The Case of our Affaires IN LAW RELIGION And other Circumstances briefly Examined and Presented to the CONSCIENCE Printed in the Yeare 1643. The Case of our Affaires in Law Religion and other Circumstances briefly examined c. THough the Bonds of all Dutie are originally and principally founded in God and tied by Religion yet seeing all civill Duties relate to the particularitie of the humane Ordinance and according to the nature of it is with more or lesse importance to be exacted What Subject soever would finde the true rule and bond of his obedience must in the first place look what the State is wherein he lives and in whom the Soveraignitie is to which his obedience and faith is inevitably bound Our State of England even by the declaration of our Lawes is a Kingdom an Empire a well regulated Monarchie the Head thereof a Supreme Head a Soveraigne a King whose Crown is an Imperiall Crown the Kingdom His Kingdom His Realme His Dominion the People His People the Subject His Subject not onely as they are single men but even when being in Parliament assembled they make the Bodie Representative of the whole Kingdom considered apart without the King so that the very Parliament it selfe is also by our Lawes called His Parliament the King alone by Law hath power to call together in Parliament that Representative Bodie and at His pleasure to dissolve it He personally hath Homage and Oath of fidelitie of all the Peeres as of His Barons and all the Commons in Parliament do by Law swear Alleageance to Him as to the Onely Supreme Governour and to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities belonging to Him His Heires and Successours or annexed to the Imperiall Crown of the Realme By the same Oath also is every Officer of considerable trust in Church and Common-wealth assured to His Majestie and not onely they but every single man of twelve yeares of age ought by Law in some or other of His Majesties Leetes to swear Alleageance to His Majestie and never in our Law have we known an Oath of obedience to be made unto the Parliament or any other Power in any case either of mis-government or danger how extraordinary soever This Soveraignitie in the King appeares not onely by that Oath of Supremacie but by the constant acknowledgement of our Acts of Parliament both antient and moderne which alwayes stile the King Our Soveraigne Lord the King that is not Soveraigne Lord to every single man onely as the Observer traiterously and foolishly would make it but the universalitie of us even to our Bodie Representative in Parliament For we must note that though we have among us many that are called Lords even by our Acts of Parliament themselves yet being Lords without relation to the communitie or publique they are never called Our Lords but The Lords with addition of such or such place or Office and they indeed are Lords singulis not universis for every particular man may call such a Lord My Lord but the Communitie may not call him Our Lord for to be Our Lord is to be Lord of the Communitie and that belongeth onely to Our Soveraigne Lord the King Our very Acts of Parliament declaring this State to be a right Imperiall Kingdom a Kingdom we know consisteth of no more than two formall parts onely that is to say a Soveraigne Head and a Subject Bodie and then it clearly followeth that what cooperation soever there be of any of the Members with the Head for the doing of any necessary Act of State whatsoever necessitie there be of the concurrence of those Members and howsoever they may seem to be Parties Orders or States co-equally authorised in the power of acting with the Head yet plainly there neither is nor can be any co-ordination nor co-equalitie of any Estate Order or Degree of the Subject with the Soveraigne nor any competition of the Subjects power in his concurrence with the virtuall and primary influence of the Soveraignes power but a plain subordination and subjected ministration of the one under the Soveraignitie of the other as in the further examination of their differing interests will manifestly appear We see the Soveraignitie of this State clearly vested in the King by Law established in Him and inseparably annexed to His Person by which He hath also inseparably both the Soveraigne power and Soveraigne judgement but as in judging and determining matters of private interest His power is not absolute but is restrained to judgement not judgement arbitrary in His owm Person but judgement to be administred by the proper sworne Judges of His Courts of Law so in matters of publique affaire for so much as concernes the making of Law His power and judgement are so restrained to the concurrence of the Nobles and Commons in Parliament as that He cannot make any settled Law without their consent but then in all other things that are not expresly restrained by any Law as in providing for the present safetie against suddain danger which Senates are so unapt to do as that the famous Roman Senate was ever fain to choose a Dictator to do it for them likewise in levying of Armes suppressing of tumults and rebellions convoaking of Parliaments and dissolving of them making of Peeres granting libertie of sending Burgesses to Parliament treating with Forraigne States making of War League and Peace granting safe conduct and protection indenizing giving of Honour rewarding pardoning coyning and the like in all these and divers other points of Regalitie the Soveraignitie both of judgement and power ever hath been and still is in the King alone freely and at his own discretion is secured to him by tâ—â— Oath of Supremacie whereby as aforesaid the vvhole Representative of Commons all Magistrates and men in place both in Church and Common-vvealth svvear To assist and defend all jurisdictions priviledges preheminences and authorities belonging to the Kings For it is plain that seeing that by the Lavv of God and Nations to be King is to be Supreme Judge and Lavv-giver vvhosoever is King is supreme in every thing vvherein he is not especially restrained and his restraint being by the peculiar Lavves of his Kingdome he can be no further restrained than the knovvn Lavves thereof expresly manifest The great restraint of regall absolutenesse in our State is in the tvvo points of declaring and making of Lavv in neither of vvhich doth the King depart vvith any vvhit of his Soveraignitie In the point declaring of Lavv the King is restrained ordinarily to the mediation of his Judges vvho to declare the Lavv by deliverie of the genuine sense and interpretation of Lavv according to to art and rules of science are in their respective Courts the proper and authorised Judges and Interpreters of Law and do by their interpretation and judgement then binde both the King and Subject Next above them upon errour supposed in their judgement the House of Lords who anciently were exercised
in the Lawes and learned in them and are assisted with all or most of the Judges of the Benches do upon Writs of Errour in Parliament revise and by the advice of the Judges affirme or reverse the Sentence of the next inferiour Courts where the judgement whither given for the King or for a common person may be reversed and as well the King as the common person bound by their reversall and judgement unlesse they be relieved by expresse Act of Parliament Other way of Declaring Law in true proprietie of speech that is to declare the genuine sense and dictate of the Law as it naturally ariseth from the force of Lawes in being there is none for as for declaring Law by Act of Parliament though that of all other be most authentique yet it is not authentique for acurate judgement in interpretation supposed to be in the two Houses there so much as for authoritie legislative administred by the three Orders of that high Court for should the three Orders declare Law contrary to what were Law indeed yet could not their Declaration be erroneous for that it thenceforth altered the Law and made their dictate Law though it were none before Such Declaration of Law therefore being never possible to be made but by the full legislative power of all the three Orders is not so properly a Declaring or interpreting of Law as rather the making of it and is therefore to be referred to the point of restraint in making of Law And this is clear that in such declaring of Law the Kings power is so much lesse restrained than it is by declaring of Law by their inferiour Courts as that in this he himselfe hath ever a personall Vote in the Declaration but in other he hath none at all As to the restraint of regall absolutenesse in point of making Law When our wise and pious Christian Princes had once brought the Kingdom to an happy frame of just and regular Government and sought by all meanes the establishment of that good condition which promised both prosperitie to their people and stabilitie to their own Dominion Change and Innovation being thenceforth more to be feared than any other thing They for preservation of what they had done began to yeild the absolutenesse of their power without which they could never have brought the State into any perfect frame unto some retardation of motion and regulation of power and came by degrees not onely to use the advice of the Bishops and Barons in making of their Lawes but their consents also and then not onely their advice and consents but the advice and consents of the Commons also condescending at last that as to the power of making Law their Scepter should thenceforth be locked up under the cautelous ward of a triple hand so as no new Act whatsoever should obtain the Authoritie of a positive Law without the agreement of the King the Peeres and the Commons to the end that no unadvised Law not well examined and found agreeing with the interests of every of the three formall parts of this Kingdom might in any part maime or enfeeble the established frame which yet did not so much coop up or curbe the regall power from any due worke or office that belongeth to it as rather close and fence it in within the bounds of safetie and of preservation Now this restraint being at first collaterall and accidentall to the Soveraigne power did not in the beginning otherwise binde our Princes than by their voluntary and pious submission of their wils till constant custome becomming a Law made that usage which was at first at their will become an absolute and inevitable limitation of their power so as that at this day no positive Law can now be made by the King without the consent of the Peeres and of the Commons and yet for all this necessitie now of their concurrence and consent not any part of the Soveraignitie to which the legislative power is inseperably incident is in any sort transferred or communicate unto them but as in our Copy hold Estates the Copy holder of a meer Tenant at Will comes by custome to gain a customary inheritance and so to limit and restrain the will and power of the Lord as that he cannot make any determination of the Copy-holders estate otherwise than according to the custome of the Mannour yet does not he deprive the Lord of his Lordship in the Copy hold nor participate with him in it neither yet devest the Fee and Frank-tenement out of the lord but they still remain in him and are ever parcell of the Lords Demeasne So in this restraining of the Kings legislative power to the concurrence of the Peeres and Commons though the custome of the Kingdom hath so fixed and settled the restraint as that now the King cannot in that point use his soveraigne power without the concurrence of the Peeres and Commons according to the custome of the Kingdom yet still the Soveraignitie and with it the inseperable legislative power does soly reside in the King As for the Peeres and Commons they being meerly Instruments of Regulation and qualification of the Kings legislative absolutenesse are no sharers with him in the Soveraignitie but alwayes remain as our very legislative Acts of Parliament do alwayes speak them His Majesties Subjects And His Majestie for all this restraining power of theirs remaines as they themselves in the legislative Acts and not without an Oath acknowledge Him their true and onely Soveraigne Apparantly therefore the Soveraignitie or regall power being thus in matters of private interest restrained to the rule jurisdiction and administration of Law as well by inferiour Courts as by the House of Lords and in the publique affaire of making Law restrained to the concurrence of the Peers and Commons is not so properly said to be restrained as regulated For neither is any of the Kings just and necessary power to the prejudice of the Crown taken from Him for the Law in no sort suffers any diminution of the just and due Soveraignitie neither is there any partenership of the Supremacie thereby thrust upon the King when the Law notwithstanding the restraint expresly declares Him The onely Supreme Governour Neither yet is any of the irregular and exorbitant absolutenesse which the Law separates from the regalitie any way transferred to the Courts or persons that are the instrumentals of the regulation but the Law separating all irregular licentiousnesse from the Regalitie utterly annihilates and makes null all practice and exercise thereof In summe all that is effected by this regulation is the King as He ever was so still remaines wholly and soly Soveraigne of the Kingdom onely not of a licentious and illegall but of a regular and legitimate Dominion But when the power and authoritie of Parliament is acknowledged to be the highest most absolute and most Soveraigne power in the Kingdom and seemes repugnant to that which we have alleadged that the Soveraignitie is wholly and
the most soveraigne Court because every compleat and perfect Act of it is the Act of the personall will and power of the Soveraigne himselfe Standing in His highest Estate Royall and through the concurrence of those that are the instrumentals of His restraint more freely and absolutely working there than in any other time and place he can do For as a man that yeildeth himselfe to be bound by keepers hath the use of his strength taken from him but none of the naturall strength it selfe much lesse any of it transferred to them that bound him but whensoever they loose his bonds he again workes and acts by virtue of his own naturall strength and not by any received from them So the naturall right and interest of the Soveraignitie being soly in the King and the Peeres and Commons being onely interessed in the Office of restraining for the regular working of true legitimate Soveraignitie in whatsoever the Peeres and Commons by consenting remit the restraint the King in that willeth and worketh absolutely by the power of his own inherent Soveraignitie And whatsoever Act of the Court so passeth the hands of all the three Orders does in truth virtually proceed from the King as from the true and proper efficient thereof which does not obscurely nor rarely appear in our Acts of Parliament but plainly and frequently throughout the whole Bodie of our ancient Lawes The King Willeth the King Commandeth the King Ordaineth Provideth Establisheth Granteth c. And yet though properly they be the Acts of the King in Parliament yet are they also truly the Acts of the whole high Court of Parliament because that every of the three Estates contribute their power according to the diversitie of their office and interest the two Houses by remitting through the consenting the restraint and the King by using his then unrestrained power We are also to consider that though this high Court of the three Orders be the supreme Judicatorie of the Kingdome yet it hath not that superioritie of judgement ascribed to it for any soveraigne facultie it hath in discerning the true dictate and result of Law no more than of any other particular Science as of Divinitie Philosophie Physicke Mathematiques c. for the judgement of Sciences belongeth to the professours thereof and the judgement of Law as well as of other Sciences But the high Court of Parliament is the supreme judge for the great trust the Law reposeth in the concurrence of all the three Orders who have meanes to have the best information of Law that the whole profession doth afford and are supposed to use it and likewise for the great power they have to binde all other judgement and to make their sentence Law though as we have said it were not Law before But we are further to observe that in the point of making of Law the Law restraining thus the Soveraigne power to the consent of the Peeres and Commons the more that by this regulation it purged it from destructive exorbitances the more tender it grew of the just and legitimate rights thereof remaining and therefore considering the person of the Soveraigne to be single and his power counterpoised by the opposed wisedome of the two numerous Bodies of the two Houses it allowed unto the King power to sweare unto himselfe a Bodie of Councell of State which our Lawes sometime call His Grand Councell and to sweare unto him also Counsellours at Law even the Judges themselves and others learned in the Law faithfully to advise him in his Government that he may neither do nor receive wrong especially not in Parliament where the wrong may be perpetuall And if upon a generall pretence of evill counsell without any instance in what his Majestie be deprived of the use and assistance of and assistance of any of his sworne Counsell especially in Parliament time when the Soveraignitie may be so easily overmatched it will make such a breach of the priviledge of the first of the three Orders in Parliament as will destroy the true frame of Parliaments diminish the power of the Crown and bring the settled estate of the Kingdome into the calamitous innovation of an unsettled and ever changing Forme of Government and so into all manner of miserie and confusion The Soveraignitie in the King alone is so clearly acknowledged by our Law as that unlesse we would reiect the iudgement and recognition of all our Parliament and especially of all our most sincere and unquestioned Parliaments all the time of Queen Elizabeth and ever since all which do not onely affirme but sweare it it would be idle to go about to make praise of it But when the incredible perversenesse of some and in particular of him that writes The treacherie and disloyaltie of Papists c. does not onely affirme the contrary but would pretend to prove it It cannot be a digression in a word or two to give some answer to his reasonings I shall passe over Minshaw's Dictionarie Speed Stowe Vowell Foxe and others whose authoritie he is not ashamed to cite for determining matter in Law and which if indeed it were a question were of the greatest consequence that ever was stirred in Law And because he so much insists upon Bracton I shall briefly examine Bracton and the Authours integritie in citing him and others And first that all men may know how little authoritie in Law Bracton either now hath or anciently hath had Our yeare-bookes tell us that in the 35. H. 6. It was declared by the whole Court that Bracton was never held an Authour in our Law and then it is not materiall what is the opinion of one that is of no authoritie But if he were yet those words in Bracton so much insisted on Rex habet superiorem Deum Legem item Curiam suam c. are not indeed Bractons assertion For Bracton speaking of the Kings Deeds and Charters and affirming which we would be loath should be Law at this day that Neither the Iustices nor private men may dispute the Kings Deed but that if there be doubt of his Deed or Charter the resolution must come from the Kings own interpretation and will c. Then goes he on thus But some may say saith he that the King may do justice and well and if so he may by the same reason do ill and so put a necessitie upon him that he mend the injurie least both King and Iustices fall into the judgement of the living God for the injurie The King hath a Superiour to wit God also the Law by which he is made King also His Court to wit the Earles and Barons c. Now whosoever considers the place it is all a reasoning which Bracton supposes some other to make and no affirmation of his own and that is also plain by his words in another place where speaking of the King If Iustice saith he be demanded of him seing no Writ lies against him one must petition that
of the soveraigne power of the Peeres and Commons indeed in both there were much what the same pretences and both had much what the same warrant But all those Parliaments as they were called in the troublesome Times of Faction and Civill War so were they ever swayed by those that were the Heads of the most potent Faction and while they alwayes acted in favour of them and their Designe they are so farre from being instances of the power and authoritie of the two Houses as that cleane contrary they are plain instances of the weaknesse and unsteadinesse of them when forsaking the moderation and guidance of their naturall Head they suffered themselves to be lead by the private conduct of every popular pretender and so even among the precedents which he citeth we see that when Canutus prevailed by his Armes he could have a Parliament resolve that his Title was the best When Hen. 4. had an Armie of 60000. he could have a Parliament depose R. 2. and conferre the Crown upon himselfe When Edw. Duke of Yorke grew potent he could have a Parliament be the instrument of determining the Raigne of H. 6. and leave him onely the name of King for his life but give the Duke the very Kingdom under the names of Protectour and Regent Edw. 4. could by Parliament procure H 4. H. 5. H. 6. to be declared Kings in fact but not in right R. 3. though an Usurper could procure a Parliament to declare him a lawfull King Henry 7. could procure the forementioned Acts in favour of Edw. 4. R. 3. to be adnulled Hen. 8. could have a Parliament authorise his Divorces And Queen Elizab. could by Parliament make it High Treason to say that the Queen could not by Act of Parliament binde and dispose the rights and Titles which any person whatsoever might have to the Crown when yet we know that no Act of Parliament no not an Attainder by Parliament can disable the right Heire to the Crown because the descent of the Crown upon Him purges all disabilities whatsoever and makes Him capable of it This is the summe and true estimate of all the Authorities which he cites in which if the Acts could be granted to be the meer Acts of the two Houses yet did they no more prove the soveraigne power to be in the two Houses than the Popes deposing of Kings proves the right of deposing them to be in him that the things were done is no proofe that they were lawfully done and yet as idle and vile a collection of examples not to be imitated as he hath made he is fain to belie them to makem seem to serve his turne for truly though he affirmes that the popish Parliaments c challenged or claimed greater jurisdiction over Kings than any ever since yet his instances prove no more claime of Soveraignitie than a robber claimes when he exercises an arbitrary power over a mans person and fortunes what they did they did de facto upon some inferiour reasons not upon claime of the Soveraignitie they neither taught nor ever learn'd that Jesuitique depth of Sathan that the Soveraignitie over the Soveraigne is placed in the Bodie Representative of the Subject All claime therefore of either the Soveraignitie it selfe or of the rights thereof by any Representative of the Subject is a transcendent impietie beyond the parallell of all his unimitable examples in which I cannot but the more wonder that he should ascribe the Acts unto the two Houses when by making the Acts theirs he makes all the long miserie and bloodshed that ensued upon those Acts to have been brought upon the Land by the meer Act of the two Houses Considering therefore the every way faulty Argument of that Book both in citing and applying I am forced to conclude with the same words that in the frontispice of his Book he begins with The treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously yea the treacherous dealers have dealt exceeding treacherously As for the second part of the same Author that came since forth under a title that pretends to shew the lawfulnes of a defensive war that answers it selfe that it comes nothing to the case in question where the War is acknowledged to be an Invasive War to take from His Majestie certain Counsellours pretended to be evil Counsellours If possibly therefore he should prove what he undertakes to maintain that Subjects may make a Defensive War against their Soveraigne yet being nothing to our case deserves at all no answer here I therefore returne again unto my purpose That the Soveraignitie with all the rights claimed by His Majestie is in the King inseparably inherent in the person of His Majestie we have not onely the forementioned testimonies and reasons but we have the witnesse of the two Houses themselves for whom our deceiving Pamphlets do now make all the new arguments of pretence For first we have as I have said the whole current and bodie of our very Acts of Parliament acknowledging it in these very termes Our Soveraigne Lord the King We have the Parliament 25. H. 8 declaring thus This Your Graces Realme recognizing no Superiour under God but Your Grace The Parliament 16. R. 2.5 affirming The Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately to God in all things touching the regalitie of the said Crown and to none other In the 25. H. 5. both Houses declare That it belongeth to the Kings regalitie to grant or denie what petitions in Parliament he pleaseth In the 15. E. 3. The King being unwillingly drawn to consent to certain Articles prejudiciall to the Crown and to promise to seale the Statute thereupon made least otherwise his affaires in hand might have been ruinated Another Statute the same year reciting the matter enacted in these words It seemed to the said Earles Barons and otherwise men that since the Statute did not of Our free will proceed the same be void and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Statute and therefore by their counsaile and assent We have decreed the said Statute to be void c. In the Statute of Banishment of H. Spencer the first Article against him is for making a Bill wherein he affirmed Homage and alleageance to the King is more by reason of their own than of the person of the King The word hath a note of a Parliament roll Diarie of H. 4. The Commons in Parliament pray the King that They may not be made parties to any judgement in Parliament but where in rei veritate they are parties for that the judgement belongs onely to the King except where it is given by Statute As for the Militia the Shippes and Forts of the Kingdom The King and His Predecessours have not onely been ever in possession of them commanded and disposed of them even during the sitting of Parliaments but have enjoyed that possession
he would correct and amend what he had done Which if he do not it is sufficient for his punishment that he must expect God to be the Avenger of it Not a word of the Courts avenging or rectifying of the iniurie or of their enforcing the King to do it himselfe Again speaking of Earles though with little iudgement he would seem to derive their Office from the Etymologie of the Latine name Comes which was but a late borrowed translation brought in use by the Conquerour and would so make them a kinde of Companions with the King yet does he not make them Companions thrust upon the King by Law but the Kings saith he do associate such to themselves for advice and government Every one truly is under him and he under none but God and he hath no Peer in his Kingdom for then he should loose the Command when as one Peer hath no command over another much lesse hath any one command over his superiour for so he should be inferiour to his own Subjects and the King ought not to be under man but under God and the Law now these words of Bracton tell us that the other are neither his assertion nor approbation And whereas by those words of Bracton that The King ought to be under the Law he would inferre a direct Soveraignitie over the King he very much corrupts the meaning of Bracton for it is one thing to be subiect to Law and to the administration of Law and another thing to be a Subiect to those that have the administration of Law as to his Soveraignes Our Saviour Christ was subiect to the Law and to the administration of the Law in the hands of them that were the Ministers of it yet was not Christ the Subject of those Ministers nor they his Soveraignes but contrary he theirs he being Borne King of the Iewes And Bracton's reason that the King must be under the Law is because he is Christs Vicar on earth And Christ himselfe was under the Law so as plainly Bracton meanes not the King otherwise under the Law then as our Saviour Christ was who did subject himselfe to the just execution of the positive Lawes of the Kingdom of which he himselfe was the Head and Fountain not that he should be subject to the administration of any arbitrary Law residing in the people who should in the last resort be Soveraignes over their own King for that was not sutable to one that should be Vicar of Christ but to a Vicar of the people Neither is the King more subject to any judgement that can be given in Parliament than He is to judgements given in inferiour Courts to which if you will say the Parliament is superiour to those Courts and the superioritie that is but subordinately in them is soveraignely in the Parliament truly the superioritie if it may so be call'd that is subordinately in the inferiour Courts is but more superiourly in the House of Lords than them but it is not soveraignely neither in the Lords House nor any other part of Parliament till we come to the judgement of all the three Estates where the Kings will is the efficient formall of the Law and there you may see that the Vicar of Christ the King like Christ His Lord whom He representeth in being subject to the Law of which He is Soveraigne becomes at last subject to none but Himselfe for that high Court of Parliament speaketh not without Him But ere we give over his citation of Bracton we must not forget his unfaithfull application of it For as for those words The King hath a superior that is to say God also the Law also His Court to wit the Earles and Barons He would not onely have them Bracton's words and have them understood to carry Soveraignitie over the King but would have that Soveraignitie placed in the two Houses when as Bracton expresly expounds that the Court which he meanes is the Earles and Barons that is to say the House of Lords onely and not the Commons too plainly shewing that he meanes no other superioritie than such as is incident to the regular course of Justice in the way of legall suit and processe which in that course never goes further than the House of Lords there is no forme of prosecution in that kinde in the two Houses and therefore neither Soveraignitie nor Superioritie in that kinde can be ascribed to them Neither may we passe over his falshood and shuffling to extenuate the Oath of Supremacie that securitie may make men swallow their perjurie and never know it for though it be true that the Oath was pricipally intended against Papacie because the Papacie was the first that ever pretended Soveraignitie over Kings and the clause of renouncing runnes against Forraigne powers onely as those that then were onely feared to be pretenders under the Papacie yet the recognition it selfe that The King is the onely Supreme Governour And the Oath it selfe to beare faith and true Alleageance to the King His Heires and Successours and to assist and defend all jurisdictions priviledges preheminences and authoritie belonging to them c. are clearly generall absolute and unrestrained to any particularitie of Papacie Forraigners or any thing else whatsoever But to come to that that is the maine Authoritie scope and drift of his book and which he would by all meanes inculcate though but under the shew of telling what popish Parliaments have done lest otherwise his horrible intention might appear he brings us precedents that the two Houses of Parliament have upon all occasion soveraignely disposed of the Crown and of all the rights that do belong unto it and that even our Kings themselves have submitted their soveraigne rights to the determination of the two Houses Good God! How Evill men and Seducers wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived He that writ the Observations upon His Maiesties Answers and Expresses had so much ingenuitie left him as to acknowledge that There was never King deposed by any Parliament lawfully assembled and that the Acts of the Parliament R. 2. were not so properly the Acts of the two Houses as of H. 4. and His victorious Armie But this man being not ashamed to licke up what his fellow vomited out presents the world with a cull of all the irregular times of our unfortunate Princes in which by the consent of all men the Acts of neither side are to be drawn into example and bring us for judiciall Authorities the horrid facts of irregular power in the Times of King Iohn R. 2. H. 4. H 6. c. And is so supine in his purpose that with the factious Parliaments in the Times of H. 3. E 2. and R. 2. which he cites to have exercised authoritie over Kings he stickes not to couple the Rebellions in the North against H. 4. and the rebellious Insurrections of Iacke Cade Iacke Straw Wat Tyler Doctour Mackerell Ket and others as Acts that made equall proofe
those that sent them And then the remainder of the Peeres and Commons which are scarce a fourth part of them call themselves the Parliament and all the known rights of Soveraignitie does this Epitome of Parliament assume unto themselves and exercise yea the House of Commons alone notwithstanding their Protestation to God for the Defence of the Lawes and Libertie of the Subject by warrant under their Speakers hand beyond all Law and example imprison Subjects that were never Members of their House and deny them their Habeas Corpus And not onely invade the Libertie of the Commons but presse upon the House of Lords the voting of things which in a full House they had before upon mature advice orderly rejected They seconded a tumultuous Petition that demanded the names of the Lords that had dissented from the Commons House though the dissenters were the major part of the House of Lords This Epitome of Parliament hath taught that which never Parliament knew before That their Members may not without the Order of their House be restrained no not for Treason And professing tender care of the Kings Honour and safetie hath authorised Bookes wherein His Soveraignitie is made subject to the Representative of His Subiects and wherein the deposing of our English Kings by their Subiects is declared warrantable and upon the authoritie and warrant of this Parliament must the poor Christian Subiect that is under their power against his Conscience act and give aide to the Armie which against the Kings expresse Command and Proclamations they have levied when though conscious horrour and shame will not suffer it to be acknowledged to be raised against the King yet are their Souldiers sure they shall meet with no other opposite than with their rightfull Soveraigne and His Followers arming for the safetie of His Person for defence of the iust rights of the Crown for the due Priviledges of the first of the three Orders of Parliament and for the necessary power wherewith He is to protect Religion Lawes and Subiects of His Kingdom Who that makes conscience of what he does as one that must make account for it before the great Tribunal where a little integritie though now despised and a little innocence of cause shall bring one more support than either King on the one side or Parliament on the other or Armie on either side who I say thereof mindfull can against the thousand witnesses of his conscience recede from the dutie which all his life till now hath both by Law and Christian Religion been inculcate to him and reiecting all cast himselfe soule bodie and fortunes wholly upon the new-found warrant of strangely conditioned apparition of Parliament These and other particulars that may be instanced in take off the confidence and repose that one would otherwise have in the two Houses especially when they setting on foot claimes and pretences not agreeing with the dutie that men from their youth have found their consciences ever bound unto go not the faire and open way of satisfaction to have in so high concernments the Parliament Rolls as freely and fully searched on the Kings behalfe as on the Parliaments and to have their new and strange learning as freely argued by the Kings Councell and by the Judges as by the instruments of the Parliament but as the Papacie in invading the Soveraignitie of the Church Voted her selfe into the Supremacie and then suppressed all examination of the Truth by damning all Writings to the contrary and branding the Authours and users of them with the name of Heretickes So we invading the Soveraignitie of our own State Vote our selves into it brand with the name of Malignants all that concurre not with us in it interdict them the freedome of search and discoverie of the Truth and damne their Writings as scandalous and seditious Pamphlets and so making them Vote-convicted State Heretickes We thenceforth hold no Faith nor Truth to be kept toward them but prosecute them as Enemies to the State for no other offence but because we have made them Malignants popishly affected dissolute desperate blood-sucking Cavaliers and plunderers Yet truly if we consider the qualitie of them that adhere unto His Maiestie and to His Cause do now lie under that censure we shall finde them the flower and greater part of our Nobilitie and Gentrie of the Kingdome the greater part of His Majesties Honourable Privie Counsell yea and of His Great Councell too even of the Peeres and Commons the chiefe of the Judges and with them the opinion of the residue even of that whole Profession the spirits and prayers of the farre greatest part of the Clergie and the hearts of the greater part of the most substantiall men of the Commonaltie whose soule and conscience presented with the consideration of these things would not shrinke with inward horrour to thinke he should either attempt or give aide to the cutting off not like David of a lap of his Soveraignes ordinary garment but of this lively apparrell-politique of his Soveraigne wherewith for safetie as well as ornament His Majestie is now begirt nay to cut off the very limbes of his Civill bodie and not without eminent danger to His Sacred Person how loud and frightfull would the spirit of David crie in the eares of his guilty conscience The Lord forbid I should do this thing to lift up my hand against the Lords Anointed O but Religion is now at stake and it is not to be believed that popishly affected Counsellours and Commanders with the helpe of a popish Armie should so much forsake their own ends as to fight for Establishment of the true Protestant Religion truly it is sincerely confessed it is not likely and therefore I shall never believe that the Designe of Reforming our Religion by the hands of Brownists Anabaptists and Sectaries which by a constant and credible report is believed to have been so much fostered and advanced by the Cardinall Richelieu and the late French Embassadour as that Chambers the Cardinals Secretarie was on purpose sent into the Scotish Armie here in England was ever with intent of Establishing the true Protestant Religion or that for the Protestant Religions sake the death of the Cardinall was by some of our active Parliament men in our hearing lamented as of a great friend of the Parliament or that the great correspondence and intercourse observed to be between the late French Embassadour and Master Pym was for the advancement of the Protestant Religion But where is any popish Armie under the conduct of popish Commanders that according to the Designe of popish Counsellours is likely to oppresse the Protestants and advance Poperie Certainly both his Maiestie and his Protestant Followers are well assured that not any part of the Warre is managed by the Designe of persons that are so affected but who knowes not the ground of calumnie The King must either denie his Subiects that are Papists the protection of his Armie and refuse their aide and service or