guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Mr. Love says that Author will not say that the King was not guilty of much innocent bloud left he should contradict himself neither will he say that bloud-guiltiness can be expiated but by bloud lest he should contradict the Scriptures neither can he say but the King was cut off either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Whence I conclude that according to those Principles of Mr. Love the King 's being put to death in that way of Tryal was neither contrary to the word of God nor the Principles of the Protestant Religion c. but a work fit and expedient to be done and 't will be well for English Presbyterians if when the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open it be not revealed to the world that the main reason why they deprecated the putting the King to death in that way of Tryal was because he was not tryed and condemned by Presbyterians nor for their advantage but by those men who hated Presbytery and would not suffer it to domineer any longer For these very men could notwithstanding both the word of God and the principles of the English Protestant Religion notwithstanding the protestation and Solemn League and Covenant yea notwithstanding the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom and the Oath of Allegiance I say maugre all these obligations to the contrary if at least one of them be such an obligation these very men could join with the Presbyterian Lords and Commons in making War against the King and send an Army to shed his bloud in the high places of the Field and therefore if Presbyterians be Protestants and their Religion the Protestant Religion 't was not their Loyalty but the divine goodness and providence wonderfully interposing for the Kings safety that in so many battels kept the Protestant Religion from being stained with the bloud of a King especially as to Edge-Hill-fight if that be true which is affirmed in Fabian Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 79. that Blague a villain in the Kings Army had a great pension allowed him that he might give notice in what part of the Field the King stood that they might the better know how to shoot at him who accordingly gave notice of it and if God had not had a greater care of his Anointed than of their Rebellious pretences that Bullet from the Earl of Essex his Canon which graz'd at the King's Heels as he was Kneeling at his prayers on the side of a bank had taken away his life and the Presbyterian Religion such as it is had been stained with the bloud of a King And though the Presbyterians as the Apology for Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament tells us p. 69. would excuse themselves that they never intended the Kings destruction yet that is a frivolous and foolish excuse For as Sir Walter Rawleigh says truly Our Law doth construe all levying War without the Kings Commission and all force raised to be intended for the death and destruction of the King not attending the sequel and so 't is judged upon good reason for every unlawful and ill action is supposed to be accompanied with an ill intent The Lord Cook as the Apologizer goes on p. 70. speaking fully of all kinds and degrees of Treason 3 Institut p. 12. saith Preparation by some overt act to depose the King or take the King by force and strong hand and to imprison him until he hath yielded to certain demands is a sufficient overt Act to prove the compassing and imagination of the death of the King For this upon the matter is to make the King a Subject and to despoil him of his Kingly office of Royal Government and so it was resolved by all the Judges of England Hill 1 Jac. Regis in the case of the Lord Cobham Lord Grey and Watson and Clark Seminary Priests and so it had been resolved by the Justices Hill 43 Eliz. in the case of the Earls of Essex and Southampton who intended to go to the Court where the Queen was and to have taken her into their power and to have removed divers of her Council and for that end did assemble a multitude of people which being raised to the end aforesaid was a sufficient overt Act for compassing the death of the Queen The Presbyterians says he did offend in this kind notoriously and therefore committed Treason manifestly for they imprisoned the King in divers places and at length in a remote place in the Isle of Wight and all this done by them who were for the most part Presbyterians out of their design to compel the King to yield to their projects to overthrow the Bishops and to take their Lands and their revenues From this we may judge how agreeable Presbyterian actions were to the Constitution and Law of this Kingdom and how manifest it is that they must in Law be reckoned King-killers as well as the Army and if the Law of the Nation damn them to such a guilt and punishment on earth there is no Gospel that I know of will save them from Hell without a repentance proportionable to their Crimes which for ought I see they are hitherto so far from thinking a duty that they rather go about to justifie their former actings by returning again as far as they dare to the same follies that ushered in their former war and at first embrued the Nation in bloud Nor do I believe that they who took away the Kings life in that way of Trial acted upon any more treasonable and rebellious Principles than are owned and taught by some Presbyterian writers of the first magnitude both French Scotch and English The truth whereof I doubt will be very evident to him that can get and will peruse these Presbyterian Scripts Buchanan's de jure regni apud Scotos Knox's Appellation Vindiciae contra Tyrannos by Junius Brutus supposed to be either Beza or Hottoman David Paraeus his Commentary on Rom. 13. burnt at London and Oxford in King James his reign for its seditious Maxims Goodman an intimate Friend as 't is said of John Knox's his book of the same nature and tendency Rutherford's Lex Rex I find in Bishop Bancroft's Dangerous Positions B. 1. Ch. 2. speaking of Calvin's reforming at Geneva these words Since which time as I suppose it hath been a principle with some of the chief Ministers of Geneva but contrary to the Judgment of all other reformed Churches for ought I know which have not addicted themselves to follow Geneva that if Kings and Princes refuse to reform Religion the inferiour Magistrates or people by direction of the Ministry might lawfully and ought if need required even by force and Arms to reform it themselves And Ch. 4. This Position is quoted out of Knox that the punishment of such crimes as touch the Majesty of God doth not appertain to Kings and
Practice But the latter clause that they teach obedience active in all lawful things and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the higher power may justly make an impartial Reader that reflects upon their actions for several years together to wonder what this man means by the higher power by things unlawful by obedience active and passive If in the days of the Long Parliament Presbyterian Doctrines and practices in this point were suitable and correspondent the words must be thus paraphrasad Presbyterians taught obedience active in things unlawful enjoyned by the two Houses whom Mr. Herle's as 't is reported seditious invention made only co-ordinate with the King and disobedience active even to bloudy Rebellion in things lawful enjoyned by the King whom by Oath they acknowledged to be the only Supreme Governour of this Kingdom I have read in Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 23. that in 1642 Presbyterian Pulpits flamed with seditious invectives against the King and incitements to Rebellion and that the people running headlong into it had all manner of countenance and encouragement but those Ministers that preacht obedience and sought to prevent Rebellion were sure to be imprisoned and put out of their places for it Was this for Presbyterians to preach either Faith or Holiness or Obedience active to the King or were those men so good Subjects so good Christians as either actively or passively to obey his Majesty or preach such obedience when they took themselves and exhorted others to take that Solemn League and Covenant which the King in his Proclamation against it calls a Traiterous and Seditious combination against himself and the establisht Religion and Laws of the Kingdom We do therefore says his Majesty strictly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever upon their Allegiance that they presume not to take the said seditious and traiterous Covenant And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose administer or tender the said Covenant as they and every of them will answer the contrary at their utmost and extremest peril What therefore was the taking of this Covenant and tendering of it to others was it obedience either active or passive to the King No but on the contrary 't was active disobedience to his Majesties command and the taking up Arms against the King in prosecution of this Covenant thus taken and cursing those that did not was Treason and Rebellion by the Lawes of the Land and damnable resistance by the Law of Christ And these and other Presbyterian practices were such a palpable contradiction to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance that in some late reflexions on those Oaths 't is admired with what face presbyterians can now either take or urge them It 's a wonderful mystery p. 41. how it should come to pass that our English Presbyterians c. should especially now of late with so much willingness and greediness themselves swallow these Oaths and so clamorously urge them on others Is it because the Oath of Supremacy has so peculiar a conformity to their principles and that of Allegiance to their practices or that they are so ready and pressing to disclaim and condemn all that themselves have done these last twenty years And a little after Who ever heard or knew to flow from the Tongue or drop from the Pen of a Presbyterian so Christian a Position as is sincerely avouched both by English Protestants and the general body of Roman Catholicks viz. that even in case a Christian or Heathen Prince should make use of his Civil Power to persecute Truth that power ought not upon any pretences to be actively resisted by violence or force of Arms but though they cannot approve they must at least patiently suffer the effects of his mis-used Authority leaving the judgment to God only If this Rector can answer this Question in the affirmative and then prove it true of any one Covenanting Presbyterian Scotch or English within the compass of this last twenty years let him I shall be glad to see it Whether he can do so much or no I doubt as I do likewise whether that Reflecter can prove that that Position as he has worded it is owned by the general body of Roman Catholicks but that he cannot do it of Presbyterians generally or any considerable number of them I am pretty well assured if he can 't will follow that the generality of Presbyterians or a considerable number of them most wretchedly detained that Truth in unrighteousness and for several years together acted most horrid things contrary to their Light Knowledge and Conscience But 't is observable that this crafty Impostor instead of proving that Presbyterians teach obedience active in things lawful and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the King's Majesty affirms only that they teach such obedience in things enjoyned by the Higher power not telling us whether they mean the higher power de jure or de facto only nor whether their Doctrine will not comprehend the higher power de facto though themselves acknowledge it no power de jure if so be that power will in the main comply with the advancement of the Presbyterian Interest What the presbyterians meant by the higher power in the late divisions was too evident by their practises viz. that parcel minor part of the Long Parliament which favoured Presbytery which opposed the King and made War against him which elected a multitude of new Members by vertue of a counterfeit treasonable Seal Prove that the King was the Higher power in the time of the Divisions says Mr. Baxter Pref. to his Holy Commonwealth p. 23. They declared May 26. 1642. that the Soveraign power resides in both Houses of Parliament as the Author of Veritas Inconcussa quotes them p. 29. who also p. 91. informs us That the Parliament could not be called a Parliament when they had driven away the King who is the Head and Life of it nor they be said to be two Houses of Parliament when there was not at that time when they first raised a War above a third part of the House of Peers nor the half part of the House of Commons remaining in them and what those few did in their absence was either forced by a Faction of their own or a party of Seditious Londoners for indeed the War rightly considered was not betwixt the Parliament and the King but a War made by a Factious and Seditious party of the Parliament against the King and the major part of the Parliament So that a factious seditious part of a parliament was heretofore owned by Presbyterians as the Higher power Nay the chief Presbyterian Advocate was such a learned man such a good Subject and Christian he did so fear God and honour the King as to be able and willing to distinguish between the supreme Governour and the supreme Power of this Nation Sover power of Parl. p. 104. and to teach that the King was indeed the
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
Nobility Gentry and Commonalty and when they had got the power in their hands O what grateful and ingenuous returns they made them for that benignity and favour They ruin'd the Bishops not sparing even those most heartily Protestant Bishops who had been so benign and favourable to them they raised a War against the King plundered sequestred murthered those that adhered to him and by degrees extorted from himself such grand diminutions of his Royal Prerogative as that they left him little more than the Title of a King And are such men as these such true English Protestants so good Christians as that they ought in justice and reason of State to be still treated benignly and favourably Nay rather should not King Nobles and Commons p. 40. 50. remember their darling Protestantism I mean that good English Protestantism contained in the 39. Articles by Law establisht in the Church of England that true mean between Fanatick and Jesuitical Protestantism Should not I say King Nobles and Commons remember this their darling and in reason of State abandon that sort of persons who have contributed so much to the destruction of it Let them not sleep securely while the seeds-men of the envious one sow the Tares of Division in our Field not only to weaken and hinder but to choak and eat out our English Protestant Faith Order and Government And let our gracious Soveraign still shew himself gracious where his undeserved clemency is like to produce happy permanent effects but on the other side let the mischiefs that befel his Royal Father through the stubborn Insolency of ingrateful and disloyal Presbyterians make him wary in time and circumspectly provident for his own and the Kingdoms safety lest himself also know and feel by sad experience what it is to protect and encourage presbyterians P. 41. 51. The Author takes upon him to vindicate Presbyterians from the many Calumnies with which he tells us they are loaded The first that he mentions is their plucking from the Civil Magistrate his power in Causes Ecclesiastical and erecting Imperium in Imperio Which says he is a groundless and gross mistake and to prove it so he urges the declared judgment of the Highest of that way according to their own words which are these To the Political Magistrate is allowed a Diatactick ordering regulating power about Ecclesiastical affairs in a Political way so that he reforms the Church when corrupted in Divine Worship Discipline or Government But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may assume to themselves the power of judging whether there are such corruptions or no and whether the Civil Magistrate reforms those corruptions in a warrantable manner or no and consequently of checking him in both respects if he chance to judge otherwise than they do witness the next He convenes and convocates Synods and Councils made up of Ecclesiastical Persons to advise and conclude determinatively according to the word of God how the Church is to be reformed and refined from corruption how to be guided and governed when reformed But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may challenge to themselves a power of convening without yea against the Civil Magistrate's command and here they actually challenge the power of conclusively determining how the Church is to be reformed and governed He ratifies and establishes within his Dominions the just and necessary Decrees of the Church in Synods and Councils by his Civil Sanction But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may claim the power of determining whether its own Decrees be just and necessary or no and of puting them in execution though the Civil Magistrate deny to ratify them by his Civil Sanction He judges and determines definitively with ae consequent and political judgment or judgment of Discretion concerning things judged and determined antecedently by the Church in reference to his own Act. But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may take upon them to controul the King as well as private persons if his difinitive Judgment of discretion which they allow to every private person p. 20. 30. in reference to his own act should chance to contradict their antecedent determinations He takes care politically that even matters and Ordinances merely and formally Ecclesiastical be duly managed by Ecclesiastical Persons orderly called thereunto But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may imagine that in case the King refuse to take this Political care themselves may appoint Ecclesiastical Persons to manage them and that their so doing is an orderly call to those Persons to act accordingly He hath a compulsive punitive or corrective power formally Political in matters of Religion in reference to all sorts of Persons and things under his Jurisdiction But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For holy Kirk may deny her self to be in matters of Religion under his Jurisdiction He may Politically compel the outward man of all Persons Church-Officers or others under his Dominion unto External performance of their respective duties and offices in matters of Religion punishing them if either they neglect to do their duty at all or do it corruptly But notwithstanding this also there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may fancy themselves the only or chief Judges of what are the duties and offices belonging to such and such Persons and whether they neglect or corruptly perform them So that if Presbyterians grant no more power to belong to the King of England in Ecclesiastical matters they deny his Supremacy and consequently erect Imperium in Imperio How they who give up themselves to the sole direction and Authority of the holy Scriptures p. 24. 34. can in reason acknowledge a spiritual power over the Conscience as intrinsecally belonging to the Church I leave him to inform us who would have us believe p. 43. 53 that Presbyterians do not claim for the Convocation or any other Ecclesiastical Convention an Independency on Parliaments That they do not claim it for a Convocation of Bishops and Episcopal men I am apt enough to believe But I cannot entertain any reasonable hope that they who have Covenanted so deeply in the behalf of the Scotch Discipline and Form of Government as to swear an endeavour of reforming things in England according to the example of the Kirk of Scotland as one of the best reformed Churches will acknowledge the ratification of the decrees of all Ecclesiastical conventions to depend on Parliaments For if Bishop Bramhall deceive us not Fair Warning p. 9. 'T is a Scotch maxime that Parliamentary ratifications can no way alter Church-Canons concerning the worship of God for Ecclesiastical Discipline ought to be exercised whether it be ratified by the Civil Magistrate or not The want of a Civil Sanction to the Church is but like lucrum cessans not damnum emergens as it adds nothing
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
Book is scarce exceeded by Knot 's Volume against Chillingworth In it several hypothetical majors are to be met with but the minors are either not mentioned or else presumed to be true without any attempt made to prove them so Now Zachary Crofton tells us in his Berith Anti-Baal p. 62. that Ifs are no proofs or demonstrations What good duty justice morality or religion may not be ruined if a mans fancied If be reason enough against it This way of disputing as apparently Jesuitical irrational Machiavellian barbarous The Rector of Bramshot thus proceeds with reverence to soveraign Majesty I crave leave to speak this word of truth and soberness Parturiunt Montes one would think some very sage and important Oracle should forthwith drop from the Pen of this Reverend Dictator In a knowing age quoth he flattery doth not really exalt or secure the Royal Prerogative Quid nascitur Such a Triobolary Truth as I believe there 's scarce any Presbyterian so simple as to be ignorant of it But there 's something suggested in it that I am afraid will one day be found a notorious and fatal falshood viz. that this hath been a knowing Age as to those parties who have opposed and sought against the Royal interest whereas I doubt 't is far easier to prove that in that respect it hath been either the most ignorant I mean of most grand concerning Truths or the most maliciously wicked profligated and debauched Age that ever Protestant England knew The Authority of Parliaments being depressed and undervalued is the more searched into and urged By Parliaments here 't is evident enough he means the two Houses in contradistinction yea opposition to the King But says Lex Terrae p. 80. The Lords and Commons make no more a Parliament by the Law of the Land than a Body without a Head makes a man for a Parliament is a body composed of a King their head Lords and Commons the members all three together make one body and that is the Parliament and none other The two Houses are not the Parliament but only parts thereof and by the abuse and misunderstanding of this word Parliament they have miserably deceived the people And his late Majesty in answer to their Declaration of May 19. 1642. and to that part of it wherein they complain that the Heads of the Malignant party have with much Art and Industry advised him to suffer divers unjust scandals and imputations upon the Parliament to be published in his Name has these words If we were guilty of that aspersion we must not only be active in raising the scandal but passive in the mischief begotten by that scandal We being an essential part of the Parliament And we hope the just defence of our self and our Authority and the necessary Vindication of our innocence and justice from the imputation laid on us by a major part then present of either or both Houses shall no more be called a scandal upon the Parliament than the opinion of such a part be reputed an Act of Parliament And we hope our good Subjects will not be long misled by that common expression in all the Declarations wherein they usurp the word Parliament and apply it to countenance any resolution or Vote some few have a mind to make by calling it the resolution of Parliament which can never be without our consent p. 5. Neither can the vote of either or both Houses make a greater alteration in the Laws of this Kingdom either by commanding or inhibiting any thing besides the known Rule of the Law than our single direction or mandate can do to which we do not ascribe the Authority And now let this Author search his Law-Books with the exactest diligence and skill he can and then let him tell us by what Law the two Houses abstracted from the King have any Parliamentary Authority Indeed his own following words do clearly enough imply that they have no such Authority For p. 51. 61. he is so inconsiderately bold as to assert that Concerning the utmost bounds and limits of Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary power the Law in deep wisdom chooses to keep silence for it always supposes union not division between King and Parliament Whence all that I shall conclude is that the power of a Parliament truly so called viz. King Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons is not limited by Law and thence I gather either that some Acts of Parliament are no Laws or that that part of some Acts wherein 't is declared that any following statutes contrariant to such and such preceding statutes shall be utterly void is vain and ridiculous But 2. That the two Houses when they usurped the power of a Parliament as well as the name and acted in opposition to the King had no Law on their side to justifie their actings For if the Law always supposes union between King and Parliament it speaks nothing of the Rights and Priviledges of the two Houses in case of their division from and opposition to the King And 3. That the Kings power and prerogative is absolute and notwithstanding all Law of this Nation infinite for if the Law be silent and that in deep wisdom too as to the utmost bounds of the Royal Prerogative it hath very wisely lest it unbounded which latter conclusions and the first also are so prejudicial to the Presbyterian Interest and Party that I doubt they will conclude him either the veryest Fool if indeed he knew not that the Kings Prerogative was bounded by Law or the most Malignant Flatterer that this knowing Age hath brought forth His next Argument to evince Presbyterian Loyalty is that The subversion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom could never be effected till those Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian were many of them imprisoned others forcibly secluded by the violence of the Army and the rest thereupon withdrew from the House of Commons An assertion so notoriously false that it puts me in mind of the proverb in the late War that some men would not swear but they would lye basely The truth is the subversion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom both in Church and State was the great work of the Long-Parliament which they effected in the Church by overthrowing the Hierarchy and that Prelacy in which the Holy Church of England was founded Stat. of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. recited 25 Edw. 3. in the State by passing and pressing upon the King that Bill against the Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament who were in all Parliaments either personally or by Proxy since we had any who were once of the States of Parliament and in the Act of Parliament 8 Eliz. c. 1. acknowledged one of the greatest States of this Realm all whose Liberties and Priviledges and consequently that of sitting in Parliament to which they ought to be summoned ex debito Justitiae Cookes Institut 4. c. 9. are confirmed to them by Magna Charta which was it self ratified by 32 Acts
to make an Act of Parliament for raising of moneys and ordering the Militia though the King denied his Royal Assent which power was never challenged by nor granted to both Houses in any Kings reign before and takes away the Kings Negative voice as to those particulars To pass by other instances for I am quite weary of raking in such a stinking Dunghil these are enough to manifest what kind of creatures Presbyterians were in point of loyalty when they had power in their hands to be impunè disloyal and how willing to subvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom since by vertue of these propositions which they had the imperious confidence to tender to his sacred Majesty in that deplorable condition to which they had reduced him they denuded him of his Royal power and vested themselves with all the considerable parts of Soveraignty and when they had thus subverted the Fundamental Constitution of the English Monarchy and had pass'd that Vote which this Author mentions touching the Kings Concessions and were thereupon deprived by the Army of that power of imposing on his Majesty and the Kingdom which they had so Tyrannically abused these secluded and imprisoned Members wrote a Vindication of themselves from the Aspersions cast upon them by the Army in one passage of which Vindication p. 8 9. they give us reason enough to suspect that if their own prosperity had continued they would yet more unworthily have insulted over his Majesty and have taken such a cruel advantage of those great infelicities into which themselves had cast him as to tender and extort from him some more diminutions if possible of that little power and no greatness which the former had left him for say they by this Vote viz. that the Kings Concessions were a ground sufficient for the House to proceed upon to settle the Nation the House did not determine as we conceive the having no farther Treaty with his Majesty before a concluding and declaring of peace nor were the Houses so bound up thereby that they could not propose any thing farther wherein the Kings Answers were defective or from making any new Propositions for the better healing our breaches or more safe binding up a just and righteous peace It seems then those Lords and Commons had some more such signal testimonies in pickle of their Presbyterian loyalty some more demonstrations that when they took and imposed the Covenant they had no thoughts and intentions to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness It seems they had some clearer explications in their Budget of their meaning in those words in the preface to the Covenant Having before our eyes the honour and happiness of the Kings Majesties person and his posterity which words interpreted by their actions must signifie that they had it before their eyes only as a mark to shoot at But God deliver us for the time to come from the Presbyterian reserves of such a disloyal and corrupt majority wherein they abundantly manifested how tractable Scholars they were to Scotch Teachers and how able and willing to imitate yea transcend that ungodly pattern which they had set them who when the King had before granted them more than was fit for such persons to receive had the insolent confidence to ask moreover such things as 't was not fit for the King to give And thus the English Presbyterians by enlarging their desires as Hell fill'd up the measure of that Scorch iniquity which he that runs may read in his late Majesties large Declaration of the Tumults in Scotland printed Ann. 1638. Our Author proceeds thus In those times the Presbyterian Ministers of London in their publick Vindication thus declare themselves We profess before God Angels and Men that we verily believe that that which is so much feared to be now in agitation the taking away the life of the King in this present way of Trial is not only not agreeable to the word of God the principles of the Protestant Religion never yet stain'd with the least drop of the bloud of a King or the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom but contrary to them as also to the Oath of Allegiance the Protestation of May 5. 1641. and the Solemn League and Covenant from all which or any of which Engagements we know not any Power on Earth able to absolve us or others To which I answer 1. Though the Presbyterian Ministers of London were granted not guilty of the death of the King yet they might be guilty of disobedience and rebellion against him which was the objection p. 48. 58. to which objection therefore this Apology is impertinent 2. Nor is the Apology at all satisfactory as to the taking away of the Kings life in some other way of Trial it being designed only against that present way of Trial for 't is only with that limiting specification that they vindicate themselves for they say that the taking away the Kings life in this present way of Trial is not agreeable to the word of God c. Whence all that I can conclude in reason is that they did not imagine it agreeable to the word of God or the principles of the Protestant Religion or the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom or the Oath of Allegiance Protestation Covenant to take away his life in that way of Trial viz. by that High Court of Justice set up by the Independent party but notwithstanding this they might deem it consistent with the word of God and the principles of the Protestant Religion c. to take away his life in a way of Trial appointed and modelled by the corrupt majority of the two Houses the Presbyterian Lords and Commons And if the Author of Clerico-Classicum deceive us not p. 35. of his Answer to the London-Ministers letter to the General and Council of War Jan. 18. 1648. Mr. Pryn allows of a capital proceeding against Emperors Kings and Princes in his Appendix to the fourth part of his Soveraign power of Parliaments p. 190. ad 194. It I am not deceived also a man called Mr. Christopher Love who I think deem'd himself a Minister of Jesus Christ I am sure he was a Presbyterian Minister of London did in a thing called a Sermon at Vxbridge Treaty justifie yea urge the taking away of the Kings life in as bad a way of Tryal for in that Sermon having spoken of the bloud-guiltiness of the King yea intimated unnaturalhorrible-bloud-guiltiness in him and thereby made him the troubler of England as Achan was of Israel he hath these words p. 32. 'T was the Lord that troubled Achan because he troubled Israel Oh that in this our State-Physicians would resemble God to cut off those from the Land who have distempered it melius est ut pereat unus quà m unitas Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est but yet more plain p. 37. men who lye under the guilt of much innocent blood are not meet persons to be at peace with till all the
chief Rulers only but also to the whole body of the people and to every member of the same as occasion vocation and ability shall serve to revenge the injury done against God That the people are bound by Oath to God to revenge to the utmost of their power the injury done against his Majesty That if Princes be Tyrants against God and his Truth their Subjects are freed from their Oath of obedience And out of Bucanan these That the people may arraign the Prince bestow the Crown at their pleasure that the Ministery may excommunicate him that an excommunicate person is not worthy to enjoy any life on earth that it were good that rewards were appointed by the people for such as should kill Tyrants And Ch. 5. To this objection God places Tyrants sometimes for the punishment of his people this answer given by the Reverend Bucanan so doth he private men sometimes to Kill them And this new Divinity says the Bishop of dealing thus with Kings and Princes is not held only by Knox and Bucanan but generally for ought I can learn by most of the Consistorians of chief name beyond the Seas who being of the Geneva humour do endeavour by most unjust and disloyal means to subject to their forged Presbyteries the Scepters and Swords of Kings and Princes as Calvin Beza Hottoman Ursin as he cometh out from Newstadt vindiciae contra Tyrannos Eusebius Philadelphus c. These also B. 2. Ch. 1. I find out of Goodman Evil Princes ought by the Law of God to be deposed and inferiour Magistrates ought chiefly to do it It is lawful to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants when Magistrates cease to do their duties in thus deposing or killing Princes the people are as it were without officers and then God gives the sword into their hands and he himself is become immediately their Head for to the multitude a portion of the Sword of Justice is committed And out of him and a Book of Obedience these If neither the inferiour Magistrates nor the greatest part of the people will do their Offices in punishing deposing or killing of Princes then the Minister must excommunicate such a King any Minister may do it against the greatest Prince God will send to the rest of the people who are willing to do their duty but not able some Moses or Othoniel by the word of God a private man having some special inward motion may kill a Tyrant Or otherwise a private man may do so if he be commanded or permitted by the Commonwealth Now if some inferiour Magistrate a handful of the people yea one man may kill a Tyrant an evil Prince one that refuses to reform Religion this implyes that the same person or persons may be a Judge or Judges whether such or such a King be a Tyrant an evil Prince a refuser to reform and consequently one that deserves death or no. Upon such wicked principles as these dictated and taught by Presbyterian Oracles in conjunction with this minor that the late King was a person so criminal as to deserve death which they that ordered his Trial took upon them to be Judges of as they might well by these now mentioned principles horrid Regicide was pathetically recommended to his Auditors at Vxbridge-Treaty by Mr. Christopher Love a Presbyterian Minister of London and long after that perpetrated by Order of a part of the people some Commons and the High Court of Justice who adjudged the King to be thus criminous and apologiz'd for by John Price Citizen of London in his Clerico-Classicum as an Act agreeable enough to the declared judgment of many protestant he means Presbyterian Divines in testimony whereof he quotes several passages out of Presbyterian Authors p. 32. to 35. which pamphlet if the Title-page deceive us not may serve as a brief answer to that Vindication of the London Ministers here spoken of And indeed 't is a discourse so abounding with strong and rational Arguments ad homines that I doubt 't is beyond the skill of a Presbyterian to give a solid and satisfactory reply to it From all which it follows that either the presbyterian Ministers of London must damn the now mentioned Principles and Tenents of those their presbyterian Ancestors and their own opinions also at the Vxbridge-Treaty if they were the same with Mr. Love's one of their Tribe or else they must justifie this inference That the taking away the life of the King in that then present way of Trial was rather a duty than a crime Which though it be a wretched and Traiterous conclusion yet is very regularly deducible from those principles And I appeal to any intelligent and ingenuous persons and desire them to tell me whether the murderers of the late King did infer that bloudy Corollary from any more treasonable and rebellious Theorems and Consectaries than these which I have now produced and whether Independents did not in justifying that horrid Fact write exactly after those Copies which Presbyterians both ancient and modern had set them And hence I think I may reasonably affirm that those principles of the Protestant Religion which are contrary to King-killing are no otherwise owned by such Presbyterians as I have now spoken of than as most Presbyterians say that Papists own some Articles of our Faith viz. damnably because they hold together with them other principles which consequentially overthrow those Articles And therefore 't was but a vanity in the London Ministers to vindicate themselves by speaking of those principles as opposite to that way of Trial a greater folly was it to produce the solemn League and Covenant which in the third Article talks so loosely and crudely of defending the Kings person and Authority that Presbyterians might without offering any violence to the words plunder him of all his Authority and both they and the Independents take away his life notwithstanding that Article whensoever they should think fit to determine that the true Religion and Libertie of the Kingdoms could not be defended and preserved unless the Kings person and Authority were destroyed But in the fourth Article there 's as clear and smooth a way opened to the commission of that heinous sin as the most forward Actors in it needed to desire for there the Covenanters are bound with all faithfulness to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Incendiaries Malignants evil Instruments that they may be brought to publick Trial and receive condign punishment not only as the degree of their offences required or deserved but also as the Supreme Judicatories whether de facto or de jure we are not certified of both Kingdoms respectively or others having power from them for that effect should judge convenient So that since the men who ordered the Trial of the King were at that time de facto the supreme Judicatory of England and since they look'd upon him as an Incendiary and evil Instrument and therefore to be brought to publick Trial and the
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