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
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.
places and callings the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Now the Scotch Author or Ladensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Postscript against Lysimachus Nicanor tells us p. 35. that Episcopacy is no way so opposite to the Discipline of any reformed Church as to that Discipline which many Assemblies and Parliaments have settled in Scotland and therefore he concludes thus p. 36. 37. we cannot dissemble any longer our hearty wishes that England would after the example of all the reformed Churches ridd themselves at last of their Bishops trouble as they did of old without any repentance to this day of their Abbots and Monks This says he we conceive would much increase the joy and prosperity of all the three Dominions Accordingly those Covenanters sware also to endeavour the reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches Now all the reformed Churches as the same Author affirms p. 35. cast out at first and to this day have carefully holden at the door even that kind of Episcopacy which their chief Divines seem'd not much to oppose Suitable whereunto is that which Presbyterians sware in the second Article of the Covenant viz. to endeavour the extirpation of Church-Government by Bishops as well as by Archbishops Chancellors Commissaries c. With what face therefore can this Author presume to tell us p. 19. 29. that the Form of Ecclesiastical Government by Parochial and Classical Presbyteries Provincial and National Assemblies is remote enough from the main cause of Presbytery especially since he affirms p. 24. 34. that one of his Majesties Kingdoms Scotland is Presbyterian by which sure he means not moderately Episcopal for p. 59. 69. that he may prove the Presbyterian Form of Government a. Fence against Heresies and Errors he instances in the Form of Ecclesiastical Policy and method of Discipline in the Church of Scotland which as there described is no otherwise than by Parochial and Classical Presbyteries Provincial and National Assemblies Now how injurious the Scotch Discipline which English Presbyterians have thus covenanted to introduce is to the civil magistrate how oppressive to the subject and pernicious to both Bishop Bramhall since Primate of Ireland hath abundantly manifested in his Fair warning for England to take heed of the Scotch Discipline or as 't is lately Printed of the Presbyterian Government In which treatise he endeavours to prove that their Discipline doth utterly overthrow the rights of Magistrates to convocate Synods to confirm their Acts to order Ecclesiastical Affairs and reform the Church within their Dominions that it robs the Magistrate of the last Appeal of his Subjects that it exempts the Ministers from due punishment that it subjects the supreme magistrate to their Censures that it robs him of his pardoning power as to some crimes of his civil power in order to Religion that it makes a monster of the Commonwealth is most prejudicial to the Parliament is oppressive to particular persons and hurtful to all orders of men that the Disciplinarians challenge this exorbitant power by Divine right The truth of these propositions he hath evinc'd out of their Books of Discipline and publick Records of their practice Since therefore the English Presbyterians have sworn to endeavour the preservation of this Discipline and Government in the Church of Scotland and to reform the Discipline and Government here in England according to the Example of the reformed Church in Scotland 't is but a piece of justice and reason that the King's Majesty should look upon them as persons owning those seditious Principles upon which such enormous Disciplinarian practices are grounded Some of which Principles are these 1. That their National Assemblies ought always to be retain'd in their own liberties of convening lawfully together p. 7. with power to the Kirk to appoint times and places 2. That they have power to abolish and abrogate all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Ecclesiastical matters that are found noysome and unprofitable and agree not with the time or are abused by the people and to make Rules and Constitutions for keeping good order in the Kirk p. 8. 3. That Ecclesiastical Discipline ought to be exercised whether it be ratified by the civil magistrate or no p. 9 12. 4. That from the Kirk there is no reclamation nor appellation to any judge Civil or Ecclesiastical within the Realm p. 13. 5. That to their Discipline all the Estates within the Realm must be subject as well Rulers as they who are ruled p. 16. 6. That the Civil Magistrate cannot pardon any crime that was made capital by the judicial Law p. 12. 7. That matters of the Pulpit ought to be exempted from the judgment and correction of Princes p. 14. In proportion to which principles the Kirk p. 5. by their own Authority decreed the abolition of Bishops requiring them to resign their offices as not having any call from Gods word under pain of Excommunication and to desist from preaching till they had a new admission from the general Assembly They resolv'd also to dispose of their possessions as the Kings Patrimony in the next Assembly When they could not prevail to have their Book of Discipline ratifyed by the Civil Authority they obtruded it on the Church themselves p. 6. ordaining that all those who had born or did then bear any office in the Church should subscribe it under pain of excommunication By their own authority also p. 7. under the specious title of Jesus Christ King of Kings and Lord of Lords the only Monarch of this Church and under pretence of his prerogative Royal they erected their own Courts and Presbyteries in the most part of Scotland long before they were legally approv'd or receiv'd In their Assembly at Edenburgh 1647. they determined that nothing should be pass'd in the next Parliament till the Church was fully restored to its Patrimony yea says the Lord Primate p. 5. they arrived to that degree of sauciness Anno 1600. and reduced the Soveraign power to such contempt that 20 Presbyters no more at the highest sometimes but 13 sometimes but 7 or 8 dar'd to hold and maintain a general Assembly as they miscalled it after it was discharged by the King against his Authority an Insolence which never any Parliament durst attempt Anno 1582. they rejected Mongomery's appeal from themselves to King James as made to an incompetent Judge and proceeded violently against him notwithstanding the Kings prohibition p. 13. They who have a mind to see more instances of the like nature may read that Book of the Archbishop Now the Question must be 1. whether those English Presbyterians who have covenanted to endeavour the Preservation of the Discipline and Government of the Church of Scotland ought not to be look'd upon as persons approving those Principles and practices upon which that
of the Scotch Discipline and Government which so manifestly erects Imperium in Imperio may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent in Scotland 2. Why they who swear to endeavour to bring the Churches of God in England Scotland and Ireland to Uniformity in Discipline and Church-Government and consequently to endeavour the Introduction of that Scotch Form of Church-Government into England may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy in England also and render it too impotent by setting up there also Imperium in Imperio 3. Why they who swear the extirpation of Prelacy that is Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops c. may not justly be look'd upon as men that would enervate the power of that Monarchy which esteems that Form of Church-Government as a very considerable support and strengthening to it Witness the Aphorism of that wise Monarch King James No Bishop no King the truth whereof King Charles found by sad experience * Dum Episcoporum Jurisdictionem invadunt Anarchae caveant Principes Scitè admodum monet Poeta Tunc tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet ubi enim Episcoporum ditio expugnanda obsidetur ibidem proximè imo potissimè in Regum Principatus irruptio tentabitur S. Clara Apolog. Episc p. 20. 4. Why they who when they had power in their hands constrained our former Soveraign to grant such Propositions as left him only a titular Kingship may not justly be look'd upon as persons that would whensoever 't is in their power again enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent When he hath given a satisfactory answer to these Queries I may possibly trouble him with some more of the like import for I believe there are so many grounds of making this objection that in probability the only reason why this Author could find no other rise of it than what he mentions was because he would not seek it That which he is pleased to mention as the rise is That the Presbyterians were not willing 1. To come under any Yoke but that of the Laws of the Realm Or 2. To pay arbitrary Taxes levied without consent of Parliament To the 1. hoping that whatsoever this Authors words imply to the contrary they were willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of God also at least such of them as they thought would not lie too heavy upon their Necks I answer 1. If they had been willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of the Realm they would long ago have ceased to be Presbyterians that is shakers off of the yoke of Prelacy and Ceremonies establisht by those Laws 2. If they had been unwilling to come under any other yoke they would not have come under the yoke of the Covenant since it was not injoyned by any Law of the Realm 3. They have not shewed themselves willing to come under the yoke of the Oath of Supremacy imposed by Law since they have been far from a practical acknowledgment that the King of England is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and all other his Dominions and Countries in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes and that the reforming ordering corrrecting of them is by a Statute 1. Eliz. for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm but on the contrary themselves usurpt the power of reforming ordering correcting them without yea against his consent and in so doing they enervated our Monarchy and rendred it too impotent in a chief part of its Prerogative nay too many of them are so far from acknowledging the Kings Supremacy in their actions that they refrain even from a verbal acknowledgment of it in their prayers for when they pray for the King they make a halt at the end of those words Defender of the Faith as if the confessing him Supreme Head in all Ecclesiastical causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons were either Error Heresie or a piece of Treason To the 2. I answer by demanding 1. Whether there be not as much if not more Law for the Kings imposing Taxes in some cases without the consent of Lords Temporal and Commons than there is for their imposing them without the Kings consent 2. Whether the King and his Privy Council are not more competent Judges of the exigency of times and cases in reference to such impositions than Presbyterian subjects 3. Whether any Law of the Land forbids the payment of Taxes imposed by the King without consent of the three Estates viz. Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons 4. Whether it does not equally forbid the payment of Taxes imposed by the three Estates and much more by two only without the King 5. Whether Presbyterians were not willing enough to pay arbitrary Taxes to the Presbyterian Lords Temporal and Commons though levied without the Kings consent and therefore without consent of Parliament and consequently whether that be not false which this Author tells us that they were not willing to pay Taxes levied without consent of Parliament 6. Whether in so doing they did not abundantly manifest that 't was not the arbitrariness of the Taxes but either their being imposed by the King or else their being imposed to such ends as did not serve the Presbyterian Interest that was the main reason of their quarrelling with and contending against those Imposition 'T is therefore too evident that the Presbyterians had a design to enervate our English Monarchy since though they refused not to pay arbitrary Taxes to some Lords Temporal and Commons levied without the Kings consent and on purpose to carry on a War against him yet they were unwilling to pay arbitrary Taxes to the King though levied for the defence of his person and Authority because levied without consent of Parliament Upon which pretence also their great Advocate Mr. Prynne would fain have perswaded them to deny the payment of the Assessments imposed by those powers that routed the Presbyterian Lords and Commons That Author in his Reasons why he would not pay Taxes viz. to the Independent Lords and Commons tells us p. 1. That by the Fundamental Laws and known Statutes of this Realm no Tax Tallage Aid Imposition Contribution Loan or Assessment whatsoever may or ought to be imposed or levied on the Free-men and people of this Realm of England but by the will and common assent of the Earls Barons Knights Burgesses Commons and whole Realm in a free and full Parliament by Act of Parliament all Taxes not so imposed and levied though for the common defence and profit of the Realm being unjust oppressive c. This is sound Doctrine it seems when Independents domineer but in the time of the Presbyterian Tyranny Taxes might be imposed and levied by some Lords Temporal and Commons only without Act of Parliament and yet not be accounted either unjust or oppressive or inconsistent with the Liberty of the Subject The reason was because Presbyterian ambition was cherish'd and
danger rashly and unnecessarily at first nor afterwards by unlawful means preserved themselves from a legal Trial and the stroke of Justice for those misdemeanors But when resisting evil and those that offer it can be reconciled with not resisting it or them and with the suffering of real and much more pretended injuries When raising War against our Royal Soveraign and continuing it for several years can justly be interpreted making peace When the applying Curse ye Meroz yea curse ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof Judg. 5. 23. to those that came not forth to fight against the King and his loyal subjects can consist with blessing and praying for those that are supposed despitefully to use and persecute us when Dove-like harmlesness and Wolfish cruelty cease to be contradictories when to wrest the power of the Militia out of the Kings hands and to deny him his Negative voice is to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's when Covenanting against Prelacy and our Church-Discipline and Orders is all one with the observing and doing what our lawful Governours require when putting up our swords into their sheaths and loving doing good to and forgiving our enemies is compatible with reproaching their persons with ruining themselves and their Families with turning them out of their legal possessions with plundering their Goods sheathing swords into their bowels and spilling their innocent and loyal bloud then and not till then will Presbyterian practises be reconcileable with Christ's precepts and agreeable to that Religion which he taught the world and which as this Author well observes is not variable according to the will of man but indispensably binds every Soul and is grounded upon an unchangeable eternal Truth which if the English Independent J. Goodwin or Bucanan the Scotch Presbyterian had believed heretofore they had not made such an ugly Fanatick Apology as they did for subjects taking up Arms against and murdering their Soveraign De jure Regni P. 50 55. and if the Presbyterian professors of this Religion and of their own true knowledge and sense of the Nature of it had acted suitably to such a profession they had never thought it expedient to reduce his late Majesty to such dismal straits at the Isle of Wight where they constrained him to grant them so much liberty as miserably enfeebled the Monarchical and Legal power of the Kings of England whereby whatsoever he cants in the following lines of a King 's ruling over a free people Presbyterians have sufficiently taught us that they take more delight in making good Kings their slaves than in manifesting themselves to be good subjects To be a powerful Monarch says he p. 48. ever a free people is the freedom and glory of our Soveraign Lord above all the Potentates of the Earth The more disloyal creatures were those presbyterians who in that fatal Isle treated with such a Soveraign Lord and once powerful Monarch to such bad purposes as to despoil him of his Royal Freedom and Glory and by their imperious demands to dwindle this potent and glorious Monarchy into a slavish ignoble titular Kingship whence we may conjecture what a licentious treasonable liberty it is that such Free-born subjects breath after and how insolently they 'l again exercise it over our Soveraign Lord the King if by his Majesties connivence and indulgence they meet with the like opportune advantages of winding themselves by degrees into the like power From which premises I conclude that notwithstanding any thing produced here by this Author to the contrary this second Charge against the Presbyterians that they are Anti-Monarchical is a true accusation not a calumny The third Calumny as he calls it with which Presbyterians are loaded is the charge of Disobedience and Rebellion and this says our Author were a crying sin indeed But yet he thinks it necessary to speak something Apologetical at least to mitigate the business and remove prejudice and therefore p. 49. he tells us The Presbyterian party in England never engaged under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament A. The word engaged is of dubious signification 1. Did they never engage that is subscribe the Engagement to be faithful to the Commonwealth as establisht without King or House of Lords under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament 2. Did they never engage that is raise and foment jealousies against the King reproaches against the Bishops or preach Division Sedition and Schism instead of Union Loyalty and Obedience under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament Nay 3. Did they never engage in fighting against the King under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament Is he ignorant that two thirds and more of the Lords deserted that house because of those frequent Tumults which drave the King from London and that the major part of the House of Commons left that House also for the same reasons and that new men See Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 35. were chosen in their places against Law by the pretended warrant of a counterfeit Seal Is he Ignorant that his late Majesty in a Declaration 1642. occasioned by the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons for the assessing men a 20th part of their Estates hath these words Our good Subjects will no longer look upon these and the like results as upon the Counsels and Conclusions of both our houses of Parliament though all the world knows even that authority can never justify things unwarrantable by Law They well know how few of the persons trusted by them are present at their Consulations of above 500 not 80 and of the House of Peers not a fifth part that they who are present enjoy not the Priviledge and Freedome of Parliament but are besieged by an Army and awed by the same Tumults which drave us and their Fellow-members from thence to consent to what some few seditious schismatical persons among them do propose Is to fight under the banner of such a minor part of both Houses or of the superinduced major part illegally chosen to engage under no less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament nay not only illegally but treasonably chosen for to counterfeit the great Seal and by such a Seal they were chosen is Treason by the 25 of Edw. 3. 4. Suppose they had engaged that is fought against the King under the Authority of both Houses legally called sitting in their full number and remaining free yet even then they had fought against their Soveraign upon no higher Authority than Subjects could give them which was none at all to that end for the two Houses though consisting of all three Estates Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons are no more than Subjects whatsoever this Author insinuates to the contrary in the following Lines I have read says he that the Parliament of England hath several capacities and among the rest these two 1. That it represents the people as subjects and so it
of Canonists Civilians Schoolmen nor is it to my knowledge contradicted by any that the Legislative power is delegable that such a concurrence is no Argument of supremacy or of such a mixture as some would infer out of it Some call it therefore apparens mixtura because it seems to destroy a simple Form of Government and to make a mixture in the power it self but doth not though otherwise they acknowledge it to be such a mixture as doth remit the simplicity thereof Grotius affirms to this purpose de Imperio summ potest circa sacra c. 8. N. 11. Illam legislationem quae alii quà m summae potestati competit nihil imminuere de jure summae porestatis He speaks this of Laws made by general Conventions whose concurrence he saith doth not in the least manner diminish the Rights of Majesty Such a mixture of the three Estates hath been in other Monarchies which all men acknowledge to have been absolute in respect of power as in the Persian which appears from Dan. 6 7 8 9. and the Roman Empire And not only whole representative Bodies but divers particular free Cities have the same priviledge yet have not supreme Authority As for the enacting Authority attributed in latter times to the Lords and Commons in the beginning of some Acts he affirms p. 101. That 't is only a power of assenting for it hath been resolved by the Judges that this clause Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and the Authority of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament is no more in substance and effect than that which was used anciently The King with the assent of the Lords and Commons establisheth the words assenteth and enacteth being equivalent in this case and p. 45. he tells us that though the two Houses have Authority granted them by the King to assent or dissent yet the Legislative power belongs to the King alone by the Common Law the Authority that animates a Bill agreed upon by the two Houses and makes it differ from a dead letter being in the King who is the life and soul of the Law which was resolved also by divers Earls and Barons and by all the Justices in the time of Edw. 3. For one Hardlow and his Wife having a controversie with the King and desiring to have it decided in Parliament a reference being made to divers Earls and Barons and to all the Justices to consider of the business it was resolved that the two Houses were not coordinate with the King in the legislative power but that the King alone made Laws by the assent of the two Houses that he had none equal or coordinate with him in his Realm and that he could not be judged by the Lords and Commons From all which it appears 1. That that part which the two Houses have by Law in the Legislative power is not a sufficient medium to perswade us that they have a part in the supremacy and 2. That they have no share at all in any power which may properly be called Legislative I mean in that sence in which the words Legislative power are now adays commonly taken viz. for a power of making Laws For among the Romans Legem ferre was no more than Legem ad populum in concionem quasi in medium afferre proponere and Legislation was no more than Legis Rogatio à populo the proposing the matter of a Law to the Roman Citizens and asking their assent in order to its establishment I conclude therefore that the supremacy is wholly in the King notwithstanding this insinuation to the contrary For the proof whereof if this Author stand in need of more Arguments I refer him to the Rebels Plea examined p. 11 12. to Dr. Pierce's Impartial Enquiry into the Nature of sin Appendix p. 210 211 c. To Mr. Sheringham's Remonstrance of the King 's Right or the King's supremacy asserted To Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 7 8 9. Indeed this consideration alone is sufficient to evince it that by the Oath administred to all that sit in the lower House the King is acknowledged the only Supreme Governor in all Causes then in Parliament-Causes says J. Jenkins Lex Terrae p. 127. over all Persons then over the two Houses ibid. which Oath every Member of the House of Commons is enjoyned by Law to take or else he hath no Voice in that House 5 Eliz. c. 1. Lex Terrae p. 67. Therefore the King is by Law the only supreme Governor and consequently it may not be thought that a part of the Supreme Power doth reside in the two Houses Our Author goes on And this part of the Supreme Power is capable indeed of doing wrong but how it might be capable of Rebellion is more difficult to conceive 1. Here he confidently takes it for granted that the two Houses are part of the Supreme Power whereas in the precedent words he spake more modestly and told us only it might be thought that a part of the Supreme Power did reside in them not peremptorily inferring that it doth reside in them And indeed he could not rationally have so concluded unless he had produced more cogent Arguments to make good that conclusion 2. Whereas he acknowledges the two Houses capable of doing wrong and tells us only that 't is difficult to conceive how they may be guilty of Rebellion 1. Notwithstanding this Apology the Presbyterians that acted in and by Authority derived from the two Houses may have been guilty of Rebellion since the difficulty of conceiving how they might be thus guilty will not evince their innocence 2. I demand of him whether 1. they are capable of doing such wrong to the King as the Law makes Treason and Rebellion whether 2. if they do such wrong it be not easie to conceive that they are guilty of Rebellion and Treason The Law of the Land 25 Edw. 3. ch 2. makes it treason to levy war against our Lord the King in his Realm or to be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving to them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere and also to counterfeit the Kings Great or Privy Seal or Money The resolutions of all the Judges of England upon the said Statute have been that to seize upon the Kings Ports Forts Magazines for War is high Treason Lex Terrae p. 77. as likewise to levy War either to alter the Religion or any Law establisht p. 22. 40. or to remove the Kings Counsellors p. 22. Yea these things were acknowledged to be Treason not only by Sir Edw. Cooke in his Institutes printed by an Order of both Houses dated May 12. 1641. but also by Mr. Solicitor S. John and Mr. Pym in their speeches touching the Earl of Strafford Where as J. Jenkins quotes them Lex Terrae p. 187 188. they likewise affirm it Treason to usurp the Royal power to raise rumors and give out words to alienate the peoples affections from the King to subvert the
no more stand with Monarchy than it can with Monogamy to be married to two several Wives and though 't is said that this Presbyterian Government meddles only with spiritual things which concern the good of the Soul and so it cannot hurt Regal power yet this is but only said and no more for 't is well known that in ordine ad spiritualia and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this rank as they have been by the Church of Rome this Government intrudes upon what things it pleaseth and where a supremacy is once acknowledged no wise man can think that it will carry it self otherwise so that King James his maxim was undoubtedly most true No Bishop no King For that most prudent Prince did soon discern that if a power were once set up which at least in the legal execution of it did not derive it self from the King there was no doubt to be made that it would ere long destroy the very King himself Or consider the Presbyterian Government in the English sence as it 's now set up by the two Houses at Westminster which is a Government limited by an Appeal to the Parliament for either by Parliament here they mean the two Houses excluding the King and then 't is as plain as before they set up two supremacies his Majesties and their own or else by Parliament they mean the King with both Houses and then 't will follow that either there must be a perpetual Parliament which sure the King nor Kingdom can't have cause to like or else the supremacy will be for the most part in the Presbytery because whenever a Parliament sits not there will be no Judge to appeal to or if it be said the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive Appeals in such Ecclesiastical causes then either in this Committee the King hath no Negative and in that case 't is clear that the Ecclesiastical supremacy will be not at all in the King or else the King hath a Negative but yet is joyned with persons whom he himself chuseth not and so most probably will be chek'd and affronted in any sentence he intends to give and this clearly overthrows that which is already declared by Parliament to be a right in the King as inherent in his Crown that Ecclesiastical Appeals may be made to him alone in Chancery for the Statute names no other and that his Majesty alone may appoint what Commissioners he pleases for their final decision I say consider the Presbyterian Government in the English Parliament sence and in the sence of the English Assembly for the Presbyterians there are wholly for the Scottish Form as appears by their quarrels at what the Houses have already done in their Ordinances and 't will appear that their aim is not only to set up a new Government but in plain terms a new Supremacy and hence to say truth he must see very little who discerns not that though the Presbyterian party seems to strike at the Bishops yet their main aim is at the King whose supremacy they endure not as being a flower which they intend for their own Garland and so though they hypocritically cry out that they may abuse the people against the pride of the Lordly Bishops yet in the mean time the wiser sort must needs see that they intend to make themselves no less than indeed Kingly Presbyters Thus he And if this Author thinks this reasoning insufficient to prove Presbytery Antimonarchical let him tell us why In the mean time it follows p. 44. 54. Or would his sort of men Presbyterians have no King to reign over them A. None if he will not comply with their humours Doth a Republick better please them A. Not an Independent or Anabaptistical Republick but time hath been when a Presbyterian Republick some parcels of the two Houses did please them far better than an Episcopal King Did the English or Scottish Presbyters ever go about to dissolve Monarchy and to erect some other kind of Government In no wise quoth he for in the Solemn League and Covenant they bound themselves to endeavour the preservation of the Kings person and Authority and declared they had no intent to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness Of the justness of which power themselves would be judges But did not all Covenanters do so as well as Presbyterians The man sure would make us believe either that our Monarchy was not dissolved and another kind of Government exected or else that 't was done by some that were not Covenanters For why is not this Argument as good Independents Covenanted to preserve the Kings person and Authority Therefore they never went about to dissolve Monarchy This is a much better consequence Neither the English nor Scottish Presbyterians endeavoured to preserve the Kings Authority just power and greatness the Justness whereof must be judged of by Law not by the dictates of insolent minds puft up with prosperity therefore either they never bound themselves and intended to preserve it or else they practised contrary to those obligations and intentions If he has the confidence to deny the Antecedent I may chance to evince it to him before we part Indeed his next words suggest a very considerable proof of it After the violent change of Government they the Presbyterians came slowest and entred latest into those new Engagements imposed by the Vsurpt powers Which is an implicit confession 1. That those Engagements were inconsistent with fidelity to Monarchical Goyernment and the Kings Authority 2. That yet at last the Presbyterians did enter into them whence I gather 1. That whereas the third Article of the Covenant obliged them to endeavour not only sincerely but also constantly with their Estates and Lives to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Authority just power and greatness they ceased to do so at last when they entred upon those new Engagements and consequently did then break their Covenant And 2. That the Presbyterians are not such fixt and unalterable Creatures as he would needs have perswaded us p. 29. 39. they are since they did upon changes in Government vary by degrees from themselves and either deserted those principles which kept them from engaging with the foremost or else contradicted them by engaging at last though slowly And truly that they did so is tacitly acknowledged by this Author p. 45. 55. where he tells us that the generality of conscientious Presbyterians never ran with the current of those times which sadly implies either that the generality of Presbyterians were not conscientious since they generally ran with the current at last or that some conscientious Presbyterians did notwithstanding the dictates of their conscience run with the current For either he must mean that the generality of Presbyterians otherwise conscientious did in that particular by an error of Conscience run with the current but this seems not to have been this Authors meaning for then it follows by his own confession that the
gratified by those Taxes which it ceased to be when Independents had the chief power of imposing them And yet we are told in the next lines that none more reverence their Liberties and value the native happiness of the Free-born Subjects of England than Presbyterians But what I pray Sir was in point of State-affairs the native happiness of English men that had so much happiness as to be born before Presbyterians began to domineer was it not that they were born subjects to a Soveraign to whom belonged the ordering of the Militia at all times a negative Voice in Parliament the Supreme power in Ecclesiasticals as well as Civils and members of that Nation where the only legal Form of Church-Government was by Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons Chancellors Commissaries c. Where an excellent Liturgy was commanded to be used and no other Form of Divine Service permitted by Law Where the Ceremonies of the Surplice Cross in Baptism Kneeling at the Sacrament were for order and decencies-sake appointed by the Church-Governors and the use of them enjoyned by Law Is this the native happiness that Presbyterians valued Or does the man mean by native happiness their receiving the temper of their bodies from predominant choler phlegm or black melancholy and the complexion of their Souls from Heaven shall I say 't would puzzle S. Austin himself to determine I confess I am somewhat apt to believe that presbyterians Souls are rather ex traduce from the prolifical assimilating vertue of the Parents spirit which being immersed in Hyle and over-charged with ugly humors is so far from generating a Platonical Soul made up of Harmony that its off-spring does more resemble Galen's dull conceit of the essence of all Souls and is of so base an alloy that it little differs from a vicious malign temperament of body I confess I think none do more value this native happiness than these Free-born subjects of England but whether there are none that more reverence their Liberties let the world judge by their frequent meriting severe restraints for their seditious and schismatical breaches of the Laws of England by their paying arbitrary Taxes levied without consent of King Lords and Commons 't is an Argument good enough ad hominem by their swearing to submit their necks to the yoke of Scotch Discipline and Government not allowed of by any Law of this Realm was this to revere their Liberties or rather to prostitute them to the lusts of those men whose spirit breathed nothing more than contradiction both to mans Law and Christs Gospel to Civil constitutions and to the maxims of Christian Religion For whereas this Author p. 47. 57. talks of their true knowledge and sence of the nature of Christian Religion and that this makes a due civil Freedom exceeding precious to them 1. As I intimated before 't is not a due freedom from illegal Impositions that the Religion of these professing Christians makes so precious to them for to be inslaved to Presbyterian Impositions though illegal is very grateful to them but 't is a liberty from Episcopal Impositions and Royal Sanctions and such Taxations whether legal or illegal as are not designed for the advancement of their interest which they so highly value and therefore 't is manifest enough they plead for such a liberty as will enfeeble our English Monarchy 2. I much question whether their high valuation of freedom from illegal Taxes and their unwillingness to pay them can in reason proceed from any true knowledge and sence of the nature of Christian Religion For I desire to know of them whether at least in case our Laws do not expresly sorbid our payment of Taxes imposed by the King out of Parliament our Saviours precept Matth. 5. 42. Give to him that asketh and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away and his own practice Matth. 17. 27. paying tribute for himself and S. Peter merely lest he should offend the exactors who ought not to have demanded it of the children v. 26. that were all free but only of strangers I desire I say to know of them whether that precept and this practice do not oblige all English men that profess Christianity to pay Taxes quietly and patiently though levied by the King alone without Law 3. On this occasion I shall take leave to question whether these Free-born subjects had indeed a true knowledge and sense of the Nature of Christian Religion in other particulars as well as this for if they had would not their practice have been more conformable to it if at least that Axiom be true Voluntas necessario sequitur dictamen Intellectus practicum which those among them that do not Arminianize hold for a truth But whether their practises have been conform to the dictates of that Religion let any one who knows those dictates consider and judge impartially They speak such language as this Blessed are the meek Matth. 5. 5. who rather would suffer all injuries than revenge themselves Blessed are the peace-makers v. 9. Resist not evil Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also v. 39. rather receive double wrong than revenge thine own griefs Love your enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you v. 44. Judge not that you be not judged Chap. 7. 1. be not curious or malicious to try out and condemn your neighbours faults for Hypocrites hide their own faults and seek not to amend them but are curious to reprove other mens Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you do you also unto them v. 12. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps clothing but inwardly they are ravening Wolves v. 15. Be you wise as Serpents and innocent as Doves Chap. 10. 16. not revenging much less doing wrong Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods Chap. 22. 21. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Chap. 23. 2 3. Put up thy sword into his place the exercise of the sword is forbid to private persons for all that take the sword shall perish by the sword Chap. 26. 52. When you stand and pray forgive if you have any thing against any man that your Father also which is in Heaven may forgive your trespasses Mark 11. 25. Condemn not and you shall not be condemned Forgive and you shall be forgiven Luke 6. 37 c. If Presbyterian actions had been conformable to these and other Christian principles their Pamphlets would have been freer from railing and reviling their Sermons from inflaming mens spirits and kindling in them the fires of disloyal Jealousie their discourse from censorious judging and condemning their brethren and their understandings freer from pernicious errors than for ought appears by their pernicious actions they were They had neither run themselves into
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-Law or Common-Law which is common and constant usage The House of Commons hath neither Patent Statute-Law nor 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
Fundamental Laws to impose unlawful Taxes or new Oaths to levy War within the Realm without authority from the King 'T is confessed also by Sir Edw. Cooke that no priviledge of Parliament holds or is grantable for Treason Felony or breach of the Peace 4. Institut 25. If not to any one Member says J. Jenkins p. 15. not to two nor to ten nor to the major part Now I suppose this Author is not either so ignorant or so perverse as to deny that the two Houses did levy War against the King that they counterfeited the Great Seal that they seized upon the Kings Ports Forts Magazines for War that they usurpt the Royal power raised rumors and gave out words to alienate the people from the King imposed a new Oath unlawful Taxes and levied War without yea against the Kings Authority From which premises I discern not any difficulty in deducing this genuine though sad and dismal consequence that those two Houses and the presbyterian party which adhered to them and gave them aid and comfort were guilty of Disobedience Treason and Rebellion If the major part of a Parliament commit Treason they must not be judges of it for no man or body can be judge in his own cause and as well as ten or any number may commit Treason the greater number may as well says J. Jenkins Lex Terrae P. 15 16. In this high and tender point it belongs not says our Author to me to determine The main reason of which scrupulosity is most probably no other than this that he 's so much a Presbyterian that either his blind and deluded understanding or rather his disloyal and rebellious heart will not suffer him to determine the Question on the Kings side For if this Rector of Bramshot be not mis-reported he was heretofore a Preacher in a two-Houses-Garrison and Chaplain to the Governor of that Garrison and at that time I presume this was not look'd upon by him as a point too high and tender But now tempora mutantur and yet not so chang'd it seems but that this Author still dares to insinuate Apologies for the former damnable Presbyterian practices of fighting against the King witness these following words p. 50. 60. And as touching the much debated point of resisting the higher Powers without passing any judgment in the great case of England I shall only make rehearsal of the words of Grotius a man of renown and known to be neither Anti-Monarchical nor Anti-Prelatical which are found in his Book de jure Belli Pacis by himself dedicated to the French King Si Rex partem habeat summi imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis justa opponi poterit quia eatenus Imperium non habet Quod locum habere censco etiamsi dictum sit belli potestatem penes Regem fore Id enim de bello externo intelligendum est cum alioqui quisquis Imperii summam partem habeat non possit non jus habere eam partem tuendi L. 1. c. 4. sect 13. which Chapter by the way is proved to be dangerously Anti-Monarchical by the Author of the Observations on the original of Government p. 34 c. but Here I demand 1. Whether this Author can reasonably be imagined to produce these words of Grotius to any other end than to justifie the War of the Presbyterian Lords and Commons against the King 2. Whether therefore his pretending not to pass any judgment in the great case of England in not sillily and yet sadly hypocritical especially considering 1 That in the precedent p. he takes it for granted that the two Houses had a part in the supreme power 2. That the same Author who insers their having such a part from their having as he fancies a part in the Legislative power quotes this very passage out of Grotius to justifie the two Houses and himself in fighting and encouraging others to fight against the King which Author yet ingenuously promises that he will offer his Head he meant I suppose his Neck to justice as a Rebel when 't is proved that the King was the highest power in the time of the divisions and that he had power to make that War which he made He here implicitly confesses says Dr. Pierce Impartial Enquiry Postscript p. 14 15. the King was once the highest power and implies he lost it by the divisions but that he never could lose it and that demonstrably he had it I have made most evident in the Appendix of this Book which concerns Mr. B. as much as Mr. H. at least as far as I have proved the supremacy of the King § 78. And that the King had power to make that War which he made in defence of pars sua viz. the ordering of the Militia his Negative voice in Parliament his right to the possession of all Castles Ports Ports Magazines within his Dominions c. is as clearly the opinion of Grotius in this passage as 't is that the two Houses in partem non suam involantes had power to make that War which they made to defend their own violation of the Kings Rights The truth is those words of Grotius are no argument of the justness of the late War on either side and therefore they are impertinently produced to such a purpose till these minors are well and soundly proved 1. That the two Houses had legally a part in the supremacy which Grotius himself denies can be concluded from that part which they had in Legislation And 2. that the King did involare in partem summi Imperii non suam invade any such prerogative or part in the supremacy for of that only Grotius speaks as did by Law belong to the two Houses For though it could be proved that the King did intrench upon some priviledge of theirs yet if that priviledge did not belong to them quatenus having a share in the Soveraignty Grotius his words though they should be granted of infallible truth will not justifie their fighting against the King upon that account But this sly discourser was perswaded it seems that when he had rehearsed this hypothetical major Si Rex partem habeat summi Imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis just a opponi poterit Every Presbyterian that understood Latin and had engaged against the King under the Authority of the two Houses would willingly take the minor for granted Sed Senatus ille qualis qualis partem habuit summi Imperii in eam partem non suam involavit Rex and thence very hastily and joyfully conclude Ergò vis à Senatu isto vel potius Senatûs quisquiliis retrimentis Regi opposita erat justa even by the verdict of Grotius that man of renown At this Presbyterian rate of disputing are Arguments hudled up in the Book called The Covenanters Plea against Absolvers the sophistry of some parts of which
to make an Act of Parliament for raising of moneys and ordering the Militia though the King denied his Royal Assent which power was never challenged by nor granted to both Houses in any Kings reign before and takes away the Kings Negative voice as to those particulars To pass by other instances for I am quite weary of raking in such a stinking Dunghil these are enough to manifest what kind of creatures Presbyterians were in point of loyalty when they had power in their hands to be impunè disloyal and how willing to subvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom since by vertue of these propositions which they had the imperious confidence to tender to his sacred Majesty in that deplorable condition to which they had reduced him they denuded him of his Royal power and vested themselves with all the considerable parts of Soveraignty and when they had thus subverted the Fundamental Constitution of the English Monarchy and had pass'd that Vote which this Author mentions touching the Kings Concessions and were thereupon deprived by the Army of that power of imposing on his Majesty and the Kingdom which they had so Tyrannically abused these secluded and imprisoned Members wrote a Vindication of themselves from the Aspersions cast upon them by the Army in one passage of which Vindication p. 8 9. they give us reason enough to suspect that if their own prosperity had continued they would yet more unworthily have insulted over his Majesty and have taken such a cruel advantage of those great infelicities into which themselves had cast him as to tender and extort from him some more diminutions if possible of that little power and no greatness which the former had left him for say they by this Vote viz. that the Kings Concessions were a ground sufficient for the House to proceed upon to settle the Nation the House did not determine as we conceive the having no farther Treaty with his Majesty before a concluding and declaring of peace nor were the Houses so bound up thereby that they could not propose any thing farther wherein the Kings Answers were defective or from making any new Propositions for the better healing our breaches or more safe binding up a just and righteous peace It seems then those Lords and Commons had some more such signal testimonies in pickle of their Presbyterian loyalty some more demonstrations that when they took and imposed the Covenant they had no thoughts and intentions to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness It seems they had some clearer explications in their Budget of their meaning in those words in the preface to the Covenant Having before our eyes the honour and happiness of the Kings Majesties person and his posterity which words interpreted by their actions must signifie that they had it before their eyes only as a mark to shoot at But God deliver us for the time to come from the Presbyterian reserves of such a disloyal and corrupt majority wherein they abundantly manifested how tractable Scholars they were to Scotch Teachers and how able and willing to imitate yea transcend that ungodly pattern which they had set them who when the King had before granted them more than was fit for such persons to receive had the insolent confidence to ask moreover such things as 't was not fit for the King to give And thus the English Presbyterians by enlarging their desires as Hell fill'd up the measure of that Scorch iniquity which he that runs may read in his late Majesties large Declaration of the Tumults in Scotland printed Ann. 1638. Our Author proceeds thus In those times the Presbyterian Ministers of London in their publick Vindication thus declare themselves We profess before God Angels and Men that we verily believe that that which is so much feared to be now in agitation the taking away the life of the King in this present way of Trial is not only not agreeable to the word of God the principles of the Protestant Religion never yet stain'd with the least drop of the bloud of a King or the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom but contrary to them as also to the Oath of Allegiance the Protestation of May 5. 1641. and the Solemn League and Covenant from all which or any of which Engagements we know not any Power on Earth able to absolve us or others To which I answer 1. Though the Presbyterian Ministers of London were granted not guilty of the death of the King yet they might be guilty of disobedience and rebellion against him which was the objection p. 48. 58. to which objection therefore this Apology is impertinent 2. Nor is the Apology at all satisfactory as to the taking away of the Kings life in some other way of Trial it being designed only against that present way of Trial for 't is only with that limiting specification that they vindicate themselves for they say that the taking away the Kings life in this present way of Trial is not agreeable to the word of God c. Whence all that I can conclude in reason is that they did not imagine it agreeable to the word of God or the principles of the Protestant Religion or the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom or the Oath of Allegiance Protestation Covenant to take away his life in that way of Trial viz. by that High Court of Justice set up by the Independent party but notwithstanding this they might deem it consistent with the word of God and the principles of the Protestant Religion c. to take away his life in a way of Trial appointed and modelled by the corrupt majority of the two Houses the Presbyterian Lords and Commons And if the Author of Clerico-Classicum deceive us not p. 35. of his Answer to the London-Ministers letter to the General and Council of War Jan. 18. 1648. Mr. Pryn allows of a capital proceeding against Emperors Kings and Princes in his Appendix to the fourth part of his Soveraign power of Parliaments p. 190. ad 194. It I am not deceived also a man called Mr. Christopher Love who I think deem'd himself a Minister of Jesus Christ I am sure he was a Presbyterian Minister of London did in a thing called a Sermon at Vxbridge Treaty justifie yea urge the taking away of the Kings life in as bad a way of Tryal for in that Sermon having spoken of the bloud-guiltiness of the King yea intimated unnaturalhorrible-bloud-guiltiness in him and thereby made him the troubler of England as Achan was of Israel he hath these words p. 32. 'T was the Lord that troubled Achan because he troubled Israel Oh that in this our State-Physicians would resemble God to cut off those from the Land who have distempered it melius est ut pereat unus quà m unitas Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est but yet more plain p. 37. men who lye under the guilt of much innocent blood are not meet persons to be at peace with till all the
guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Mr. Love says that Author will not say that the King was not guilty of much innocent bloud left he should contradict himself neither will he say that bloud-guiltiness can be expiated but by bloud lest he should contradict the Scriptures neither can he say but the King was cut off either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Whence I conclude that according to those Principles of Mr. Love the King 's being put to death in that way of Tryal was neither contrary to the word of God nor the Principles of the Protestant Religion c. but a work fit and expedient to be done and 't will be well for English Presbyterians if when the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open it be not revealed to the world that the main reason why they deprecated the putting the King to death in that way of Tryal was because he was not tryed and condemned by Presbyterians nor for their advantage but by those men who hated Presbytery and would not suffer it to domineer any longer For these very men could notwithstanding both the word of God and the principles of the English Protestant Religion notwithstanding the protestation and Solemn League and Covenant yea notwithstanding the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom and the Oath of Allegiance I say maugre all these obligations to the contrary if at least one of them be such an obligation these very men could join with the Presbyterian Lords and Commons in making War against the King and send an Army to shed his bloud in the high places of the Field and therefore if Presbyterians be Protestants and their Religion the Protestant Religion 't was not their Loyalty but the divine goodness and providence wonderfully interposing for the Kings safety that in so many battels kept the Protestant Religion from being stained with the bloud of a King especially as to Edge-Hill-fight if that be true which is affirmed in Fabian Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 79. that Blague a villain in the Kings Army had a great pension allowed him that he might give notice in what part of the Field the King stood that they might the better know how to shoot at him who accordingly gave notice of it and if God had not had a greater care of his Anointed than of their Rebellious pretences that Bullet from the Earl of Essex his Canon which graz'd at the King's Heels as he was Kneeling at his prayers on the side of a bank had taken away his life and the Presbyterian Religion such as it is had been stained with the bloud of a King And though the Presbyterians as the Apology for Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament tells us p. 69. would excuse themselves that they never intended the Kings destruction yet that is a frivolous and foolish excuse For as Sir Walter Rawleigh says truly Our Law doth construe all levying War without the Kings Commission and all force raised to be intended for the death and destruction of the King not attending the sequel and so 't is judged upon good reason for every unlawful and ill action is supposed to be accompanied with an ill intent The Lord Cook as the Apologizer goes on p. 70. speaking fully of all kinds and degrees of Treason 3 Institut p. 12. saith Preparation by some overt act to depose the King or take the King by force and strong hand and to imprison him until he hath yielded to certain demands is a sufficient overt Act to prove the compassing and imagination of the death of the King For this upon the matter is to make the King a Subject and to despoil him of his Kingly office of Royal Government and so it was resolved by all the Judges of England Hill 1 Jac. Regis in the case of the Lord Cobham Lord Grey and Watson and Clark Seminary Priests and so it had been resolved by the Justices Hill 43 Eliz. in the case of the Earls of Essex and Southampton who intended to go to the Court where the Queen was and to have taken her into their power and to have removed divers of her Council and for that end did assemble a multitude of people which being raised to the end aforesaid was a sufficient overt Act for compassing the death of the Queen The Presbyterians says he did offend in this kind notoriously and therefore committed Treason manifestly for they imprisoned the King in divers places and at length in a remote place in the Isle of Wight and all this done by them who were for the most part Presbyterians out of their design to compel the King to yield to their projects to overthrow the Bishops and to take their Lands and their revenues From this we may judge how agreeable Presbyterian actions were to the Constitution and Law of this Kingdom and how manifest it is that they must in Law be reckoned King-killers as well as the Army and if the Law of the Nation damn them to such a guilt and punishment on earth there is no Gospel that I know of will save them from Hell without a repentance proportionable to their Crimes which for ought I see they are hitherto so far from thinking a duty that they rather go about to justifie their former actings by returning again as far as they dare to the same follies that ushered in their former war and at first embrued the Nation in bloud Nor do I believe that they who took away the Kings life in that way of Trial acted upon any more treasonable and rebellious Principles than are owned and taught by some Presbyterian writers of the first magnitude both French Scotch and English The truth whereof I doubt will be very evident to him that can get and will peruse these Presbyterian Scripts Buchanan's de jure regni apud Scotos Knox's Appellation Vindiciae contra Tyrannos by Junius Brutus supposed to be either Beza or Hottoman David Paraeus his Commentary on Rom. 13. burnt at London and Oxford in King James his reign for its seditious Maxims Goodman an intimate Friend as 't is said of John Knox's his book of the same nature and tendency Rutherford's Lex Rex I find in Bishop Bancroft's Dangerous Positions B. 1. Ch. 2. speaking of Calvin's reforming at Geneva these words Since which time as I suppose it hath been a principle with some of the chief Ministers of Geneva but contrary to the Judgment of all other reformed Churches for ought I know which have not addicted themselves to follow Geneva that if Kings and Princes refuse to reform Religion the inferiour Magistrates or people by direction of the Ministry might lawfully and ought if need required even by force and Arms to reform it themselves And Ch. 4. This Position is quoted out of Knox that the punishment of such crimes as touch the Majesty of God doth not appertain to Kings and
men impowred by them judged it to be at least convenient to take away his life in that way of Trial their murdering of Him in that way was not contrary but agreeable enough to the Solemn League and Covenant Yea to imagine that by that League Scotland was bound to rescue the Kings person from the Parliament of England because of their Voting that no farther application or Addresses should be made to his Majesty under pain of High Treason is called a slandering of the Covenant in that humble Edenburgh-Remonstrance p. 45. Nor is either the Protestation of May 5. 1641. or the Oath of Allegiance or the word of God more wisely or pertinently urged by those London Ministers against those murderers since all those obligations do as much forbid and condemn fighting against the King and dishonouring and dethroning him which Presbyterians were abundantly guilty of as they do putting him to death which the Independents did 't is true but after the Presbyterians had first stript him of his honour and Royal State and so politically killed him All which considered 't is very admirable to me that those Presbyterian Ministers of London especially Mr. Love could so confidently talk thus in vindication of their own Innocency and in opposition to those Independent malefactors as also with what face they could as our Author tells us they did p. 52-62 warn and exhort men to pray for the King that God would restrain the violence of men that they might not dare to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign To use his own words Let prudent men weigh things in the balance of reason and tell us whether it were not a piece of practical Non-sence and contradictious hypocrisie for those Priests who had imployed themselves so many years together in cursing those that fought not against the King and blessing those that did to warn and exhort men at last to pray that God would restrain the violence of men and not suffer them to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign If they had exhorted men to put up such a petition in the time of the Wars would they not thereby have exposed themselves to the scorn and derision of their Auditors Yea would not their own Lords and Commons have treated them as Incendiaries Malignants evil Instruments or were they so sottish as to imagine that there 's so great difference between a Camp and a Scaffold between an Army of Rebels and a single Executioner that 't was a duty to pray to God to protect the King from the danger of the one but no duty to pray for his safeguard from the assaults of the other Or did they indeed believe if the King had been mortally wounded in the Field at Edge-hill Newbery or Naseby by one or more of the Presbyterian Souldiers that this had not been violence or that the Presbyterian Lords and Commons had not thereby drawn upon themselves and the Kingdom the bloud of their Soveraign I seriously profess that the more narrowly I search into these things the more reason I have to fear what indeed this very Vindication suggests that had the Kings life been taken away either by Presbyterian Armies in the Field the law of the Sword or by order of Presbyterian Judges on a Scaffold the Sword of their Law for the advancement of the Presbyterian Interest they would easily have believed such a manner of death or way of Trial agreeable enough to and consistent with all the obligations here spoken of even the Covenant it self as to which says Price in his Clerico-Classicum p. 27 28. We were bound to preserve and defend the Kings person when we first took this Covenant and at that time you Presbyterian Ministers of London know very well you stirred up the people to fight against his Army though his person was the leader thereof which presumes either 1. That you perswaded the people against the dictates of your own Consciences or 2. That you conceived that though his Person should be smitten into the chambers of Death by those that aid fight against his Army yet they did not break the Covenant If so then there is a case wherein the King's Person may be cut off without breach of Covenant Thus he and appositely enough and therefore I say again Let prudent men weigh things in the balance of Reason Our Author goes on and asks Is there any thing in the nature of Prelacy that frames the mind to obedience and loyalty or is there any thing in the nature of Presbytery that enclines to rebellion and disobedience A. If he means by the nature of Prelacy the principles of Prelatical Protestants and by the nature of Presbytery the principles of Presbyterians I maintain the affirmative in both Questions and suppose I have already abundantly evinc'd it as to Presbyterians both Scotch and English and as for Prelatical Protestants if this Author or any body else can produce any such enormous and seditious principles out of their Writings as I have here quoted out of Presbyterian Authors let those writings by my consent and together with them Mr. Pryn's Soveraign Power of Parliaments by which word Parliaments he means the two Houses without and against the King undergo the same Fate with David Pareus his Commentary and the Presbyterian League and Covenant and if any of their practises have been suitable let those mens persons also have the odious character of Rebellion and Disobedience affixt unto them But that any such Prelatical Protestant can be produced is more than I know or have any reason to believe Certain I am that English protestant Prelatists profess their assent to and practically own those principles mentioned p. 24 25. Which Principles do in their own nature and where they are cordially enbraced frame the minds of English Subjects to obedience and loyalty and therefore let this Author prove if he can that since a Protestant Prelacy was erected among us our Kings have had any such tedious conflicts with Prelates as he says they had in ancient times and for a series of many Ages As for the Popes Prelates they are so near of kin to Presbyterians that 't is no great wonder if they create trouble to Princes If says he Presbytery and Rebellion be connatural how comes it to pass that those States or Kingdoms where it hath been establisht or tolerated have for any time been free from broils and commotions One would think there were a sufficient answer comprehended in the words of the Question For those Presbyterians are rebellious with a witness that will embroil even those States and Kingdoms where their Form of Worship and Polity is either establisht or tolerated and yet the French Protestants are abused by a late Reflecter on the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance if notwithstanding this they are not too prone to Rebellion and that on account of their Principles What an exception says he p. 42. of his Reflexions terrible to
so far from suffering themselves humbly peaceably and patiently to be trodden under foot that their Tongues were sharpned like Serpents Adders poyson was under their Lips stinging and poysoning the name and repute of the Army p. 16. calling them a Rebellious Army a generation of Vipers a Viperous brood c. And that on Sabbath-days and Fast-days in Preaching and Praying they still girded at the Parliament viz. the Independent majority as men that declined their Solemn League and Covenant hindred reformation minded nothing but their own Interest He tells us also p. 14. That the morning Lectures which they called the Ark of God in their frequent removals moneth after moneth from place to place were so modelled and constituted that in them a lamentable slaughter was made of the sweet affections of love kindness gentleness goodness patience each toward other p. 2. That that Ark of theirs seems frequently to be drawn by Bulls of Basan tossing and goring the Parliament and Army and their dissenting Brethren from day to day maliciously fomenting contentions strifes and divisions p. 3. That the London Ministers did by conjunction of Counsels and debates in Sion-Colledge London's nay England's distemper conceive sinful resolution to engage and tamper privately with chief Citizens in publick places as Common-Council-men c. and publickly in Pulpit and Press stirring up the people by all possible means under the pretence of the glory of God a blessed Reformation the keeping of the Covenant c. to set all together by the ears and raise a new War p. 18 19. From which premises I may for ought I see well enough conclude that this Author instead of pretending that Presbyterians suffered themselves rather to be trodden under foot than to comply with men of violence in changing the Government should in Truth and Justice have thus represented them That rather than they would comply with the men of violence when they presumed they were about to change the Government they endeavoured to prevent the being trodden under foot by them by imbittering mens spirits against them in their preachments and direful Prayers by sowing the seeds of contention and division and by inflaming mens minds to take Arms resist and destroy them and when notwithstanding all such English and Scotch endeavours Independents had effected the change of those small remains and parcels of the English Government which Presbyterian violence had left unchanged that Party generally did by degrees so far comply even with that change also that rather than they would be trodden under foot outlawed and sequestred they engaged to be faithful to the Commonwealth of England as then establisht by the men of violence without King or House of Lords it seems they who thus act are said in the Presbyterian dialect to suffer themselves to be trodden under foot And now judge whether statuimus must not here again signifie abrogamus Let us as our Author proceeds further examine Are the persons that adhere to Prelacy more conscientious in duty to God and Man than those that affect Presbytery Are the former only sober just and godly and the latter vicious unrighteous profane A. Though I could speak something to these Questions from my own experience having lived both in Episcopal and Presbyterian Families and places and being acquainted with divers Persons Ministers and others of both perswasions yet because comparisons of this kind are odious I shall answer only in reference to the main thing in Question that there 's more reason of State for the pro ecting a drunken Royalist than a sober Rebel and yet I am fully perswaded that neither of them so remaining have holiness enough in this world to render them capable of happiness in the next Nor do I doubt but it may be as much the lot of some Traiterous spirits to be sober as 't is if this Author tell truth in the following lines of some that adhere to Prelacy to be loyal but whether I have not already said enough to prove that Presbyterian principles encline to Rebellion and the principles of English prelatists to Loyalty let all impartial Readers judge If this be not answer sufficient to those Quaeries I shall supply the defects of it with transcribing for this Authors sake a passage or two out of the writings of his fellow-Rebels The first shall be out of William Sedgwick's Leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of the Nations p. 36. Of the two 't is more strange to see that the Presbyterian who the other day was opprest by the Bishop for his conscience in point of the Sabbath c. who could not long since live without the favour of the Bishop should now thrust out those under whom he lived for not taking the Covenant which is contrary to their conscience and shew less favour to them than he received from them and do that which he condemned in others and this upon weak and fleshly grounds admiring his own way which is to pray and preach longer and more than another to be strict in repetition on Sabbath-days and some such poor formal things to set up this as the power of Godliness and Reformation to the ruine of another who it may be is a man of more justice ability and wisdom more sobriety more stability more patience and constancy in suffering c. The other shall be out of J. Price's Clerico-Classicum p. 40. Have we not cause to judge better of many of the Prelatical party who being men of learning and conscience and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as your selves you Presbyterian Ministers of London making no distunbances rents divisions Factions by Pulpit and Press as you do from day to day as all men observe that being conscious to themselves of the many Oaths Vows Covenants that they have made of subjection and obedience unto Bishops the then establisht Church Government Book of Common Prayer Homilies Canons c. cannot take the Solemn League and Covenant and rather chuse to lose their Livings and Livelihoods committing themselves Wives and Children to the mercy of God having no visible means of subsisting than to break the peace of their Consciences by taking an Oath Vow or Covenant contrary to all their former Oaths before satisfaction received than of you or some of you that presently turn'd Presbyterians cast away Episcopacy took the Covenant and having taken it turn it and wind it wring it and wrest it making it to look East and West North and South as your Interest works with King Parliament or Army or against them all And this says he is not my saying only but it is vox Populi the late King the Lords the Commons the City the Countrey the whole Kingdom observed it To these I shall add some passages of the like import out of Dr. Owen in his Mortification of Sin in Believers p. 29. There is indeed says he a broad light fallen upon the men of this generation and together therewith many spiritual
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
Supreme Governour but the Parliament by which he understood those two Houses was the Supreme Power which is very strange says Judge Jenkins for who can govern without power p. 57. Whence all that I shall conclude is 1. That this part of the Authors Apology is rather an implicit confession and proof of the crime objected than an Argument of Presbyterian Innocence And 2. That it concerns his Majesty before he resolve to protect and encourage Presbyterians to catechize them very particularly and strictly touching those Loyal principles which this J. C. pretends to be embraced by them that so it may appear whether when they take the Oath of Supremacy they do it not with that Jesuitical or more than Jesuitical Equivocation just now mentioned or with such a mental reservation as will infer their approving now as well as in the late Wars of that Treasonable distinction between the King 's personal and politick capacity and that damnable and damned opinion as it seems Cook 's Reports call it B. 7. in Calvin's Case that Homage and the Oath of Allegiance was more by reason of the Kings Crown his Politick capacity than by reason of the Person of the King whence they inferred these detestable consequences 1. If the King demean not himself by reason his Leiges are bound by Oath to remove him 2. Seeing the King could not be reformed by Suit at Law that it ought to be done per aspertè by force 3. That his Leiges are bound to govern in aid of him all which were condemned by two Parliaments one in the reign of Edw. 2. and the other 1 Edw. 3. ch 1. See Sheringham's Remonstrance of the King 's right p. 75. And yet all these three damnable detestable and execrable consequences are the grounds whereupon the present time of the late Wars relies and the principles whereupon the two Houses found their cause says J. Jenkins p. 10. For ought I know Presbyterians own these principles to this day and so are prepared in mind again to teach men actively to disobey the King yea and to dethrone his Majesty by acknowledging two such Houses and obeying them as the Higher power whensoever they can by their disturbing Arts and Influences in raising and countenancing barbarous and seditious Tumults divide the King from the Houses the Loyal part of the Houses from the Disloyal and then patch them up again by Treasonable Elections and so pack together a company of men whom they will be bold enough to call a Parliament If all Presbyterians are of the same belief with Zachary Crofton in his Berith Anti-Baal they are still of opinion That the Covenant-imposing and taking Lords and Commons were a most lawful rightly called and constituted Assembly the Princes and principal Rulers of the people though themselves swear that the King is the only supreme Governour p. 7. that they were the Princes yea more the body of the people p. 30. That their Oath Covenant was the most positive authentick repeal of any Laws obliging to the contrary p. 31. 51. This says he Mr. Crofton and all rational men do believe That succeeding Parliaments are bound to repeal those Laws which establish the thing which those Lords and Commons had sworn to extirpate p. 31. That their swearing those things as the collective body of the Nation binds all posterity who shall any way succeed into that national capacity 'T is no reason of State for the King when he is able to suppress and reject them to protect and encourage any Party of men thus principl'd and dispos'd and therefore reason of State will put his Majesty upon a curious and diligent enquiry whether Presbyterians and others retain these and the like principles as that the Long Parliament is yet in being which is favour'd also p. 52. and will oblige him to deny them protection and encouragement till they renounce and abjure all such damnable and pernicious maxims In the following Lines p. 55-65 this Author would fain perswade us that Presbyterians must needs be good Subjects to a Christian King because Profaneness intemperance revellings outrages and filthy lewdness were not at any time in the memory of the present Age held under more restraint than in the late distracted times the special reason whereof was because a practical Ministry was more thick set throughout the Nation and the places where Presbyterian Ministers had the greatest influence were most reformed and civilized and the orderly walking of Religious Persons did keep others more within compass Which is no better than non causa pro causâ for 't is evident enough that that supposed effect must be attributed to Presbyterian Ordinances not Sermons and the Executors of them Presbyterian Magistrates I mean Mayors Bayliffs Justices of the peace Constables illegally chosen as the special principal cause without whose coercive power presbyterian Ministers might have preacht their hearts out before they had wrought the Reformation here talkt of especially considering 1. That himself p. 65. pleads for the annexing of some temporal damage and penalty to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction because spiritual censures and then say I much more Sermons pertaining only to the Conscience may be too little regarded And 2. That 't was easy enough for many filthy prophane intemperate persons thus to bespeak many of those practical Ministers as S. Paul did the Pharisaical Jew Behold thou art called a Presbyterian and restest in the Bible and makest thy boast of God and knowest his will and approvest the things that are excellent being instructed out of the Law and art confident that thou thy self art a guide of the Blind a light of them who are in darkness an instructer of the foolish a teacher of Babes who hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law Thou therefore who teachest another teachest thou not thy self Thou that preachest a man should not steal dost thou year after year reap the profits of that Living which by Law belongs to another who was plundered of it by illegal violence and that because he was a more loyal Subject than thy self Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou justifie and approve of the committing Sacriledge the robbing of God as well as man Thou that gloryest in the Law of the first Table at least by breaking the Law of the second Table dishonourest thou God Knowest thou not that he that said Thou shalt not commit adultery said also Honour thy Father and thy Mother Thou shalt not Kill nor Steal nor bear false witness nor covet other mens goods Thou thunderest out rebukes and threatnest damnation against us that are Adulterers Fornicators Unclean Drunkards Revellers and yet thou thy self art notoriously guilty of those other crimes which together with these are usually and equally forbidden and condemned in the same or the next verse and the doers of them sentenc'd to Hell When we lewd prophane and intemperate persons read in the Old Testament that Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft and stubbornness is as iniquity
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
purposing to bring the King to Trial when p. 55. nothing serves but the Army prevails the King is brought to Prelatical Presbytery shall not be suffered what pathetick cries and moans sighs and groans are heard in your Pulpits wringing your hands in bitter complaints that the Land is stained with the bloud of our Prince c. when alas the Royal party and many judicious men with them cannot believe but that the root of all this bitterness is that your Crown of Classical Jurisdiction is fallen to the ground And p. 17 18. where as you speak so much of resisting Authority and fill the ears of your Auditors from day to day with rebellizing the Army for their late proceedings against the Members mustering up the same Scriptures teaching and pressing duty to Authority which the Prelatical party did formerly urge against you as that of Solomon Fear thou the Lord and the King put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers Let every Soul be subject to the Higher powers c. Yet we heard not of these things from you when the mutinous Apprentices and others offered violence upon the Houses 1647. No noise then of such Scriptures no putting men in mind to be subject to principalities and powers as if those Scriptures were added since that time Can you presume that men are so blind dull and sottish as not to observe such partial and crafty handling of the Scriptures Word and will of God Do not these practices of yours settle and establish Atheism irreligion and profaneness among men making them to look upon Religion the Gospel the Word of God as upon a mere piece of jugling cheating and deceiving the World and should we take your counsel which you give us from the words of Solomon Meddle not with them that are given to change we should all turn Separatists from you and your ways who have been as full of changes as the Vanes of your Steeples one while stirring up the people against the King and for the Parliament writing Books answering objections and using all manner of endeavours that way that so the Bishops may be dethroned and you advanced witness many of your Sermons preach'd before the Houses and elsewhere another while stirring up the people against the Parliament and for the King lest the Independents should hinder your advance as you did of late in your prayers and preaching expressing greater malignity against the Parliament and their party and greater zeal for the King and his Interest than those very Ministers whose places you possess they being sequestred and cast out for the Tenths of that Anti-Parliamentary malignancy which you have vented Have you not been for Bishops and against Bishops for Common Prayer for Ceremonies and against them Have you not sworn and subscribed and subscribed and sworn over and over again and again conformity and subjection hereunto and yet cast away all and entred into Vows and Covenants against all p. 24. Making your vicissitudes and turnings up and down the subject matter of scorn and contempt and derision both of your persons and function and yet these are the men that a Prince or State may know where to find In the Pulpit Incendiary p. 7. I meet with this story touching one Mr. Edmond Calamy of Aldermanbury London That in the times when the Bishops did bear rule he obeyed their Laws Canons Injunctions Orders and Ceremonies we say not wearing the Surplice reading the Service-Book and Crossing in Baptism c. which many honest and Godly Ministers in those dark days did likewise perform but reading the second Service at the High Altar preaching in a Surplice and Tippet bowing at the Name of Jesus and so zealous an observer of times and seasons that being sick and weak upon Christmass Day yet with much difficulty he got into the Pulpit declaring himself there to this purpose that he thought himself bound in conscience to strive to preach on that day lest the stones in the street should rise up against him And yet upon the wonderful turn of the times Ejection of Episcopacy and advance of Presbytery did presently and without delay not only assert the same but instructed the people in Presbyterian Principles after such a rate of confidence and skill as if his Education had been some Superintendent among the Presbyterian Provinces of the Reformed Churches beyond Sea and not such a notorious conformitant unto and notable stickler for the Prelates Fooleries as the Author of that Pamphlet is pleased to speak in the County of Suffolk in the Kingdome of England The same man gives us this observation p. 7. That as the Constitution of publick Affairs varies among us so the constitutions of these mens Sermons do alter and change one while we find them all for moderation and Christian accommodation and forbearance one of another another while all for Reformation again that is Presbytery in the rigid sence thereof that is that all power may be in the Ministers hands and the Magistrates engaged to put their Orders and Edicts wills and pleasures into execution one while pleading for and pressing the setting up the Government of Christ in the hearts of men minding them to be zealous for the great things of the Gospel Faith Repentance and love among Brethren and not to contend so strenuously for the Mint and Cummin Discipline and Government c. Anotherwhile calling with might and main for Reformation Reformation putting the Crown upon the Head of Christ and the Scepter into his hand pleading for the Government of Jesus Christ that is the exalting themselves above their Brethren and yet these are the men so fixt and constant as none more The truth is these and other Testimonies which might be produced do abundantly evince that Presbyterian Principles alter according to the variation of the Presbyterian Interest And that the same Principles which men of that temper exclaim against and condemn when made use of to the prejudice of their Party or in defence of Prelatical Government have notwithstanding been approved of and reduced into practice by them when the doing so tended to the promotion and advancement of their Interest Bishop Bancroft hath long since manifested to the world by the several instances produced in his Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline c. 26. There is nothing says he more usually objected against the present State Superiority and Authority of Bishops than that of S. Peter 1. Pet. 5. Not as though you were Lords over the Clergy And Luk. 22. 26. But you shall not be so And 't will not be admitted in any wise that we should expound those places of ambitious affectation of Tyrannous practice or of the abuse of such superiority or Jurisdiction But if you will speak of the Right Authority and Jurisdiction of their Elderships the case is altered There are some as it seemeth beyond the Seas who seeing the Pride of the Consistorian Government do affirm that the Power of the Church is only Spiritual and
those two Houses who were far enough from either deserving or being capable of the Title of the Parliament of England might discharge men from the obligation of this Oath for they imposed the Negative Oath and made men swear that they would not directly or indirectly adhere to or willingly assist the King in his War against the Forces of the two Houses which Negative Oath being contrary to that of Allegiance could not with any colour of reason or conscience be imposed or taken unless the imposers and takers were perswaded of the truth of that principle viz. that the Presbyterian Lords and Commons had authority to discharge men from the obligation of that Oath and yet these are the men that are so fixt and constant as none more and so setled in their principles that a Prince or State may know where to find them words that for ought I see have no Truth in them at all unless understood in this sence that a Prince may be sure to find Presbyterians constant to their self-Interest though not to their Principles and fixt and diligent in designing methods and carrying on contrivances in opposition to legal establishments for the thrusting up Presbytery into the Throne and the forcing of Majesty and Prelacy to embrace a Dunghil It follow p. 57. 67. They do not strain so high but they consider withal what the Kingdoms of the world will bear and are willing to bring things to the capacity of Political Government I suppose the mans meaning is this That Presbyterians are somewhat cautious and circumspect for their own safety They 'l venture their Ears before they hazard their Necks and contenting themselves with deserving a Dungeon only at first will take heed of meriting the Gallows till they are able to safeguard themselves from the sword of Justice by unsheathing that of Rebellion They 'l consider whether the Kings of the world have indeed the power of their respective Nations in their hands or no and whether if they have it 't is probable they will bear the sword in vain or execute vengeance with it on them that do evil In order whereunto they 'l feel their way it may be step by step first by talking seditiously in private Conventicles then by railing and reviling Loyal subjects in the Pulpit then by slandering inferiour Governours and rendring them contemptible and odious unto the people and afterwards by raising jealousies and envious malicious passions in mens minds against the Supreme and if he let the sword of Justice rust in the scabbard till by the predominancy of a tumultuous rabble aided and abetted by some seditious malignant spirits among the Nobility and Gentry he 's disenabled from drawing it either at all or to any purpose then those pawns and Rooks will strain so high as to give checkmate to Majesty and demonstrate to the world how imprudently those Pearls of Royal patience lenity and condescension were cast before such Swine whose brutish temper inclines them to turn upon and rent their Benefactors like traiterous Judas's to reward them evil for good and hatred for their good will Mr. Martin says the Hist of Independ p. 97. was expelled the House for words spoken against the King because spoken unseasonably when the King was in good strength and the words whether true or false were in strictness of Law Treason lest the whole House might be drawn within compass of High Treason for conniving at them but afterward the King growing weaker and the Parliament stronger the House restored Mr. Martin and thought fit to set every mans Tongue at liberty It seems the Political Government was then brought to a capacity of bearing such crimes Bishop Bancroft in his Book of Dangerous Positions p. 98. tells us of a Book of Discipline subscribed to by some presbyterian Brethren in those days which they promised as God should offer opportunity and give them to discern it so expedient by humble suit to her Majestie 's honourable Council and the Parliament and by all other lawful and convenient means to further and advance so far as the Laws and peace and the present state of the Church would suffer it and not enforce to the contrary One Mr. Littleton being examined upon his Oath what the last words should mean answered That he himself Mr. Snape Mr. Proudloe and others did agree to put that Discipline in execution and practice so far as the peace and the present state of the Church would suffer and not enforce to the contrary that is till the Magistrate did enjoyn them or enforce them to leave the practice of the said Discipline Now says the Bishop what if by the secret practices to draw away the peoples hearts from the present Government of the Church they could have procured such strength and number to have followed them as that no reasonable restraint or force of the Magistrate had been able to have encountered and suppressed them I do but ask the Question says he p. 101. and I answer it thus If they had been of the same Rebellious humour with our modern Presbyterians they would when they had brought things to that pass have appeared in Arms and raised a bloudy War and by force have set up their holy Discipline and strained so high in contradiction to all legal Authority as to have subverted the constitution of our English Monarchy and turned our Government in Church and State Topsiturvy He goes on They can have no pleasure in commotions for Order and regular Unity is their Way and therefore stability of Government and publick Tranquillity is their Interest Which has something of Truth in it if understood of Presbyterians when they are got into the Saddle themselves and are well setled in an usurp'd Dominion but till then for ought I see they take as much pleasure in commotions and alteraons as Jesuits do and will disturb the publick Tranquillity and subvert all legal Order and regular Unity rather than suffer their own Interest to be rejected and depressed witness their late Wars and their Solemn League and Covenant and a series of other actions whose direct tendency was to the destruction of our English Polity both Ecclesiastical and Civil as is before manifested It 's most unreasonable says he to object that the late wild postures extravagancies and incongruities in Government were the work of Presbytery or Presbyterians his reason is because the Nation had never proof of Presbytery for 't was never settled A. If it should be granted that the Nation had never proof of Presbytery what 's this to Presbyterians whom the objection speaks of as well as Presbytery Had the Nation never any proof of such kind of Creatures nay had we not such proof of them for several years together as we have great reason to lament even to this day And I much fear that the satal Influence of those wild postures and extravagancies which Presbyterians such persons as himself described p. 20. 30. by their main and rooted Principles were
but what if they that make the objection be found to frame their Argument in reference to our modern Presbyterians in this manner Multitudes that embraced those Principles which Presbyterians owned in the days of their calamity and depression turned Sectaries and Schismaticks afterward and yet still retained those Principles and by rational deductions pleaded them in order to the justification of their Schism therefore those principles do in their own nature produce Sects and Schisms If the case be indeed thus the objection is strong and for the proof of the Argument and Antecedent I 'le undertake if this Author shall deny either or evince that the like objection may upon the like ground be urged against the English prelacy In the mean time we 'le content our selves with the affirmation of Charles the First that Presbytery was in the late times the great Master of lesser Factions in Religion The truth is says this J. C. Sectarianism both Presbyterian and Independent say I grew up in a Mystery of Iniquity good for 't was by opposing and exalting it self above all that was called God in this Nation and State-policy good again claw me and I 'le claw thee was the politick Dialect of Presbyterians at first towards Independents and it was not well discerned by the Presbyterians whom interest and reason of State perswaded to shut their eyes and wink at the Independents Anabaptists and other Sectaries till it became almost triumphant by Military successes but after that its growth did manifestly appear prejudicial to Presbyterian ambition Presbytery began to struggle with it to frown upon and oppose those whom it before countenanced and caressed and so continued until by the power of the Army it was enforced to sit down but never to comply unless 't were by taking the Engagement at last whereupon the Tongues and Pens of Sectaries were employed against none more than Presbyterians viz. because they thought the prelatists more conscientious adherers to Prelatical Principles than Presbyterians were to their dividing and dissipating maxims And I should be glad to hear of such bitter Invectives of the Papists against the Prelatists It seems the man hath neither seen nor heard of S. W's Scripts against the Right Reverend Bishop Bramhall and the Reverend Dr. Hammond or else he does not judge them bitter Invectives but it had been too palpable hypocrisie as well as a piece of high Ingratitude for Jesuits to have inveighed bitterly against our modern Presbyterians who were so zealously imployed for several years together about Jesuitical work and who had so industriously acted the Powder-Traitors part that they very effectually blew up both King and Parliament and at the Isle of Wight-Treaty were very busie in destroying Kingly power and in accomplishing the design of Campanella and other Papists viz. of changing our Monarchical Government into a Commonwealth-Form by placing all the considerable Authority and prerogative which before belonged to our Kings in some Lords Temporal and Commons And verily there 's no greater bar against Fanaticism than the right Presbyterian principles as 1. not to sever but joyn the written Word and Spirit for direction 2. The Spirit and use of Ordinances for edification 3. To erect a Stated Church-Order and Discipline 4. To allow to the Church a directive and to every Christian a discretive judgment 5. To insist only upon Divine Scripture-warrant and to wave humane Authority in matters of Religion To which I answer briefly That the four first of these as he hath worded them in very general terms are as much Prelatical as Presbyterian nay they are owned by Independents and Anabaptists as well as Presbyterians and therefore if these Sects are Fanaticks there must be some greater bar against Fanaticism than those Principles But the Fifth To insist only on Divine Scripture-warrant and to wave humane Authority in matters of Religion is so loosely and crudely delivered that 't is rather the main Original of all Fanaticism than a bar against it forasmuch as the Religion of the most sober Independents and Anabaptists as also of Enthusiasts and Quakers is founded upon this principle all of them waving humane Authority and insisting only on Scripture-dictates and that Divine warrant which thence they plead for their modes forms and opinions for their walking according to the light connate with them springing up within them or darted into them from above But of all the prejudices and scandals says this Author p. 63. 73. taken against this way Presbytery there 's none greater than this that 't is represented as Tyrannical and domineering and that those that live under it must like Issachar crouch under the burden A. It seems he thinks Tyrannical domineering over Inferiors to be a greater crime than disobedience and rebellion against Superiors or else he would have accounted their being represented as Rebels a greater prejudice against presbyterians than their being represented as domineering persons but he Apologizes for them by retorting the charge on Prelatists and telling us that Presbytery is not more severe in censuring the breach of God's Commandments than the Hierarchy in censuring the breach of their own Constitutions which passage looks as if the man had a mind to insinuate that Presbyterian severity is exercised only on the Transgressors of God's Commands and Hierarchical severity only on the offenders against Episcopal Constitutions Whether he had such an ugly meaning in those words or no I am not certain though to him that considers the egregious partiality of this discourse hitherto in favour of Presbyterians 't will be very probable he had If he had leaving him to prove the truth of them as to the Hierarchy I shall by and by make bold to disprove them as to Presbytery In the mean time we 'le pass on to the next words Or is the offence taken upon pretence that Presbyterians affect and arrogate an arbitrary power would rule by Faction and exercise a rigour to the stirring up of animosities and unquiet humours A. No the offence is not taken upon pretence as that 's contradistinct to proof but upon sufficient evidence that they are arrogant factious persons and very prone to stir up and foment unquiet humours by their disciplinarian rigour and though the Nation generally hath not through the mercy of Divine over-ruling providence experimented that discipline yet they say the Londoners had such proof of it in a little time as made them quite weary of Classical-lay-Elder-Tyranny If the goodness of an Almighty power had not prevented it we may well suppose that Presbytery would have proved as imperious and domineering here in England as Bishop Bramhall tells us it was in Scotland Towards particular persons says he Fair warning chap. 11. this Discipline is too full of rigour like Draco ' s Laws that were written in Bloud in lesser faults inflicting Church-censures upon slight grounds as for an uncomely gesture for avain word for suspicion of covetousness or pride for superfluity in raiment either for cost or
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
in Scotland assume a power to abrogate and invalidate Laws and Acts of Parliament if they seem disadvantagious to the Church Church Assemblies says one of their Books of Discipline have power to abrogate and abolish all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Ecclesiastical matters that are found noysome and unprofitable and agree not with the times or are abused by the people The Acts of Parliament 1584. at the very same time that they were proclaimed were protested against at the Market Cross of Edenburgh by the Ministers in the name of the Kirk of Scotland The general Assembly of Glascow 1638. impugned Episcopacy and Perth Articles although ratified by Acts of Parliament and standing Laws then unrepealed And if Presbytery should chance to be established in England by a Law what shall assure us that English presbyterians also would not prove unruly and disobedient Subjects against both King and Parliament that shall prescribe any Rule to them in order to the preventing of their arrogant Tyranny Not their Oaths unless they had kept those of Supremacy Allegiance and Canonical obedience better But this Author has another remedy Moreover quoth he to cut off all occasions and prevent all appearance of domineering all political coercive jurisdiction in matters of Religion may be withheld if need require from Ecclesiastical Persons and that meer spiritual power alone by which he means Admonition and Excommunication may be left to their management The man sure would perswade us that he thinks there can be no occasion of domineering afforded by the granting nor appearance of it in the exercise of power meerly spiritual and then there is some hopes that he is not in the number of those who imagine that the Prelates heretofore did Tyrannically abuse that power But for all this he is unwilling that Presbyterians should have only spiritual power at their command and be wholly devested of political and therefore what he takes away with one hand he gives with the other in the following words And because spiritual censures appertaining only to the Conscience may be too little regarded when no temporal damage is annext unto them there may be a collateral civil power always present in Ecclesiastical meetings to take cognizance of all causes therein debated and adjudged in order to temporal penalties From which words we may gather 1. That the man is loth that all occasion of domineering should be cut off from Presbyterians and all appearance of it prevented 2. That he can well enough digest prelatical power and as many Ecclesiastical Courts in a County as there are Ecclesiastical meetings if so be Presbyterian Priests and Lay-Elders may have the management of that power and sit as Judges in those Courts which is another indication that ambitious affections rather than an impartial judgment make presbyterians exclaim so much against Prelacy viz. because they are not allowed to exercise that dominion themselves which they condemn in others as Tyrannical Vpon the whole matter says he aforegoing we firmly build this position That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Justice or Reason of State to be rejected and depressed but ought to be protected and encouraged And upon the answer to that matter contained in these Papers I firmly build this contradictory Position That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Justice or Reason of State to be protected and much less encouraged but to be rejected and depressed unless they will renounce the practises and principles here objected and laid to their charge and will disclaim that Covenant which otherwise will engage them in such turbulent and seditious practices as can never be justified but by such rebellious Principles THE END A Summary OF THE CONTENTS The Question proposed WHether in Justice or Reason of state the Presbyterian Party should be rejected and depressed or protected and encouraged The Character given of Presbyterians is considered and manifested to be very imperfect and deceitful p. 4 5 6 c. Of their zeal p. 13. their resembling the Anabaptists in Germany p. 14. their being called Fanaticks p. 15. Of their varying from themselves p. 20 21. their multitudes p. 24 25 Of the great things for which they are said to contend p. 26 c. Whether the Protestant Doctrine by Law established in the Church of England be owned by Presbyterians p. 29 c. Of the pure spiritual heavenly doctrine which they ought to be actuated by if they expect to be encouraged p. 33 c. Of Principles striking to the heart of Popery p. 37. Which sort of men are more pernicious in a Commonwealth Jesuits or Presbyterians p. 40 41 c. Whether Presbyterians ought to be protected and encouraged because of their averseness from Popish Idolatries and Innovations p. 44. Whether they erect Imperium in Imperio p. 47 c. Whether their principles and Government are Anti-monarchical p. 53 c. Of their unwillingness to come under any yoke but that of the Law of the Land p. 66. and to pay Taxes levyed without consent of Parliament p. 67 c. Of their valuing the native happiness of freeborn English Subjects p. 69. Whether they have any true knowledge or sense of the nature of the Christian Religion as it refers to the question discussed p. 71 c. Whether they were not guilty of rebellion in the late wars p. 76 c. Whether the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom was not subverted by the Presbyterian members of the Long-Parliament p. 95 c. The London Ministers vindication of themselves in reference to the Kings murder considered p. 104 c. The murderers of the King acted therein suitably to such principles as are owned by Presbyterian writers p. 109 c. and to the fourth Article of the Covenant p. 114. Of the Presbyterian Ministers exhorting men to pray that God would not permit the King to be put to death p. 115 c. Whether Presbyterians disclaimed their lawful Prince p. 120. Whether they suffered themselves to be trodden under foot rather than they would comply with Republicans p. 123 c. Whether they were more conscientious in their duty to God and man than Prelatists p. 130 c. The Plea that Presbyterians teach obedience active in all Lawful and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the Higher power considered p. 137 c. Whether the restraint of profaneness intemperance c. in the late times ought to be attributed to the doctrine and orderly walking of Presbyterian Ministers p. 145 c. Of the inconstancy of Presbyterians their inconsistency with themselves and their unfaithfulness to their principles when their Interest tempts them to a change p. 153 c. In what sense they are willing to bring things to the capacity of political Government p. 170. Whether Sects and Schisms may justly be reckoned the off-spring of Presbytery p. 175. Of the Synod of Dort and its healing the breach in the Netherlands p. 176 177 c. Whether Presbytery is unjustly represented as Tyrannical and domineering p. 187 ad fin The ERRATA PAge 3. line 29. read particulars p. 11. l. 15. r. p. 1â— p. 28. l. 25. leave out So. p. 32. l. 26. r. approves p. 35. l. 18. r. to do your own p. 55. l. 9. r. Turner printed 1647. p. 56. l. 28. r. check'd p. 78. l. 8. r. the great Seal and. p. 81. l. 18. r. de Bereford p. 94. l. 25. r. shall conclude is 1. p. 99. l. 25. r. president p. 106. l. 26. r. sending p. 115. l. 3. r. in the humble Edenburgh Remonstrance of March 1. 1648. p. 118. l. 16. r. mentioned p. 29. 30. p. 121. l. 14. r. In stead p. 159. l. 1. r. p. 17. l. 2. r. constitution l. 3. r. Sermons alters and changes p. 165. l. 8. r. p. 63. l. 21. r. 99. l. 25. r. 96. p. 166. l. 29. after 85 add 96. p. 167. l. 31. r. 98. p. 175. l. 29. r. rumperet l. 30. r. tollerentur The inconvenient distance of the Author from London hath occasioned some Errata's more than ordinary to pass the Press which I shall desire the Reader to amend with his Pen. R. Royston Lately Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Amen-Corner THE Estate of the EMPIRE or an Abridgment of the Laws and Government of Germany farther shewing what Condition the EMPIRE was in when the Peace was concluded at Munster Also the several Fights Battels and Desolation of Cities during the War in that EMPIRE And also of the GOLDEN BVLL In Octavo The Sycillian Tyrant Or The Life and Death of AGATHOCLES With some Restections on our Modern Usurpers Octavo The ROYAL MARTYR and the Dutiful Subject In two Sermons By Gilbert Burnet In Quarto The Generosity of Christian Love Delivered in a Sermon by William Gould Quarto The Witnesses to Christanity By Sy. Patrick D. D. Octavo Dâ—ctor Dubitaâ—tium Or Bishop Taylors Cases of Conscience The Fourth Edition Folio The Life and Death of K. CHARLES the First By R. Perenchief D. D. Octavo A Modest Plea for the Church of England Octavo The Spiritual Sacrifice or Devotions and Prayers fitted to the main uses of a Christian Life by a late Reverend Author In 12o. Chirurgical Treatises By Richard Wiseman Serjeant-Chirurgion to his MAJESTY Folio