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
1. Their suppressing Lectures and Afternoon Sermons which is nothing to the purpose unless he had proved also that these are of Divine Institution or are necessary means of unfeigned Faith and holy Life 2. A book for sports and pastimes on Sundays enjoyn'd to be read by Ministers in their Parish Churches under penalty of deprivation What so as to exclude either Common-Prayer and preaching in the Morning or Divine Service and Catechizing in the Afternoon or so as to licence the absence of any Parishioner from that service either part of the day 3. Superstitious Innovations introduc'd Si accusâsse suffecerit quis erit innocens 4. A new Book of Canons composed and a new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy inforc'd By whom were not this Oath and those Canons composed in Convocation by our Church-Governours were they not confirmed and imposed by the Royal Assent And why I pray was the new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy establish'd by Law more superstitious than the newer Oath for destroying that Hierarchy so established Far be it from me says he p. 32. 42. to impute these things to all that were in judgment Episcopal for I am perswaded a great if not the greater part of them disallowed these Innovations These Innovations what Innovations The word must in reason refer to the particulars just now enumerated viz. The new Book of Canons the new Oath the Book for sports and pastimes on Sundays But are these men in justice and Reason of State to be protected and encouraged who dare to call new Laws either of State or Church or both occasioned by new emergencies Innovations or new practices superstitious meerly because not commanded in Gods word Now these things are so far from being a proof of the inconsistency of Prelacy with the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel with the upholding of all Divine Institutions a laborious and efficacious Ministry c. that the contrary is evident from the instance of the Right Reverend Bishop Morton whom this very Author I believe hath scarce confidence enough to accuse as a Delinquent in those particulars since p. 67. 77. he reckons Bishop Morton in the number of those Episcopal Divines whose Doctrine is entirely embrac'd by the Presbyterians Who yet did not only approve of but had the chief hand in contriving and publishing that Declaration which allowed some Sports and Pastimes as that which was then the most probable course to stop the current of Popery and profaneness as appears from the story of that Bishop's life publish'd by Dr. Barwick p. 80 81. So 't is evident also from the Augustan Confession c. 7. De Potest Ecclesiasticâ and Mr. Calvin's Institutions that both he and the Lutheran Reformers were far enough from thinking the Lords day of Divine Institution who yet were for a lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel and a laborious efficacious ministry In some following Pages the Author pretends to manifest that the Presbyterian Interest will never be extinguished while the State of England continues Protestant For says he p. 34. 44. let but the Protestant Doctrine as 't is by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd and 't will raise up a genuine off-spring of this people whose way is no other than the life and power of that Doctrine But I as confidently affirm on the other side that if the Protestant Doctrine by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd 't will raise up such a genuine off-spring of true English Protestants as shall own Prelacy and the Churches Authority in appointing Ceremonies both which are establisht by that Doctrine but rejected by Presbyterians If their way be no other than the life and power of that Doctrine they act suitably to these Principles viz. That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith Artic. 20. That whosoever through his private Judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God and be ordained and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly that others may fear to do the like as he that offends against the Common Order of the Church and hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren Every particular or National Church hath authority to ordain change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying Artic. 34. They practically own the Kings power within his Realms of England Scotland and Ireland and all other his Dominions and Countries as the highest power under God to whom all men as well inhabitants as born within the same do by Gods Laws owe most loyalty and obedience afore and above all other Potentates in Earth They act as if they believed his Majesty to have the same Authority in causes Ecclesiastical that the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church They use the Form of Gods worship in the Church of England establisht by Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments without surmising it to be either corrupt superstitious or unlawful or to contain any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures They are obedient to the Government of the Church of England by Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons and the rest that bear office in the same not fancying it to be either Antichristian or repugnant to the word of God They do not combine themselves together in a new brotherhood accounting the Christians who are conformable to the Doctrine Government Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England to be profane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Christian Profession They imagine not 1. that any of the 39. Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or 2. that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law establisht are wicked Antichristian or superstitious or such as being commanded by lawful Authority men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them or as occasion requires subscribe to them or 3. that the sign of the Cross used in Baptism is any part of the substance of that Sacrament They hold that things of themselves indifferent do in some sort alter their natures when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magistrate and may not be omitted at every mans pleasure contrary to the Law when they be commanded nor used when they are prohibited These are parts of the Doctrine establisht by Law in the Church of England as is evident from the 1 2 4 7 9 5 6 30. Canons legally framed and ratified But where are those English Presbyterians to be found whose way hath been no other than the life and power of this Doctrine Have not their practises too loudly proclaimed to the world that they have
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.
Divine Law and moreover that by an Oath imposed by a Lawful Magistrate that which before was free and indifferent is made necessary to the takers p. 65. S. 19. and that the obligation of an Oath thus imposed results from Divine Institution p. 62. S. 11. from God's Law p. 64. Sect. 13. By which Concessions they do not only condemn all those Nonconformists who refused compliance with Episcopal Impositions because forsooth their Christian Liberty in things left indifferent by God ought not to be prejudiced and restrained by man but also they overthrow 1. that principle That nothing is a duty especially in Gods worship which is not commanded by God and 2. that principle that no part of worship is lawful which is not commanded of God and yet both these principles are owned by Presbyterians if this Author deceive us not p. 88. 98. where he tells us they hold that Scripture only is the Rule of instituted worship wherein both addition and diminution is alike forbidden and p. 84 85. that whatsoever instituted worship is not ordained of God is unlawful whence it sollows that men ought not to swear or Covenant for or against any thing that 's left indifferent in the Divine Law not for any thing which God's word commands not nor against any thing which it does not forbid For so to do is to worship God by taking such an Oath and entring into such a Covenant as is not ordained by him but is only of humane Institution and determination Now the Solemn League and Covenant was not either instituted or imposed by God in his Law either of Nature or Scripture even by their own confession who on Saturday Aug. 5. 1648. affirmed in the House of Commons that the Covenant it self was not jure Divino though the keeping of it being taken was Hist of Independ 1 Part p. 125 126. but only by men and 't is acknowledged by those pleaders to have been a Vow only freely and voluntarily entred into and not by vertue of any Divine command in the first takers and imposers and therefore since 't is owned also as a sacred religious Act of worship 't was in them and others not only a piece of Schism against the Church of England and of Sedition against the King and Laws of England but also a solemn piece of superstition will-worship as that signifies in their own dialect a worshipping God in such a manner as himself hath not prescribed in his Word and therefore on the score of Presbyterian principles an Act of high and hainous disobedience to the Law of God and therefore their taking an Oath thus imposed was to violate their principles for the advancement of their Interest and yet these are the men that are so fixt and constant as none more Besides this Author tells us p. 85. that Presbyterians hold that that Ceremony which is instituted by men not by God which is of mystical signification and though it may naturally yet does not actually signifie without humane institution and is by men appropriate to Divine worship is upon that account a part of Divine worship and p. 88. 98. they hold that all such sacred Ceremonies not commanded by God are neither good nor lawful But say I this was the very case in the taking of the Covenant for the Ceremony with which the Covenanters did take it viz. lifting up the hand was appropriate to that Oath which they deemed a piece of religious worship It did not actually signifie that the Takers did swear either by Divine or Natural but by Humane Institution and that novel too the usual Ceremony of taking an Oath in this Nation before being tactis sacrosanctis Christi Evangeliis laying the hand upon and afterwards kissing the holy Evangels to which indeed that Covenant was so contrary that 't is no wonder the Covenant was so contrary that 't is no wonder the Ceremony was altered and exchanged for that of lifting up the hand which is not of Divine Institution or prescribed by God the Father in the Old Testament and much less by God the Son in the New whom yet Presbyterians hold to be the only Master of ordaining Ceremonies for the Christian Worship and some of them it seems are yet to learn that any examples oblige them but those of Christ and his Apostles and consequently no Old Testament examples Discourse of Liturgies p. 60. And that that Ceremony was of mystical signification I prove by that medium which this Author himself makes use of p. 87. 97. to prove the Cross in Baptism such a Ceremony viz. It is used as a sealing sign of our obligation to Christ and therefore it 's in that respect Sacramental so say I was the lifting up of the hand in the swearing the Covenant used as a sealing sign of the Covenanters obligation to God and Christ Although indeed and in truth by that Covenant sealed with that Ceremony they dedicated themselves to the disservice of him that died on the Cross to a real and practical defiance of Christ the King of his Church and his Vicegerent in this Nation King Charles Thus a Ceremony of humane Presbyterian institution for the ratification of a seditious Covenant ordained and imposed against Law by an illegal power for the satisfying of the Scotch appetite and promoting the Presbyterian Interest is a Camel easily and greedily swallowed by the capacious throat of a Presbyterian Covenanter who yet at the same time can either blindly or perversly strain at the Gnat of a Ceremony instituted by lawful Authority establisht and enjoyned by the Laws of the Land and Constitutions of the Church If I had some Books about me fit for such a purpose I believe I could add some sheets of pertinent instances to Bishop Bancroft's Collection in that 26. ch of his Survey of Presbyterian Levity in opinion and inconsistency with themselves and with others of their own Faction when self-interest prompted them to such variations I shall at this time mention only one proof more 'T is a repeated principle of the Covenanters in their Plea and their discourse of Liturgies that neither the Parliament nor any power under Heaven can discharge them from the obligation of an Oath This is good Doctrine it seems when applied to the Covenant and understood in a sence advantageous to Presbytery but when the Question was about the obligation of the Oath of Allegiance wherein they swore that they would defend his Majesty his Heirs and Successors to the uttermost of their power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which should be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any Sentence or Declaration of the Pope or otherwise and that they are in conscience resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve them of that Oath or any part of it I say when this was the Question then Presbyterian practises manisested that they accounted the contrary good Doctrine viz. that
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
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
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
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
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