in suffering c. The other shall be out of J. Price's Clerico-Classicum p. 40. Have we not cause to judge better of many of the Prelatical party who being men of learning and conscience and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as your selves you Presbyterian Ministers of London making no distunbances rents divisions Factions by Pulpit and Press as you do from day to day as all men observe that being conscious to themselves of the many Oaths Vows Covenants that they have made of subjection and obedience unto Bishops the then establisht Church Government Book of Common Prayer Homilies Canons c. cannot take the Solemn League and Covenant and rather chuse to lose their Livings and Livelihoods committing themselves Wives and Children to the mercy of God having no visible means of subsisting than to break the peace of their Consciences by taking an Oath Vow or Covenant contrary to all their former Oaths before satisfaction received than of you or some of you that presently turn'd Presbyterians cast away Episcopacy took the Covenant and having taken it turn it and wind it wring it and wrest it making it to look East and West North and South as your Interest works with King Parliament or Army or against them all And this says he is not my saying only but it is vox Populi the late King the Lords the Commons the City the Countrey the whole Kingdom observed it To these I shall add some passages of the like import out of Dr. Owen in his Mortification of Sin in Believers p. 29. There is indeed says he a broad light fallen upon the men of this generation and together therewith many spiritual