can do nothing but manifest their Grievances and petition for relief By the way I must tell him that I have read in a Speech of King James's to both Houses March 21. 1609. these words I would wish you of the lower House especially to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of Grievances 1. That you do not meddle with the main points of Government That is my Craft Tractent fabrilia fabri To meddle with that were to lessen me I must not be taught my office 2. Nor with such ancient Rights of mine as I have received from my Predecessors possessing them more Majorum For that were to judge me unworthy of that which my Predecessors had and left me 3. I pray you beware to exhibit for Grievance any thing that is established by a settled Law for to be grieved with the Law is to be grieved with the King who is sworn to be the Patron and maintainer thereof In general beware that your Grievances savour not of particular mens thoughts but of the general Griefs rising out of the minds of the people and not out of the humour of the Propounder If these Cautions had been carefully observed by the thing called the Long-Parliament it had not been it self the greatest grievance the Subject ever felt 2. I have read says he that by the Constitution it hath part in the Soveraignty and so it hath part in the Legislative power and in the final Judgment I question whether he hath read this thus expressed in any Book but his own I rather think it a mistake and that he had read somewhere that the Parliament hath part in the Legislative power and so it hath part in the Soveraignty there being a Treatise extant wherein the Parliament's part in the Soveraignty is inferred from its part in the Legislative power but none that I know of wherein its part in the Legislative power is argued from its part in the Soveraignty Now says he when as a part of the Legislative power resides in the two Houses as also a power to redress Grievances and to call into Question all Ministers of State and Justice and all Subjects of whatsoever degrees in case of Delinquency it might be thought that a part of the Supreme power doth reside in them though they have not the Honorary Title To which I answer 1. 'T is denyed that either or both Houses have any power of themselves to redress the Grievances of the Kingdom or to call into question any Delinquents I have read in his Majesties forementioned Declaration that the House of Commons hath never assumed or in the least degree pretended to a power of Judicature having no more Authority to administer an Oath the only way to discover and find out Facts to than to cut off the Heads of any Subjects And in Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 116. That a Court must be either by the Kings Patent or statute-Statute-Law or common-Common-Law which is common and constant usage The House of Commons hath neither Patent statute-Statute-Law nor common-Common-Law enabling them to be a Court or to give an Oath p. 27. and 140 141. or to examine a man p. 65. as also that both the Houses can make no Court without the King p. 148. 122. that the two Houses by the Law of this Land have no colour of power either to make or pardon Delinquents the King contradicting p. 24. and 119. and that though it belong to the Lords to reform erroneous Judgments given in other Courts for that all the Judges of the Land the Kings Council and the twelve Masters of the Chancery assist there by whose advice erroneous Judgments are redressed yet when the writ of error is brought to reverse any Judgment there is first a Petition to the King for the allowance thereof p. 55. 106. I have read also in the Hist of Independ p. 1. p. 61 62. That the House of Peers is no Court of Judicature without the Kings special Authority granted to them either by his Writ or his Commission and therefore in the trial of the Earl of Strafford and in all other trials upon Life and Death in the Lord's House the King grants his Commission to a Lord high Steward to sit as Judge and the rest of the Lords are but in the name of Jurors and says J. Jenkins p. 103. When the Lords had condemn'd to death by an Ordinance Sir Simon de Beriford a free Commoner of England they afterwards better considered the matter and that they might be acquitted of the sentence became suiters to the King that what they had so done might not in future time be drawn into President because that which they had done was against Law and the Judge gives this reason against taking away mens lives by Ordinances because an Ordinance binds not at all but pro tempore as the two Houses then affirmed and a mans life cannot be tri'd by that which is not binding and to continue for all times for a life lost cannot be restored From which premises I conclude that neither one nor both Houses though legally summoned and elected have power to redress publick Grievances or try Delinquents without the King's consent And as for that part of the Legislative power which is said to reside in them and from whence their part in the Supremacy is thought fit to be concluded 1. The two Houses even when full and free have so constantly acknowledged themselves in Statutes and Acts of Parliament most loyal faithful and obedient subjects to the King their Soveraign Lord that from this alone 't is manifest enough they did not deem themselves to have any such part in the Legislative power as might entitle them to a part in the Soveraignty 2. I have read in the Rebels Plea examined p. 12. these words Neither is it true that the Legislative power is partly in them the two Houses they are I grant to consent to the making new and abolishing old Laws but that is no cogent proof of the partition of the Supreme and Legislative power for which p. 14. he quotes these words of Grotius c. 3. de jure Belli sect 18. who says Multum falluntur qui existimant cum Reges acta quaedam sua nolunt esse rata nisi à Senatu probentur partitionem fieri potestatis They are much deceived who think that the Supreme power is divided if Kings will not account some of their Acts valid without the approbation of the Senate I have read also in the Book called The Kings Supremacy asserted by Mr. Sheringham p. 96 97. That the concurrence of one or both the other Estates with the Monarch in the making and promulgation of Laws is no good colour or pretence much less a sufficient ground for such a coordination and mixture as is pressed Although their assents be free and not depending upon the will of the Monarch yet that makes them not coordinate with him in the Rights of Soveraignty It 's the common Assertion
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
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.
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
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
those of presbyterians because their Kingdom and Tyranny lasted much longer than that of Presbytery 3. I gather that Prelatists had more reason to oppose Presbytery than sectarian Anarchy because if this Author be in this particular a tell-troth presbytery was like to produce a more firm and rooted Schism against the Bishops and a more formidable because more durable rebellion against the King than sectarian Anarchy 4. I conclude that therefore we have great reason to bless God that the Fanaticks routed the Presbyterians and put a period to the dominion of Presbytery since if it had once been setled in good earnest it would either have kept out his Majesty much longer than sectarian Anarchy did or else have introduced him upon such uncivil insolent and imperious terms as the Scotch Presbytery brought him into that Nation and would in probability have forced him to rest content with an Isle-of-Wight-titular-Kingship But 5. I gather that Reason of State forbids the protecting and encouraging of Presbyterians since they are not fit to overturn only and pull down but also to build up a stable and uniform Tower of Babel in defiance to the Laws of God and the King such an one as 't will concern Heaven it self to take cognizance of and to secure its own Soveraignty and Supremacy by exerting its wisdom power and goodness in defeating their Counsels controlling and confounding their ambitious designs It follows This Party doth not run so fast but they know where to stop they are a number of men so fixt and constant as none more and a Prince or State shall know where to find them Whereas 1. The Presbyterian Lords and Commons declared April 9. 1642. that they intended to take away nothing in the Government and Liturgie of the Church but what shall be evil and justly offensive or at least unnecessary and burthensom and yet afterwards they wholly extirpated the Government of our Church and abolisht its Liturgy things burdensom it seems to them at last though not justly offensive and yet these men are so fixt and constant as none more 2. His late Majesty in his Declaration occasioned by the Presbyterian Ordinance for assessing the Twentieth part of mens Estates hath left on record some notable examples of that Parties fixedness and consistency with themselves We have not says the King lately heard of the old Fundamental Laws which used to warrant the Innovations This Ordinance needs a refuge even below those Foundations They will say they cannot manage their undertakings without such extraordinary ways we think so too but that proves only that they have undertaken somewhat which they ought not to undertake not that it 's lawful for them to do any thing that is convenient for those ends We remembred them long ago and we cannot do it too often of that excellent speech of Mr. Pym's The Law is that which puts a difference between good and evil between just and unjust if you take away the Law all things will fall into a confusion every man will become a Law to himself which in the depraved condition of humane Nature must needs produce many great enormities Lust will become a Law and Envy will become a Law Covetousness and Ambition will become Laws and what Dictates what Decisions such Laws will produce may easily be discerned It may indeed says his Majesty by the sad instances over the whole Kingdom But will posterity believe that in the same Parliament this Doctrine was avow'd with that Acclamation and these Instances after produced that in the same Parliament such care was taken that no man should be committed in what case soever without the cause of his Imprisonment expressed and that all men should be immediately bailed in all cases bailable and during the same Parliament that Alderman Pennington or indeed any body else but the sworn Ministers of Justice should imprison whom they would and for what they would and for as long time as they would That the King should be reproach'd for breach of Priviledge for accusing of Sir John Hotham of High Treason when with force of Arms he kept him out of Hull and despised him to his Face because in no case a Member of either House might be committed or accused without leave of that House of which he is a Member and yet that during the same Parliament the same Alderman should commit the Earl of Middlesex a Peer of the Realm the Lord Buckhurst a Member of the House of Commons to the Counter without reprehension That to be a Traitor which is defin'd and every man understands should be no crime and to be call'd Malignant which no body knows the meaning of should be ground enough for close Imprisonment That a Law should be made that whosoever should presume to take Tonnage and Poundage without an Act of Parliament should incur the penalty of a Praemunire and in the same Parliament that the same Imposition should be laid upon our Subjects and taken by an Order of both Houses without and against our Consent Lastly That in the same Parliament a Law should be made to declare the proceedings and judgment upon Ship-money to be illegal and void and during that Parliament that an Order of both Houses shall upon pretence of Necessity enable four men to take away from all their Neighbours the Twentieth part of their Estates according to their discretion Thus his Majesty And yet these are the men whom a Prince or State shall know where to find I might instance in more particulars of the same or worse complexion as to Lay-Presbyterians but I must not pass over in silence some of the Presbyterian Ministers of London to whom Price in his Clerico-Class p. 53. speaks thus If doubts arise concerning resisting Kings and Rulers especially in case of Oaths Vows or Covenants touching preservation of the person of the King as there did from the Solemn League and Covenant then you are ready to give satisfaction and to tell the people that that clause in the Covenant is to be understood not simply but relatively that is is not a single but a complex engagement not an absolute but a conditional clause with many such distinctions It is for the Kings person in the preservation of our Religion and Liberties and though the King should be destroyed by you you have notwithstanding kept your Covenant But p. 54. when the War is ended the Enemy vanquish'd the Liberties of the people recovered c. if they bring not the spoil of their victories and lay them down at your Feet and if they that sit at the stern do not lay aside all other business and do nothing else but build your Palaces then p. 55. you temper your Sermons and turn your Tongues your Lines your Language for the Royal Interest and p. 27. fly to that part and Article of the Covenant engaging for the preservation and defence of the King's Majesties person and Authority and p. 35. plead it against the Parliament and Army for
fashion for dancing at a wedding or of servants in the streets for wearing a man's hair a la mode for using the least recreation on the Sabbath though void of scandal and consistent with the duties of the Day What digladiations have there been among some of their Sect about Starch and Cuffs c. just like those grave debates which were sometimes among the Franciscans about the colour and fashion of their Gowns they do not allow men a latitude of discretion in any thing All men even their Superiors must be their Slaves or Pupils It 's true they begin their censures with admonition and if a man will confess himself a Delinquent be sorry for giving the Presbyters any offence and conform himself in his hair apparel diet every thing to what these rough-hewn Cato ' s shall prescribe he may escape the Stool of Repentance otherwise they will proceed against him for contumacy to excommunication By this let the Reader judge whether Presbyterians censure the breach of God's Commandments only nay whether they are not more severe than Prelacy in censuring the breach of their own Constitutions Where has God commanded men to abstain from dancing and yet Bishop Bancroft in his Survey c. 26. informs us that Mr. Calvin hearing of that horrible sin forsooth committed by certain persons at Widow Balthasar ' s house in Geneva procured them all both dancers and beholders to be called before him and his Elders in the Consistory They denied the matter at first whereupon Calvin judg'd it meet that they should be put to their Oaths and so compelled to confess the Truth An Oath ex officio it seems is allowable at Geneva They excepted against that way of proceeding and one Henriche a Minister who did by way of supposition if any such dancing had been take upon him to defend it as not being a matter to keep such a stir about alledged the very same place that Cartwright did in the Consistory of S. Paul ' s and that which all the rest of that brotherhood do commonly alledge viz. Against an Elder receive not an accusation but under two or three witnesses Calvin laughs at this exception and termed it a pleasant jest and for all this sworn they were and so confessed the Fact whereupon they were all cast into prison Henriche was deprived of his Ministry and one of the four Syndickâ— or chief Magistrates of the City who had the ill luck it seems to be in the company was removed from his office till he had given some testimony of his Repentance Other pretty circumstances there are of this story in that Chapter to which I refer the Reader and return to Bishop Bramhall who tells us That the Scotch Disciplinarians will by hook or crook bring all crimes whatever both great and small within their Jurisdiction that in greater crimes trial for life is no sufficient satisfaction to these third Cato ' s that to satisfie their own humour they care not how they blemish publickly the reputation of the Magistrate upon frivolous conjectures Add to this the severity and extreme rigour of their Excommunication after which sentence no person his Wife and Family only excepted may have any kind of conversation with him that 's Excommunicated They may not eat nor drink nor buy nor sell with him They may not salute him nor speak to him except by the licence of the Presbytery His children begotten and born after that sentence and before his reconciliation to the Church may not be admitted to Baptism untill they be of Age to require it or the Mother or some special Friend being a member of the Church present the Child abhorring and damning the iniquity and obstinate contempt of the Father Vpon this Sentence Letters of Horning as they use to call them in Scotland do follow of course that is an out-lawing of the Party a confiscation of his goods a putting him out of the Kings protection so as any man may kill him and be unpunished When a man is prosecuted for his life perhaps justly perhaps unjustly so as appearing and hanging are to him in effect the same thing yet if he appear not this pitiful Church will Excommunicate him for contumacy as if the just and evident fear of death did not purge away contumacy And Chap. 12. he certifies us That if their Discipline be admitted in England the Nobility and Gentry shall not be exempted from these rigours but subjected to the Censures of a raw heady Novice and a few ignorant Artificers They shall be bearded and mated by every ordinary Presbyter It 's nothing with them for a Pedant to put himself into the balance with one of the prime and most powerful Peers of the Realm Parents shall lose the free disposition of their own children in marriage if the Child desire an Husband or Wife and the Parent refuse to consent either for lack of goods or if the other party is not of birth high enough Yea Presbyteries will compel the wrong'd Parent to give that child as great a portion as any of his other children The common people shall have an high Commission in every Parish and groan under the arbitrary Decrees of ignorant unexperienced Governours who know no Law but their own wills who observe no Order but what they list from whom lies no appeal but to a Synod which for the shortness of its continuance can afford which for the condition of the Persons will afford them little relief Thus he Whence 't is evident enough that they who live under Scotch-Presbyterian-Discipline and that Discipline the English Covenanters swore to endeavour the Introduction and advancement of in this Nation which it concerns us frequently to call to mind that so the signal mercy manifested in blasting those endeavours may be the more magnified must like Issachar crouch under a grievous burden and either submit their Necks to such heavy yokes as imperious arrogance shall affect to lay upon them or else resolutely shake off those yokes by giving vent to those animosities and unquiet humours which will be stirred up in them by Presbyterian rigour as the Scotch Shoomakers did who were most interessed in the Munday Markets at Edenburgh which were upon a time abolisht by a Kirk-Enactment but they by their tumults and threatnings compelled the Ministers to retract whereupon it became a Jest in the City that the Souters could obtain more at the Ministers hands than the King Fair warning Ch. 7. But there are remedies at hand says our Author to prevent the Abuse of any Government that is of it self lawful and laudable Certainly the wisdom of the King and Parliament with the advice of grave Divines may prescribe sure and certain Rules of Discipline A. Very true But if I am not mistaken Presbyterians have a faculty of controlling and disobeying the most certain Rules and commands of their Governours if not suitable to their own fancies and determinations Bishop Bramhall tells us in his 7. Chap. that the Kirk
and Idolatry And in the New Testament that covetous Persons revilers extortioners are in the number of those unrighteous men that shall not inherit the kingdom of God that they also who are guilty of idolatry witchcraft hatred variance emulation wrath strife fedition murder shall be excluded the kingdom of Heaven as well as adulterers fornicators drunkards and when 't is evident to us from your practises that you presbyterian Ministers have for many years been in a Scripture account Wizards and Idolaters because you have behaved your selves stubbornly and rebelliously against the command and Authority of God and the King contentiously wrathfully and seditiously against the inferiour Governours sent by him as the supreme that you have born false witness against those that were loyal and obedient Subjects as Traytors Incendiaries c. And then have manifested your selves so insatiably covetous of their goods and legal possessions that some of your party have enjoyed plundered goods and sequestred livings legally belonging to honest Royalists and besides all this you have prayed for the prosperity of Presbyterian Armies and encouraged them to fight against the King and cursed those that did not and the more of the Kings Friends your forces killed the more heartily you gave thanks to God and by such approving compliances are guilty of the bloud of thousands of the Kings Loyal Subjects and consequently of so many murders To kill any man in war without Authority derived from him or them that have legal power to make war being murder and that your Presbyterian Lords and Commons had no such power as to that war which they made and you abetted is evident enough from this that a Law of the Land 25 Edw. 3. c. 2. makes it Treason to levy war against the King in his Realm or to be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere Since also 't is no better than murder to kill or put those men to death whose lives as well as goods lands c. the Law hath taken special care to preserve you are by your approbation partakers of their sin who murdered such men That you approved the taking away their lives who adhered to the King in the late wars we presume you will not deny yea you covenanted to do them mischief under the Notion of Malignants Incendiaries and Evil Instruments That the Law of the Land saves them harmless is evident from 11 Henry 7. c. 1. Wherein 't is declared to be against all Laws Reason and good conscience that Subjects going with their Soveraign Lord in Wars attending upon him in his person or being in other places by his commandment within this land or without should lose or forfeit any thing for doing their duty or Service of Allegiance Wherein likewise 't was enacted that no manner of person or persons whatsoever that attend upon the King and Soveraign Lord of this Land for the time being in his person and do him true and faithful service of Allegiance in the same or be in other places by his commandment in his wars within this land or without that for the said deed and true duty of Allegiance he or or they be in no wise convict or attaint of high Treason nor of other offences for that cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any Process of Law whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit life lands tenements rents possessions hereditaments goods chattels or any other things but to be for that deed and service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or loss And if any Act or Acts or other Process of the Law hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance that then that Act or Acts or other Process of Law whatsoever they shall be stand and be utterly void Now you Presbyterian Preachers being thus guilty with what face can you reprove our prophaneness or judge us to Hell for those vices which are but motes in comparison of those beams which an ordinary sight may discern in your own eyes and tell us if you can why these practices of yours do not give us just cause to suspect that either you are very scandalously ignorant of the most material and concerning portions of holy Scripture or that you do not give any credit to them and then why do you seek to affright us from our intemperateness and lewdness with such mormo's as your selves are too sturdy to be scar'd with or else that you have some Salvoes and comfortable reserves which might keep us from despair and make us presume upon Heaven as well as your selves if you would please to acquaint us with them And therefore till your selves are more reformed and civilized and walk more orderly towards God and the King towards the Laws of Nature and Scripture and this Nation you cannot in modesty expect that your Sermons should prevail upon us to restrain our debauchery or convert us from dissoluteness and disorder And now let this Author prove if he can as strongly as he boldly affirms that the men whom he pleads for who are such bad Christians must needs be good Subjects But p. 56. The man goes on to prevaricate and abuse his Readers into a good opinion of Presbyterians Neither are they wandring starrs a people given to Change fit to overturn and pull down but not to build up they do not hang in the air but build upon a firm ground they have settled principles consistent with the Rules of Stable Policy Contrariwise Fanaticks truly and not abusively so called do build Castles in the Air and are fit Instruments to disturb and destroy and root out but never to compose and plant and settle for which cause their Kingdom could never hold long in any time or place of the World Vpon this ground Presbytery not Sectarian Anarchy hath been assaulted with greatest violence by the more observing Prelatists against this they have raised their main batteries This appeared formidable for 't is stable and uniform and like to hold if once settled in good earnest From which heap of words I gather 1. That the Presbyterian Lords and Commons were Fanaticks truly so called since they manifested themselves for several years together fit instruments to disturb and destroy and root out the Order Governours and Government establisht by Law but when they had so far disturbed things as to destroy by Force and Arms that Form of Policy in Church and State when they had done fighting against the King and had gotten him into their clutches instead of shewing their skill in composing planting and setling they employed their time in building Castles in the Air till the Independent Fanaticks out-witted them and cunningly jugled that power out of their hands which they had by force and violence wrested from the hands of his Majesty and the Laws 2. I gather that the principles of the Anarchical sectarians are more consistent with the Rules of Stable-policy than