Presbyteriall government and I thinke you will not deny but there are such if you doe I will produce them but though Presbyteriall government be not nominally and in vâ—â—bis in the Covenant yet I hope without offence it may be said that it is concordâ—ble to the Covenant as being nearest to that government which the best reformed Churches doe practise and that by our Covenant we are bound to endeavour the settlement of And that progresse which both Houses of Parliament have already made in and towards the settlement of Presbyteriall government they have done it in pursuance of the said Covenant as by their owne words in the Ordinance of the 14 of March 1645. it doth appear Viz. The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament being very sensible of the grâ—â—t duty which lyeth upon them to settle matters 〈◊〉 â—eligion and the worship of Almighty God and having continually before their eyes the Covenant which they have so solemâ—ly taken for the performance thereof and the manifold motives and incouragements thereunto which are given them from God himselfe by a speciall hand of Providence pâ—wring forth daily mercies upon them In discharge of their duty and in pursâ—ance of the said Covenant and in thankefulnesse to God for all his Mercies have diligently applyed themselves to that work of his Hoâ—se by his grace and assistance they have made some progresse therein notwithstanding the exigency of other affaires accompanied oftentiâ—es with great and imminenâ— dangers And notwithstanding the great difficulty of the worke it selfe in divers respects and particularly in the right jointing of what was to be setled with the Laws and Governâ—â—nt of the Kingdome the want whereof hath â—aused much trouble iâ— this and other States yet by the mercifull assistance of God having reâ—oved the booke of Common-prayer with all its unnecessary and burdensome Ceremonies and established the Directory in the â—â—ome thereof and â—aving abolishâ—d the Prelaticall Hierarchy by Archbishops Bishops and their dependants and in stead thereof laid the foundation of a Presbyteriall Government in every Congregation with subâ—rdinâ—tion to Claâ—â—icall Provinciâ—ll and Nationall Assemblies and of tâ—eâ— all to tâ—e Parliament Why doe you also wrong the Remonstrants in saying They force Presbyteriall government upon others doe they any other thing then Petition the Parliament to settle that government which in the words of this Ordinance both the Lords and Commons do say that in discharge of their duty and in pâ—rsâ—ance of the said Covenant they have laid the foundation already viz. of a Presbyteriall government You have yet one parallel more WORD OF GOD â—â—ITY REMONSTRANCE Dâ—ut. 19. 15. At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every thing be established That Quarterman may be brought to some exemplary punishment for the affront done by him c. And then you say Though no such thing was ever proved by one witnesse or testimony that what hee did was any affâ—onâ— done to the Priviledges and Government of the City Hang him hang him what hath â—e done Answ. You deny not the act of Quarterman presume it is not that which you say was never proved by one witnesse or testimony for the act was done at high Exchange time within the sight and hearing of many hundâ—eds but I conceive your meaning for you doe not expresse it and therefore I can but guesse at it is that the act in entring the City and making proclamation therein with sound of Trumpet without acquainting the Lord Major therewith was not proved by one witnesse or â—estimony to be any affront done to the Priviledges or Government of the City there never was any the least exception taken against the Order to proclaime nor against the matter proclaimed nor the time when nor the place where the Proclamation was made if according to the constant and uninterrupted course of transacting things of that nature the Lord Major who is the chiefe Magistrate of the City had but been acquainted with it Now I appeale to the Reader whether such an act done in such a manner in the sight and hearing of many hundreds without acquainting the Lord Major therewith be not an affront done to the priviledges and government of the City In page 14. you tell the Reader that I except against the replyer for saying The Parliament hath promised in severall Declarations a gratious respect to tender Consciences Answ. In page 9 of my Vindication I cited out of the Replyer page 2 these following words viz. That it is notoriously known that the Parliament did promise in severall declarations a gracious respect to tender Consciences I did not except against him for so saying but I told him then and I tell you now that I will not say that this is false left I should fall into that sin which I am forced so frequently to reprove you for but 〈…〉 bee any such promises in former Declarations which I yet remember not as I then said to him so I now say to you you should have done well to have expressed the date of those Declarations and the words of the promises that so the Reader might see that at least in something you I say you as well as the Replyer desire to deale fairly with them for the Remonstrants they still laid a fair Copy before you in the Remonstrance so to have writ after them And now without shewing any one Declaration more then the Replyer did you goe on and say It seems you are willing to hide your eyes from such observations in the Parliaments Declarations as though this were an abòminatioâ—â— to you that they should â—aâ—e any respect to tenâ—er consciences Answ. I never knew before that a desire to know the dates of the Parliaments severall Declarations and to see the words of the promises which they therein make of a gracious respect to tender consciences which the Replyer saith is so notoriously knowne and which I must confesse as then so now I remember not had been a manifestation of a mans willingnesse to hide his eyes from such observations in the Parliaments Declarations And it is so farre from being an abomination to me that the Parliament should have any respect to tender Consciences that I shall much rejoice both in the beholding of any true tendernesse of conscience in any man and at all due respect which the Parliament shall shew unto them Yet can I not conceive that Heretiques that deny there is a God or that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that they are no more to bee beleeved then the Stories of Henry the 8th ' c. or Blasphemers which call the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence a three headed Cerberus c. that these and such as these can properly be brought in under the notion of tender consciences But thâ—n you aske me if I have forgotten the lâ—st Declaration of the 17 of Aprill 1646 Answ. You know thaâ— neither the Remonstrants noâ— yet my self have forgotten that Declaration
transcribe my very words where I told you that by the three Estates I meant as all the Laws and Records of the Kingdome expresse it and as all men unquestionably have hitherto concluded it and as the truth in it selfe is the King the Lords and the Commons Your second Querie is What I meane by Fundamentall and then you tell the Reader that I say the King the Lords and Commons are the three Estates of which the Fundamentall constitution of the Kingdome is made up It 's true I did and doe say so still and you say little to contradict it onely you aske another question which how wise a one it is I desire the Reader to observe for I must not judge viz. are there three Fundamentalls and you propose it as if I had said or imply'd so much and then you tell the Reader you ever thought there had been but one and in this I agree with you but herein is our difference which you and I must leave to the judgement of the reader to determine I say this one Fundamental constitution of the Kingdâ—m is the three Estates of the King Lords and Commons and this I still abide by but you say this one Fundamentall is the Commons and that for two Reasons 1. Becâ—use the Commons made the King and the King made the Lords and so the Commons are the prime â—oundâ—tion 2. Bâ—cause both the King and the Lords were advâ—nced for the benefit quiet and welfare of the Commons and not the Commons made for them And you say if you are deceived the common Maxime of Salus populi suprema Lex deceived you Answ. First the frame of the Government of this Kingdome by the admired wisdom of the Architects and Contrivers thereof is so composed of these three Estates as may best preserve the whole and keep either of those Estates from any such exorbitancy as might destroy the other for as they are the three Estates in Parliament I humbly concâ—ive there is no subordination of the one to the other but a co-ordination of them all three together by which the Princes Soveraignty and the peoples freedome and liberty are together preserved and maintained and herein is that common Maxime of Salus populi suprema Lex chiefly made good Secondly the legislative Power of this Kingdom is not in any one Estate distinct but in al the three Estates conjunct yea the very root and essence of this Legislative Power is compounded and as it were mixed together in the three Estates of King Lords and Commons and these three concurrent Estates producing one supreme Act as con-Cause caâ—not have a subordination among themselves it not being imaginable how a power can cause the supreme effect and yet be subordinate thus the very being of our Common and Statute Lawes prove this truth for they are not composed nor enacted by any one of the three Estates divisim but they are established by the sole authority of the three Estates conjunctin every act being enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and by the authority of the Lords and Câ—mmons assembled in Parliament Thirdly I must needs dissent from you in that you say that both the King and the Lords were advanced for the beneâ—â—t quiet and welfare of the Commons if your meaning bee as indeed by your words it seems to be exclusive excluding therein the benefit quiet and welfare of the King and the Lords for I conceive the benefiâ— quiet and welfare of the whole viz. King Lords and Commâ—ns was equally and alike intended in the Fundamentall constitution of the Kingdom and so the Commons were as well made for the King as the King for the Commons yea the King and the Lords and the Commons were all alike made for the benefit quiet and welfare each of others and so of the whole together and this is that which in my minde maketh the Constitution of this Kingdome in this state of a limited and mixed Monarchy farre to surpasse the Constitution of any other Kingdome that I know and I think that in a good sense it may truly bee said of the severall members of this thus constituted Poâ—itique body of this Kingdome as the Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 21. speakes of the members of the naturall body the eye câ—nnot sâ—y to the bâ—nd I have no need of thee nor again the â—ead to the feet I have no need of you for as every member in the naturall body is by God there set and placed not alone for its owne good but for the welfare of the whole and accordingly it acts and is serviceable therein for the good of the whole yea such a naturall necessity there is in the body of every member that not any one member can be wanting but the body is thereby defective and so the eye cannot say to the â—and I have no need of thee nor againe the head to the feet I hâ—vâ— no need of you So in the body Politique of this Common-wealth by the ancient and excellent Constitution thereof the three Estates viz. King Lords and Commons are so set and placed that in their severall stations they should not act alone for their owne particular but for the Common and Publike good and welfare of the whole yea I humbly conceive that to the upholding continuance of this so excellent a Constitution there is such a Politique necessity of every one of the three Estates in this Commonwealth for the preservation of the whole that the King cannot say to the Commons I have no need of you nor againe the Commons to the King I have no need of thee nor yet the King and the Commons to the Lords we have no need of you For if any one Estate in this bâ—dy Politique be cut off the whole constitution is presently destroyed and when I seriously consider how by the Fundamentall Constitution of this Kingdom there is such care taken for the preservation of the Soveraignty of the King and yet withall such provision made for the just Liberties and freedome of the people and how the one may be justly allayed and yet consist without impeachment of the other I cannot but conceive it to be unparalleld for true policy in the whole world and thus much in answer to your two first Qâ—eries Your third Querie is whether the King and suppose the major part of the Lord whiâ—h mâ—ke up two Estates doâ— agree togâ—ther suppose it be to set up absolute prerogative and the Commons will not assent hereunto whether the majoâ— part of the Estates must not conclude the minor the two conclude the third and so as for the Common will they nill they slâ—â—es they must be and slaves they shall be Answ. To the making of a Law there must bee the concurrent consent of all the three Estates viz. King Lords and Commons the King and the Lords without the consent of the Commons can make no Law valid and in that case the major part of the Estateâ— doe not
conclude the minor and so the Commons are thereby preâ—served from slavery but in another case the major part of the Eâ—states doe conclude the minor viz. when the Lords and Commonâ— doe agree upon a Law for the good and safety of the Kingdome then the King is concluded in that their agreement and ought tâ— set his flat thereunto For the Kings of England are bound by their Oaths to grant such Laws which shall bee for the good and safety of the Kingdome with the accord of their people in 〈◊〉 presented to them as in the preamble of the Statute made in the 25 yeare of â—dward the Third entituled The Statute of provisoâ—s of Benefices made at Wâ—stminster in these words it doth appeare Whereupon the said Commons haâ—e prayed our Soveraigne Lord the King that sith the Right of the Crowne of England and the Law of the said Realme is such that upon the mischiefs and dammâ—ges which â—appen to this Realme Hee ought and is bound by His Oath with the accord of His People in His Parliament thereof to make remedy and law And the King acknowledgeth this for a truth and accordingly Acted as in these following words in the same Statute it appeareth Our Soveraigne Lord the King seeing the mischiefes and dammages before mentioneâ— and having râ—gard to the Statute made in the time of his Grandfâ—ther and by so much as Hee is bounden by Hiâ— Oath to cause the 〈…〉 a Law of His Realme c. by the assent of all the great Men and Commâ—nalty of â—is said Reâ—lme to the honor of God and profit of the said Church of England and of all His Realm◠〈◊〉 Ordâ—ined and esâ—ablished c. Thus farre the words of that Preamble and Statute upon which the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled say thus Viz. Here the Lords and Commons claime it directly as the right of the Crowne of England and of the Law of the Land thaâ— the King is bound by his Oâ—th with the 〈◊〉 of his people in Parliament to make remedie and 〈…〉 the mischiefs and dammâ—gâ—s which happen to this Realme and the King doth not deny it Câ—llect of Declarations p. 229. Lâ—t this suffice as answer to your third Querie Your fourth Queâ—ie is this Whethâ—r â—ee viz. the King be present as a distinct Estate if so if one distinct Estate may bee present in power quatenus an Estate and absent in person mâ—y not a second Estatâ— be so present though absent in body yea a third Estate sâ— present and yet absent in body and so we shall have the Estates in Parliament and not a man amongst them this is a Riddle indâ—ed Mr. Bellamie I pray you unfold this also Answ. At your request â—e undertake the taske your owne words grant that â—s well in Parliament as in all his inferiour Courts of Justice the King is present in his power these are your words viz. I know Sir hee is present in power in all his inferiour Couâ—ts of Iustice as well as in the Parliament 24. Now in Parliament there is no power but the power of the three Estates viz. King Lords and Commons and therefore all the Acts that are enâ—cted by the power of Parliament are enacted by the power of the three Estates conjunction It is possible that the King may withdraw his person from the Parliament as now hee hath done but hee can never withdraw his power no not his power as a distinct Estate for in the making of every Act of Parliamâ—nt there is present in Parliament the power of all the three Estates without all which conjunctim no act can bee made But there is an Act made this Parliament by the free consent of all the three Estates in Parliament that this Parliament shall not be dissolved prorogued or adjourned without the consent of both Houses of Parliament first had and obtained viz. Anno 17 Caroli Regis entituled An Act to prevent inconveniences which may happen by the untimely adjourning proroguing dissolving of this present Parliament In 〈◊〉 Act are these words viz. Be it declared and enacted by the King our Soveraigne Lord with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same That this present Parliament now assembled shall not bee dissolved unlesse it be by Act of Parliament to bee passed for that purpose nor shall bâ—e at any time or times during the Continuance thereof prorogued or adjourned unlâ—sse it be by Act of Parliament to be likewise passed for that purpose Now then thus I argue if at the passing of this Act of Parliament there was present the power of all the three Estates in Parliament viz. King Lords and Commons and by vertue of this Act of Parliament the Parliament cannot be dissolved prorogued or adjourned unlesse it be by act of Parliament to bee passed for that purpose then the power of all the three Estates viz. King Lords and Commons must needs continue in Parliament till by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose this Parliament bee dissolved prorogued or adjourned But at the passing of this Act of Parliament there was present the power of all the three Estates in Parliament viz. King Lords and Commons vide the Act 〈◊〉 supra and by vertue of this Act of Parliament the Parliament cannot be dissolved prorogued or adjourned unlesse it be by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose vide also the Act 〈◊〉 supra Therefore the Power of all the three Estates in Parliament viz. King Lords and Commons must needs continue in Parliament till by Act of Parliament to bee passed for that purpose this Parliament be dissolved prorogued or adjourned And thus the particular by me affirmed is clearly proved viz. That though the person of the King bee absent from the Parliament yet the power of the King viz. as one of the three Estates in Parliament is present with the Parliament I now come briefly to the second part of your Querie and will endeavour herein as you call it to unfold your Riddle the other two Estates in Parliament viz. Lords and Commons cannot be absent from the Parliament neither in power nor yeâ— in person thus farre â—e grant you that many of the members of either House may bee absent from either of their respective Houses and yet the two Estates of Parliament continue entire in Parliament for there must be at least three Lords present in the House of Lords to make it a House and so an Estate in Parliament and forty Commons with the Speaker in the House of Commons to make it an House and so an Estate in Parliament and therefore there cannot bee as you affirme three Estates in Parliament and not a man amongst them and this I give as an answer to your fourth Querie and if you please you may also let it passe for the unfolding of your Riddle In the â—ifth place in page 24. you have these words
viz. The Replyer observing the Remonstran sâ—ascribing onely a share of the supreme Power to the House of Commons proposeth this Question to them Will not you allow so much power to the Kingdome representative in râ—ference to the Kingdome as to the representative City in reference to London And then you come to your fifth Querie in these following words viz. And so doe I Querie will not the Commons of London yeeld or ascribe unto the Commons of England as the Commons of London to themselves will ascribe Answ. I pray maâ—k the termes of your Querie for methinks it is a little defective you say the Commons of London not the Common-Councell but as you propose your Querie I answer affirmatively that the Commons of London will yeeld and ascribe unto the Commons of England as the Commons of London to themselves will ascribe but I say again observe your termes you say the Commons of London not the Common-Councell I shall presâ—ntly shew you the difference the Commons of London are not the City representative but the Common-councell which doth consist of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons is the City representative Then you goe on in these words viz. Therefore Mr. Bellamie to make your absurdities the better appeare in your parallel between the Kingdome representative and the City representative I come upon you thus First you grant that the Common-Councell is the City representative page 2 of your Vindication Answ. I grant it Secondly you grant that the House of Commons in Parliament assembled is the Kingdom representative in the same page Answ. I grant the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to be the Kingdome representative in that sense in which in page 2 of my Vindication I said it was viz. as it is made up of and chosen by the Kingdome collective viz. the Commons of the Kingdome whom in Parliament it onely represents and therefore onely can be the representative body of them and accordingly in all their addresses to the House of Lords they goe in their owne names and in the names of all the Commons of England and desiring the concurrence of the House of Lords in any Act they desire it in their owne names and in the names of all the Commons of England of whom they onely are a representation or whom they doe represent and in that sense I expressed it in page 4 where I called the Kingdome collective the body of the Commons of England not the body of the Kingdom of England And as this representative body viz. the House of Commons is one of the three Estates in Parliament so also in that page I called it the House of Commons in Parliament assembled but I called it not the Parliament so the Lords are called the House of Lords in Parliament assembled but no man cals thaâ— House the Parliament Likewise the Lords and Commons joyning together in any one Act as in the last Propositions sent to His Majesty it is said to be agreed by both Houses of Parliament as in Article 1 5 6 12 c. it appeareth but it is not said to be agreed by Parliament for it had been so agreed why then is the Kings assent to these Propositions prayed for by both Housâ—s of Parliament as in the Proem to the said Propositions in these words it doth appeare Viz. May it please your Majesty Wee the Lords and Commons assembled in the Parliament of England in the name and on the behalfe of the Kingdoms of England and Ireland and the Commissioners of the Parliament of Scotland in the name and on the behalfe of the Kingdome of Scotland Doe humbly present unto your Majesty the humble desires and Propositions for a safe and wel-grounded Peace agreed upon by the Parliaments of both Kingdomes respectively unto which we do pray your Majesties assent and that they and all such as shall bee tendred to your Majesty in pursuance of them or any of them may bee established and enacted for Statutes and Acts of Parliament by your Majesties Royall assent in the Parliaments of both Kingdoms respectively You might also have observed in the same page that when I come to speake of making Laws which is the worke of the Parliament and not of any particular Estate alone in Parliament I there say in expresse termes the Kingdome representative which is the Parliament And sure no man could possibly imagine that my expression should be taken in any other consideration for I did all along in the 14 15 1â— 17 18 pages of my Vindication also hold out this truth that there was three distinct Estates in Parliament viz. the King the Lords and the Commons and doe you thinke that it was probable or possible that I should meane that one of the theeâ— Estates in Parliament should be a representation of all the three Thirdly you say the City representative hath a power to make a Law for those whom it represents Answ. I grant this too Then you thus goe on viz. Fourthly I desire to know whether you allow the Kingdom representative the same power to make a Law for those whom it represents Answ. I crave your favour and patience before you goe any further to present you in this place with these two following considerations First that the House of Commons all the members thereof beâ—â—ing chosen by the collective body of the Kingdome viz. the Commons are in that respect and in that sense truly the representative body of the Kingdome viz. of the Commons of the Kingdome and so have in them in this consideration the full Legislative power of the Commons of England Secondly I pray also consider that though the House of Commons have in them the full Legislative power of the Commons of England yet the whole Legislative power of the Kingdome of England is not concentred in the Commons of England but is as hath before been fully proved in the three Estates of the King the Lords and the Commons of England conjunctim and therefore no one Estate alone and by its selfe can make a Law but to the making of every Law in the Kingdome of England there must be the concurrent consent of all these three Estates conjunctim And this as I humbly conceive makes a cleare way to give an answer to your Querie viz. Whether you allow the Kingdom representative viz. the House of Commons the same power to make a Law for those whom iâ— represents and the answer will bee this It hath in it the full legislative power of the Commons of England whom in Parliament it doth represent but it hath not in it the full legislative power of the kingdome of England it hath in it all the power of the Commons of England towards the making of a Law but it must have the concurrent consent of the other two Estates viz. of the King and of the Lords to the full consummating of a Law and making it obligatory to the Kingdome of England And besides that it is thus setled
by the fundamentall Constitution of the Kingdome I humbly also conceive that there is just reason for it too and that not onely from the relation which these three Estates have one to another but also because of that interest which one Estate hath in another The King being no otherwise King of England but with relation to the subjects of England and so he hath an interest in them and they are his liege that is his lawfull Subjects or his Subjects according to the Law And likewise the Lords and Commons of England are no otherwise Subjects of England but with relation to the King as hee is the King of England in whom also they have the like reciprocall interest and so he is their liege our lawfull Soveraigne or their King according to the Law and thus runs the formes of our Laws viz. Bee it enacted by the King our Soveraigne Lord with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled But the City of London by the Charter of Edw. 3. in the 15 yeare of his Reigne hath a power granted to the Major and Aldermen and their successors with the assent of the Commonalty to make lawes for the common profit of the Citizens of the same City by vertue of which grant the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in Court of Common-Councell assembled being therin as one entire Court the representative Body of the City doe to this day make Laws which are alwayes binding to the Citizens of the same City And there is no other consent required to the consummation of these Laws but the sole and onely authority of this Court and therefore all our Acts of Common-councell are made in the joint names of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in the Court of Common-councell assembled and by the authority thereof and in the addition of any branch in an act of Common councell it is still thus exprest It is by this Court further Ordered c. Or this Court doth further Order c. which doth fully prove that all the power of making or altering or adding to the City lawes rests wholly and alone in the body of that one Court of Common-councell or the greater number of them which doth alwayes consist of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons but all the power of making or repealing or adding to the lawes of the kingdome doth not rest wholly and alone in the House of Commons but the concurrent consent of the other two Estates viz. the King and the Lords is necessarily required to this of the Commons for making or repealing of the Laws of the Kingdome And thus I hope I have answered your first head of Queries arising from that question viz. wherein resides the Supreme power of the Kingdome I shall now likewise endeavour to give a solution to your Argument and all the satisfaction I can to the second head of your Queries For a foundation to build your Arguments upon you produce an Argument of mine out of my Book entitâ—led A Plea for the Commonalty of London thus it is That Court which hath a power to make a law and by that law to conferre a power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before must needs bee quoad hoe as unto the making of a law above the Lord Major and Aldermen But this Court of Common-councell hath c. Ergo this Court of Common-councell so farre as to the making of a Law must needs bee above the Lord Major and Aldermen Answ. I owne the Argument and for confirmation of what I tâ—â—re affirmed concerning the power of the Court of Common-councell I made it good and proved it dâ— facto by an act of Common-councel made in the sixth yeare of Hen. 7. upon the 15 of Aprill concerning the choice of the Chamberlaine of London and the Bridge-masters of the City as by reference to the said Book appeareth and I would willingly see what you have to say against it But upon this in your 25 page you thus argue That Court which hath the power to make a law and by that law to conferre a power upon the King and Lords which as King and Lords they had not before must needs be quoad hoc unto the making of a law above the King and Lord But the House of Câ—mmonâ— which say you speaking of mee is the kingdome representative even as the Common-councell is the City representative upon your supposâ—tion hath a power c. Ergo the House of Commons so far as unto the making of a law must needs bee above the King and Lords But I pray you tell me is there no difference between the Court of Common-councell and the Commons in Common-councel I told you even now in page 42 that the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in Common-councell assembled being therein one entire Court are the representative body of the City I never said the Commons in that Court were so and if you had been pleased to have perused that Booke of mine you cite to this purpose and out of which you take my argument viz. The Pleâ— for the Commonalty of London in page 10. where I instance in four severall acts of that Court viz. the removing of Deputy Aldâ—n from the Court Mr. Iohn Wilde from being Town Clerk Mr. Tho. Wiseman from being the City Remembrancer and divers Aldermens Deputies from their places of Deputyship you might there have found that I thus conclude it viz. And all this by the joint and concurrent power of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons in this Common-councell assembled And what though the Court of Common-councell which alwayes consisteth of the Lord Major Aldermen and Commons have a power to conferre upon the Lord Major and Aldermen that power which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before as I fully proved and therefore without the least mutation am still of the same mind and in that respect as unto the making of a Law are above the Lord Mâ—jor and Aldermen as the whole is above a partâ— But will it hence follow that the Commons in Common-councell alone and by themselves have either this power to conferre a power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before or that they are above them If you will argue from my assertion bee sure you keep my terms and then see how it will advantage you for the confirmation of your argument I grounded this power of making City Laws from the Charter of Edw. 3. in the 15 yeare of his Reigne And in the same Book of mine out of which you took my argument you might also have had my authority for it it is in page 7 in these words Wee have granted further for us and our heires and by this our present Charter confirmed to the Major and Aldermen of the City aforesaid that if any customes in the said City hitherto obtained and used be in any part difficult
or defective or any thing in the same newly happening where before there was no remedy ordained and have need of amending the same Major and Aldâ—rmen and their successors with the assent of the Commonalty of the same City may adde and ordaine a remedy meet faithfull and consonant to reason for the common profit of the Citizens of the same City as oft and at such time as to them shall be thought expedient which Charter was confiâ—med by act of Parliament 43 yeares after in the 7 of Rich. 2 Now if you can produce the like authority granted alone to the House of Commons by the Parliament that they of themselves without the consent of the King and the Lords have power to make lawes for the Kingdome as by this Charter the Lord Major Aldermen and their successors with the assent of the Commons of London haue for the City then you hit the buâ—ines aâ—ight indeed but otherwise I thinke your argument is not true And therefore for after times let me advise you that if you will imitate an argument in the words of it be sure you imitate it also in the proofes of it and let them be as full and cleare for the confirmation of what you affirme for it is not words though never so smooth that proves any thing in matters of fact as this is And truly should I have laid down that argument to prove the power of the Court of Common-councell as unto the making of City laws to bee above the Lord Major and Aldermen and not have proved it de facto by the acts of the Court of Common-councell I should have thought it at least to have been a scandalum Magnatum against the Lord Major and Aldermen and very blame-worthy in my selfe to have done it But perhaps you think the condition of the King and the Lords to bee such as that whatever you speak or publish concerning them tending to the annihilating of their legislative power and authority in Parliament can neither be an offence to them nor a fault in you or if it bee it seemes you regard it not but I hope you will not take it amisse if as I did in that so I desire you in this either to produce a proof dâ— facto to make good that the House of Commons hath by an Act of that House alone conferred a power upon the King and Lords as King and Lords they had not before which are the very wordâ— of your argument or else in plaine English to tell the Readerâ— that though you can transcribe the words of my argument which a childe of ten yeares old can doe as well as you yet now upon second thoughts you must needs confesse you come very short in a parallel proofe of it there neither now being nor never was any act of the House of Commons that doth prove that that House alone and by it selfe did ever make a law which did confer a power upon the King and Lords which as King and Lords they had not before and without this proofe I perswade my selfe no man will beleeve that as unto the making of a law the House of Commons is above the King and Lords though Mr. I. P. affirmes it to bee so And this I give not onely as a solution to this your argument but also to the other arguments which follow viz. concerning the power of the House of Commons alone without the King and Lords to repeale what lawes they think meet and to make laws and rules for all the Courts and people in England to bee steered and acted by and whereunto say you the King himselfe is bound by his Oath and therefore ought in duty to consâ—ut and likewise to that which you say will follow from my logick viz. that the Kingdome representative is inferiour in its power in reference to the government of the Kingdome then the City representative is in reference to the government of the City and to the other Queries which you ground upon them for they all alike hang upon this string and if in the opinion of the Reader to whose judgement I referre it this be â—ut asunder I am sure they must all then needs fall to the ground and therefore I shall not need to trouble my self any more with them And now Mr. I. P. I have endeavoured with all the candor and tendernesse I could to examine your Book and have not I hope let one word fall from mee that in the least measure doth reflect upon your person for it is the matter of your Book and not any of your personall infirmities for alasse the Lord knowâ— I have work more then enough to meddle with and to master my own or other your supposed errors in matters of Religion that I encounter with And if we cannot yet agree in this present difference and debate my earnest desire is and I trust â—y endeavour shall for â—ver be answerable thereunto that wee may manage the matter with that sweet moderation and temper of Spirit as becommeth Christians for of this I am confident that though through weaknesse or error in judgement perhaps mine not yours we cannot agree together to live in one Church fellowship or communion here upon earth yet we shall for ever mutually enjoy communion and fellowship with God the Father with Christ with the blessed Spirit three Persons in one Essence and with the holy Angels and the glorified Saints for ever in heaven And therefore I beseech you while we yet live here in this vale of teares let us remember and obey that counsell the Apostle gives us Philip 3. 15 16. Let us therefore as many as bee perfect bée thus minded and if in any thing you bee otherwise minded God shall reveale even this unto you neverthelesse whereunto we have already attained let us walke by the same rule let us mind the same thing I shall gladly imbrace and entertaine any truth of God which shall by you bee held forth unto mee with the warrant of his Word and as willingly leave and forsake whatever either in opinion or practice I now hold or doe that shall bee made apparent to be dissonant thereto for I solemnly professe unto you that I labour not for Masteries neither desire I to give the last blow I esteem it no shame to be conquered when Christ proves the Victor nor no losse to bee vanquished when the Truth prevailes for it's verity not victory that shall be my comfort A POSTSCRIPT I Have at this time no more to say either to your selfe or to your Book but in one word to let the Reader know that my desire and endevour to afford you all the faire quarter that possibly I could in this our Conflict about this Subject was such That I did upon Saturday the 8 of this instant August in the presence of Mr. Samuel Clarke Pastor of Bennet Fynck London and of Mr. Iames Story and Mr. Henry Overton two of yours and of my owne acquaintance shew you in Writing this my Justification of the City Remonstrance and its Vindication before ever I tendered it either to be Licensed or Printed and desired you to peruse it and if there was any thing in it either for matter of Fact or otherwise that you could justly except against I would expunge it and it should never see the light And when you would not accept of that offer I then read some passages in the Epistle to you which I told you that in my apprehension they were the things which most nearly concerned your Person this I did to manifest my unwillingnesse to let any thing passe from mee that might bee either prejudiciall to the Truth or justly distastefull to your Person and if it be possible to overcome evill with good FINIS In the absence of the Author these following Errata's escaped in the printing of the Vindication which I pray thus Correct Page 2. line 23. for you will charge read you will not charge p. 6. l. 30. for and Sectaries â— of Sectaries p. 7. l. 1. for till r. the p. 8. l. last for stated r. sacred p. 14. l 22 for finde in r. finde it in l. 24. for these their words r. these are their words p. 23 l. 27. for elected r erected p. 26. l. 26. for ones Poesie r Ovids Poesie
for truly I cannot disâ—ern it But of this I am confident that it is appâ—oved by the Châ—rch of Scotland witnesse the Letter now in Print for all the Kingdome to see which was sent from the Generall Assembly 〈◊〉 the Church of Scotland to the Lord Major Aldermeâ— and 〈…〉 of London June 18. 1646. manifesting theiâ— approbation of it and thankfulness for it And sure I may sayâ— it is appâ—â—ved by the generality of the ablest graveâ— and 〈…〉 witnesse their Petition subscribed by eight Thousâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Hundred thirty and four of their Hands presented the twenty third of Iune 1646. to the Court of Common-Councell giving them Thankes for it testifying their approbation of â—t and desâ—â—ing them to wait upon the House of Coâ—mâ—ns foâ— their gracioâ—s answer to it which Petition is by Order of Coâ—â—t since Printed And me thinkâ— you should not forget that the same Remonstrance for the substance of it was not onely well accepted but also graciously answered by the House of Lords And therefore â—urely in the judgment of all these the City Remonstrance â—s not â—udged 〈◊〉 But perhaps you arâ—e of the â—indâ— of 〈…〉 6. 16. who was 〈…〉 reason And I make as little 〈…〉 yet it is and will be 〈◊〉 all the Reformed Churches in Europe not one excepâ—â—◠〈…〉 Qâ—arrells 〈…〉 is you have to say against the 〈…〉 whether in all probability the Reply and not the Remonstrance hath raised those disturbances for the Subject of the Remonstrance is an earnest desire of the settlement of government by one Uniforme Law for all the Subjects of England to submit equally and alike unto which I am sure must needs tend to peace and quietnesse but the dâ—ift of the Reply is quite contrary and therefore without all peradventure it 's this and its abettors and not that and its promoters which hath desired and occasioned these Divisions both in Church and State In pag. 9 you go about to shew that the Common-Councell by their Remonstrance did act in a direct evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God and for proofe of this in page 11 you give us some Scriptures and some passages in the Remonâ—â—rance which you say or at least would have the world beleeve is in a direct evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God but you never tell the reader how or wherein they are so but thus you deliver them LET US TRY THEN WORD OF GOD CITY REMONSTRANCE Rom. 14. 5. Let â—very man bee fully perswaded in his owne minde That as we are Subjects of one Kingdom so all may bee equally required and here to delude the Reader you insert without making the least change of the character these following words as if they also were in the Remonstrance viz. Be they perswaded in their own minds or not perswaded to yeeld obedience to the government set forth or to be set forth by the Parliament Now I shall wholly all along in these your Parallels leave it to the judgment of the Reader to consider whether there be such an antipathy between these Scriptures and those Petitions of the Remonstrance as in the Remonstrance without your insertion they are exprest and crave your leave in the same way of parallel to set the same Scriptures with some branches of the Propositionâ— sent by both Houses of Parliament to the King and other passâ—ges of Parliament and then desire your judgement whether they also 〈◊〉 a direct eâ—ident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God WORD OF GOD Propositions of both Houses of Parliament Article the 5th Rom. 14. 5. Let every man bee fully perswaded in his owne minde That râ—formation of Religion according to the Covenâ—nt bee setled by Act of Parliament in suâ—h manner as both Houses have agreed or shall agree upon after consultation had with the assembly of Divines  â—CITI REMONSTRANCE Rom. 14. 13. That no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his bâ— others way That all such Sectaries as conform not to the publike Discipline established or to bee established by Parliament saith the Remonstrance but this you leave out may be fully declared against and some effectual course setled for proceeding against such persons Here say you is a stumbling blockâ— viz. a menace in a brothers way Answ. But why doe you leave out the beginning of that prayer in the Petitâ—on which you citeâ—â—t tels you the meaning of the Remonstrants by the words all such Sectaries â—iz Those immediately before mentioned as Anabâ—ptists Brownists Heretiques Schismaticks Blasphemers doe you not by omitting the mentioning of these indeavour to delâ—de the Reader I pray put down that Petition wholly together and let the Reader be fairly deaâ—t with all and have it as in the Remonstrance it is exprest anâ— then see how it is opposite to the Scripture by you set against it 〈…〉 〈…〉 I desire here also in a parallel way to set downe the Scriptuâ—â— by you brought and a passage or two of the Parliaments and 〈◊〉 desire your judgement whether they also be in a direct evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God WORD OF GOD â—Parliaments Declaration upon his Majesties Declaration after the Baâ—taile at Edgebill Pag. 659. Româ— 14. 13. That 〈…〉 put a 〈…〉 bloâ—k or an occasion to fall in his brothers way Had not his Majesty seduced thereunto by that Popish and Prelaticall faction denyed his conseâ—t to the Bil for the Assembly so often by both Houses presented to him wee had long since manifested to the world by a well setled reformation our 〈◊〉 dislike of â—* Brownisme and Anabâ—ptisme Remonstrance of the State of the kingdom page 19. We do declare that it is far from our purpose or dâ—sire to let loose the golden reynes of discipline and government in the Church to leave private persons or particular Congregations to take up what for me of Divine Service they please for wee hold it requisite that there should be throughout the whole realme a confâ—rmity to that Order which the Laws enjoyne according to the Word of God Mâ—t. 7 12. As you would that men should doe unto you so doe untâ— them for this is the Law and the Propheis Page 3. Wee will not receive impression of any forced construction of the Covenant compare this with Page 7. Will you never leave falsâ—fying where doe you finde any such expression in the Remonstrance either in Page 3 or 7. as this is viz. we will not receive impression of any forced construction of the Covenant The House of Commons in their late Declaration of the 17 of Aprill 1646. doe say Wee expect that the people of England should not receive impressions of any forced construction of that Covenant and in obedience thereunto the Remonstrants doe say in page 2 and 3 of the Remonstrance that in pursuance of that Noble resolution of this Honourable House for the due
observation of the Covenant and their expectation of conformity of the people of England thereunto expressed in the late Declaration we doe resolve by the grace of God not to receive impression of any forced construction thereof and is it now become an acting in a direct evident and obvious manneâ— against the expresse Will and Word of God for the Common-Councell to professe their resolutions to yeeld obedience to the desires and expectations of the House of Commons in their not receiving impressions of any forced constructions of the Covenant I desire your leave here also in a parallel way to set downe the Scripture by you here brought and another branch of the Propositions sent by both House of Parliament to the King and to desire your judgement whether that also be in a direct evident and obvious manne against the expresse Will and Word of God WORD OF GOD Propositions of both Houses of Parliament Article the 6th Mat. 7. 12 Aâ— you would that men should do unto you so do unto them for this is the Law and the Proâ—hets For as much as both Kingdomes are mutually obliged by the same Covenant to endeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity in matters of Religion That such unity and uniformity in Religion according to the Covenant as after consultation had with the Divines of both kingdoms now assembled is or shall bee jointly agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament of England and by the Church and Kiâ—gdom of Scotland be confirmed by Acts of Parliament of both Kingdomes respectively  CITY REMONSTRANCE Mat. 7. 1â— As you would that men should doe unto you so doe unto them for this is the Law the Proâ—hets The 4 Petition That no person disaffected to Preâ—byterian government saith the Remonstrance sâ—t forth or to be set forth by the Parliament but according to your usuall course this to blind the reader you stiâ—â— leavâ— ouâ— may be employed in any place of publike trust and theâ— you add which is not at all in that Petition those words viz. But some effectual course setled to proceed against such persons as in the 3 Petition where there is not the shadow of a word tending to any such purpose I confesse the words youâ— cite are in the 2d Petition but not at all in the least manner applyed to persons onely disaffected to Presbyterian government for there is no such word in that Petition nor any thing looking that way neither doth the Common-Councell in any part of their Petitions so much as desire that persons onely disaffected to Presbyterian government should by some effectuall course setled be proceeded against and therefore methinks you should have been a little more considerate before you should thus falsly and unjustly have charged the Common-Councell to act in a direct evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God This I will grant you that in the second Petition the Common-Councell doth desire that all Anabaptists Brownists Heâ—etiques Schismaticks Blasphemers and all such Sectâ—ries as conforme not to the publike Discipline established or to be established by Parliament may be fully declared against and some effectuall course setled for proceeding against such Persons but is there no difference between Anabaptists Brownists Heretiques â—chismaticks Sectaries and persons but disaffected to Presbyterian government I pray tell mee your minde plainly would you have Heretiques and Blasphemers 〈◊〉 such as deny the Scriptures to bee the Word of God such as professe the Scriptures are writings onely probable to be beleeved as the Story of King Henry the eighthâ— such as deny the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence such as call the Trinity a three headed Cerberus â—uch as deny the Divinity of Christ such as deny the immortality of the Soule and such as deny that there is a God or say if there bee a God the Devill is a God such as say God is the author of sin such who hold that all men shall bee saved yea and the Devills too such as say that Christs humane Nature is defiled with Originall sin as well as ours such as hold that all Râ—ligions Worships Consciences whether Paganish Jewish Antichristian c. should bee tolerated would you have these tolerated or would you not have some effectuall course setled for proceeding against such Persons or doe you thinke these to be no more dangerous if permitted to broach these Hereâ—ies and Blasphemies in the Kingdom then to permit persons otherwise every way peaceable godly and orthodox because meerly disaffected to Presbyterian government I desire here also in a parallel way to set downe the Scripture by you here brought and a Vote of the House of Commons of the 30 Iuly 1641. and to desire your judgement whether that also be in a direct evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God WORD OF GOD Vote of the House of Commons die Vâ—neris 30 Iubii 1641. Mat. 7. 12 As you would 〈◊〉 men should doe unto you so doe unto them for this is the Law and the Prophets Resolved upon the Question That this House doth conceive that the Protestation made by them is sit to be taken by every person that is well-affected in Religion and to the good of the Common-wealth And â—herefore doth â—eclarâ— That what person soever shall not take the Protestation is unfit to bear Office in the Church oâ— Common-wealth Thus having given you these Articles of the Propositions of both Houses of Parliament sent to the King for a safe and well grounded Peace and the other passages of both or either House of Parliament which I have placed after your example in a parallel way against the Scriptures by you brought and desired your judgement whether these also do act as you would have the world beleeve the Petitioâ—s in the Remonstrance doth in a diâ—ect evident and obvious manner against the expresse Will and Word of God I pray you now also seriously to consider of those Petitions in the Remonstrance and compare them together with thesâ— Propositions for Peace and the other passages of both or either House of Parliament and then tell mee what the Remonstrants in those three so much by you condemned Petitions for the substance of them did more desire of the Parliament then both Houses of Parliament have now proposed to the King or hath been formerly by them in these passages of both or either House of Parliament declared to the world Theâ— you say Presbyteriall government is not in the Covenant thereâ—â—re a◠〈◊〉 and this say you you inforce upon others though you will receive no forcâ—d conâ—â—ruction of the same your selves Answ. Where did the Remonstrants say that Presbyteriall government was in the Covenant and if they never said it as they never did why doe you here bring it in as if they had said it I hope that at last you will learne to forbeare falsifying It is true that in page 2 of the Remonstrance they speake of Ordinanceâ— for
for it is by the Remonstrants in their second page cited as a Noble resolution of this Honourable House for the due observation of the Covenant and their expectation of the conformity of the people of England thereunto 〈◊〉 in that Declaration and it is by 〈◊〉 in the tenth page 〈◊〉 my Vindication quoted as a justification of the Remonstrants who to answer the expectation of the House of Commons manifested in that Declaration in these words viz. Wee doâ— expect that the people of England should not receive impressiâ—â—s of any forced coâ—struction of that Covâ—nant doe professe that they doe resolve by the grace of God not to receive impressions of any forced construction thereof But what is this one Declaration to that the Replyer saith that it is notoriously known that the Parliament did promise a gracious respect to tender Conscienceâ— in many severall Deâ—larations or what iâ— it to that which you doe say viz. Werâ— I as well furnished with Books as your selfe doubtlesse I couâ—d shew you sâ—verall other Dâ—clarations where they promise a Christian respect to tender Câ—nsâ—iences Then you goe on and say I am soâ—ry Mr. Bellamie you shâ—uld bee so apt now adayes to cast out of your memorie the praise â—orthy Acts â—f the Parliament Answ. I le say no more in 〈…〉 Replyer or your selfe but that I would desire you not to take it 〈◊〉 because I remember not that which yet 〈…〉 so notoriously known and that which you say were I well furnished with bookes doubtlesse I could shew 〈…〉 is whilâ— neither hee nor you can or at 〈…〉 instance of any other 〈…〉 inâ—reat you at present to foâ—beare your sorrow and for aftertimes not to be so censoriâ—us as to charge me to be so apt now a dayes 〈…〉 Parliament 〈…〉 I shall be as ready to 〈…〉 without any ground charges mee to be so apt now a dayes to cast them out of my memory In your 16 page you thus goe on speaking to me viz. In the next place you begin with an interrogation as if you had gotten a Comâ—ission to insâ—'t thus What is Londons care to keep the Covenant now become Londâ—ns ruine c. Doubtlesse these are Doctrines of a new date and neare a kin to those new Lights which so many now adâ—yes dâ—e so much boâ—st of And thâ—n you say Whither now Mr. Bellamy I professe my â—eart akes and my hand trembles shall I write or shall I forbeare I passed by your scâ—ffing at new Lights once bâ—fore at pag. 10. and tooke no notice of it but I meet with it againe yea with an additionall scoffe Doctrines of a new dâ—te and new Lights c. Answ. When I resolved to indevour the Vindication of the City Remonstrance I resolved with my selfe that I should meeâ— with oppositions and therefore desired so to carry on the workeâ— as not willingly to let a phrase fall from me that might justly give any cause of offence and to that end my care was to weigh words as well as matter well knowing that sweet and pleasing languâ—ge with solid reason and stâ—ong aâ—guments best conduce to the carrying on of a controversie I confesse that as in p. 10. so here I use the word new Lights and Doctâ—ines of a new date but whether in the least appearance as a scoffe or a jeere I freely leave to the Reader both to examine and censure for as scoffing and jeering are farre from my disposition so I can safely say they were as farre in this from my intention I desire the Reader to take a survey of the passages immediately preceding these expressions as they are transcribed out of the Moderate Reply and judge whether I had not just cause to speake what ever is there spoken the expressions are these viz. That the Remonstrants doe discourage the Parliament and that they presse them in all haste unto a sudden enfeebling of their strength by crushing a considerable party of as cordiall friends as ever they had since the Wâ—rs began And that because they will not sweare a submission unto that Church-government whicâ— say you neither they nor your selves yeâ— understand and to make so ill a requitall of their Winters wâ—rke And then againe Shall the whole Kingdome that was almost reâ—dy 〈◊〉 all its Quarters to congratulate with London for all its love now throw by these thoughts and with sad â—earts and pale faces tâ—ll their wives and children friends and neighbours Wâ—e and alasse London will ruine 〈◊〉 London begins to decline the Parliament London begins to closâ— with the King London is fill'd with Malignant language London remonstrates to the Parliaments prejudice Londons City is Englands woe Now I pray consider whether these so many so foule and yet withall so false charges shall bee laid against London and that for their performance of what by Covenant they are sworne unto doth not justly occasion these interrogations and let the Reader judge whether my using of them gave you any cause to say that I begin with them as if I had a Commission to insult and whether from these and my calling them Doctrines of a new date wch whether they be so or no the Reader will easily discerne And my saying that they are neare akin to those new Lights which so many now adayes doe so much boast of which I therefore did because they which doe now adayes so much boast of their new Lights are the persons which doe thus calumniate London for this their Remonstrance and are the prime men which vilifie the Covenant as in sundry particular instances in my Vindication I made it good I say pray consider and let the Reader judge whether all or any of these things gave you any just occasion thus to rake up as you have done reports against mee whether true or false and to publish them to the whole World as in your 1617 18 19 20 21 pages of your Book and so almost al along to the end you have thus done leaving the argument in difference between us and falling upon some personall things which you say have been reported to you concerning my carriage in matters of Religion I le come to the particulars first you tell the Reader the place of my birth and that I was borne a Son of the Church of England under Episcopacy Truly if this bee a fault or eâ—rour I conceive Mr. I. P. will not deny himselfe to bee guilty of the same crime Then you come to the manner of my breeding the time of my comming to London and my being bound an Apprentice to Mr. Nicholas Bourne Citizen and Stationer of London and you tell the Reader how my carriage was for the time of my Apprentiship which you are pleased thus to expresse Exercising such strictnesse and exactnesse in keeping and preserving that rich jewell of a quiet and tender conscience c. Answ. What is this either to the City Remonstrance or to my Vindication thereof these are the things now in