read that the Prophets ever exhorted the People to such attempts But no remedy â—here is men must be undone unlessâ— they will swear with hands lifted up to Heaven this matter of fact though they do not know it to be so nay though they know it not to be so and which is prodigiously strange One of the first arguâ—ents that commended it to the world is a direct contraâ—iction to this assertion when the Covenant with a Narrative tells us that there never was such a Thing seen in the world before It might be observed that Errour is far incorporated with her Tenents that what is true in it self is false when they speak it as almost the very first word All living under one King according to the Declaration of May 26. 1642. and the â—octrine that â—ustified the War from being Treason though against the King beâ—ause he was not King in his Personall but Politique capacity i. e. the two Houses to war against whom by that law was Treason according to this I say we have three Kings in as much as we have three Parliaments in the three Nations and in my weak judgment appointing all Officers Declaring who are Offenders and uncapable of mercy resolving to reform Church and State according to their own modell against the Kings expresse Will and Command are no great evidences of living under him The first Article is To endeavour the preservation of the Religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Discipline c. The Reformation in England Ireland according to the word of God the best example of the best Reformed Churches and to endeavour to bring the three Kingdomes to uniformity in Church Government c. By those words according to the word of God They use to mean prescribed in it upon which where do you finde such or such a Ceremony was the common Question But so the forms of worship in Scotland used in Marriage Burial Preaching Discipline by Classes Assemblies higher and lower are not so well known in England muchlesse so clear in the word of God that every Artisan can in an instant be so assured that they are there as to swear it in judgement this Oath is by so much the more oppressive intolerable that it is not satisfied with a quiet submission to and a patient enduring of their intollerable insolencies in which respects it is more barbarous than the Engagement but obliges every man zealously and constantly to premote it There is in this Article more jugling then is tolerable in so sacred a thing as an Oath their friends being of so severall parties neither of which would be content the Church should be reformed according to the others modell There are several words put in which that party which wit or strength or accident shall set uppermost at last may interpret to their own sense iâ— eâ— advantage To please the Presbyterians The Church of Scotland Doctrine and Government is sworn to be preserved and all the three Kingdomes to be brought to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in Confession of â—aith Church-Government Directory c. Now this can be compassed no otherwise then by reducing all to the pattern of Scotland that being before sworn to be preserved But that the Sectarian Brethren of no sort may be displeased the word of God is expressely said to be the rule by which each Sect were sure of carrying the cause their own way and if any had a peculiar fancy to New-England or any other Church he thought better of the term of the best reformed Church secured him to them and he was by that assured the day was approaching wherein the men of his perswasion should triumph That the Covenant was taken in the various senses and with different hopes every one knows and that the ambiguous penning gives each party ground for it it is fondnesse to deny To please those who were for Church-government they Covenanted against Schism but least they should displease those who were against Church Government they could never be brought to proscribe nor while they had use of them to fight against the King so much as to tell who were Schismatick Surely Conscientious men who had sworn to extirpate Schisme Heresie and whatever was contrary to godlinesse would have thought Antinomians Anaâ—aptists c. or some other of those hard names that then swarmed about the City to have come under that head but in the same sense as fighting against the King is being for him being against Schismaticks is putting Armes and Offices into their hands The Common enemies this Oath engageth men against must not be explained too far least it discourage their best friends Papists and Prelatists may safely be named for the rest Mr. Henderson explicated them to be the Syrians and the Babylonians The second Article is to extirpate Archbishops Bishops c. whom there being no need I shall not at present plead for only this That Government in the judgment of very many Covenanters Clergy and Lay was inexpedient onely and not unlawfull upon whom the guilt of Perjury lyes very heavy for breaking their former Oaths leavying War against their King disturbing the peace of the Nation turning so many gallant men convict of no crime but their lands which other men had a minde to be guilty of and they had as good a right to as the law of England could give and all upon the sole point of inexpediency Into this point I shall dive no further but take some small notice of the reason here rendred for this certainly illegall Act of pulling down that Government of the Church without the Kings Authority lest they be partakers of other mens sins I doe not apprehend that ever I read words more destructive to every Government and to the peace of every Nation in the world they sound thus Whensoever there is a Government or form of worship in the Church which we doe not believe to be according to the word of God we are bound in Conscience nay they of another Nation are as the Scots were to us who upon this Reason Vow to extirpate our Bishops to take up Arms though it be against our King and reform for if we doe not we make our selves guilty of other mens sins A proposition that creates a perpetuall Apology for crafty men and justifies nay necessitates the vilest attempts of deluded ones The Anabaptâ—â—s in Germany did the Separatists in Queen Elizabeth's dayes attempted no more then this warrants If this Doctrine were true I wonder the Prophets and Priests of old that lived under Idolatrous Princes were nor carefuller of their own souls and lift up their voice like a Trumpet in another sense than the Scripture mentions them to have done There cannot easily be imagined greater occasion for such irregular proceedings if they are at all justifiable in any Nation then in the Jewish their Princes being so often and so strangely guilty of Idolatry a crime clearly by their law described and forbidden yet we
us That the late King was the troubler of England â—s Achan was of Israel subjoyning It was the Lord that troubled Achan because he troubled Israel Oh that in this our State Physitians would resemble God to cut of those from the Land who have distempered it Melius est ut pereat VNVS quam Vnitas In the same Sermon Men whâ—ly under the guilt of much innocent blood are not meet persâ—us to be at peace with till all the guilt of blood be expiated or avenged either by the sword of the law or the laâ— of the sword The Independents 〈◊〉 themselves out of the Presbyterians principles and practises Gâ—odw defence pâ— 94. The Ministers of London themselves and the Church of Scotland Charge him being the greatest Delinquent guilty of the blood of hundreds of thousands of Protestants the bloodâ—est man under heaven He was summoned and Arraigned in the sight of God and his people curst and 〈…〉 worse than any 〈◊〉 or 〈…〉 exhortation to curse all those in the name of God that made not War aâ—gainst him as bitterly as Meroz was to be 〈◊〉 that went not out against the Canaanitish King Almost in all the Sermons Prayers of seven years He was called Opprobium generis humani The most bloody monster and miscreant under heaven That I am so civill 〈◊〉 to spare names I might use in this argument I hope will procure thus much that Mr. Baxter if he thinks fit to reply will do it fairely and calmely However my advantage is not quite lost but remains still to be used at pleasure over persons he very much esteems and for their sakes I believe I shall fare the better That they preached against putting the King to death the Presbyterian Ministers urge strongly and with much applause 〈◊〉 themselves though indeed it signifies as much as just nothing the reason is clear while the Parliament Declared and the Army fought for Presbytery and the King opposed it none were more vehement obstructers of all the designes tending to his restitution then the Ministers for so long they had hopes by that means that all the Lands Power of the Bishops Deans and Chapters the best Parsonages should be divided among them But when the Independents out-witted them and seemed to have perfectly learned their lesson they taught them of declaiming against something as an humane invention in the form of worship of those whose lands they longed for then and not till then they would have been content to have joyned with the King against that Army themselves had joyned with and raised against the King When the Votes no further Addresse were first passed by men they had hopes of which of them then abhominated the dethroning of their Prince I shall make this quere if it be not absuâ—d in so clear a matter to make a quere Whether if the Parliament and Army had joyned together as one man to set up high Presbytery divided the Church lands among them and the King had refused to yeeld his assent to such illegall Acts they would have pleaded the Covenant in his behalf and thus loudly talked for his restitution to his Authority let their friends speak That upon such terms as they pleased they would restore him is no more then the very Army would have done who after the Sentence passed came and offered him conditions They merit the lesse by their last appearing as they call it for the King in as much as in that juncture of affaires it seemed very unlikely they should-subsist without him The Coveâ—ant were exploded every where the Army called it a Carnal thing the Sectaries in the City said it was a thing ridiculous to unhorse Episcopacy and set Presbytery in the Saddle to be rid of my Lord Bishop and doe twice the homage to Sr. John Presbyter their own arguments were retorted upon them the Apostles were not Lord Bishops shew where they had their thousands per annum changed into the Apostles were not Parochial Ministers shew where they had tythes that at such a time as this they would have been content to have been maintained by the Common Enemy against their best friends is what they think highly obliging This was that great piece of Loyalty they would have had the King saved when it was the onely way to save themselves A King Deposed is surely not looked upon as a King by those who depose them now if imprisoning passing Votes of no further Addresse doth not depose a King I would fain know what doth Being in that condition and guilty of so much blood as they all along declared him to be when those words of the Covenant of Bringing all Delinquents to justice without respect of Persons should have come to be considered How much further they might have proceeded had not the power been snatched out of their hands by their Servants as themselves had done to their Master I leave to their past words and works to declare They did indeed recall those Votes of no Addresse and Treated with the King but it was when they could no otherwise be rid of the Army but by joyning with the King and Nation against them and even then they so perplexed the King and protracted time with terms and punctilio's of procedure and were so dissatisfied with whatever the King offered whilest they had the shadow of any power that the Army had opportunity to break off that Treaty the Houses would not end That part of the Covenant that concerns the Priviledge of Parliament Mr. Baxter and his side are very confident they have inviolably observed let us and them consider what was before said of the Tumults and the Scots Army the affronting and assaulting the Bishops and other Lords the posting up of the dissenting Members names of both Houses and which is above all their illegall turning men out for having a hand in some Patent Monopoly or other which they might as well have done for having been guilty of any fault having red Hair or a Roman Nose which action whether it did not null all their proceedings eo ipso as making it no House by feclâ—ding men fairely elected some make a very great question Before I take the Covenant I shall make this one not unreasonable request that I might know the Priviledges of Parliament first and swear to them afterwards one example may not be tedious On the 3d. of January 1641. It was declared To offer to Arrest or detain any member without first acquainting the House is a breach of Priviledge Ex. Coll. p. 35. The palpable absurdity of this Doctrine being discovered by the King in one of his Declarations and other Treatises in Novemb. â— 1642. They declare they â—ave no such priviledge but that any Minister of Iustice may Arrest a Member without order from the House and detain him in custody till be may be brought to parliament Whereas I represented the Covenanters to be pernicious enemies to every Government their dealings with our late Tyrants force me to retract
The Rebels Plea OR Mr. Baxters judgement Concerning the late Wars in these Particulars viz. The Originall of Government Coordinate and Legislative Power in the two Houses Third Estate Force upon the Houses in 1642. Principles the Houses went by at the beginning destructive to Monarchy Covenant Reasons for submitting to the late Government LONDON Printed by Thomas Mabb and are to be sold by Henry Brome at the signe of the Gun in Ivie-lain 1660. The Rebel's Plea Examined THe Writers of the Parliament side asserting highly the Liberty of the Subject think they oppose those of the Kings who plead strongly for Subjection to Rulers which are things no way inconsistent for it is very evident rulers doe not take away but preserve our Liberty Men being of the same nature desire the same things what every man desires none can securely enjoy the natural inequality between men being so little the mutuall yeelding would in all likely-hood be little also The title of the strongest though the best would be too weak to hold long some one or more would quickly over-match any that could pretend to that every bodies right was apparently no if any had the good or ill shall I call it luck to have any wealth it was according to Davids curse to him an occasion of falling By the inconveniencies that attend the want of Government we finde out the nature of it First Our inability singly to defend our selves from our own Country-men and from strangers made it necessary we should part with all our power into anothers hands that he might be so able to defend us from both seeing that from both we were in danger to receive injury in every thing we value Secondly Because we are capable of so much wrong and too apt to apprehend our selves wronged when we are not we must resigne whatsoever Power of Judging or Redressing we have in our hands into his hands and for the Publique safety are obliged to submit to his though it may seem to us an erronious and partiall judgment a thing though highly rationall and of great import to the generall yet not to be expected from selfish or opinionative men unlesse the Magistrate hath a compulsive Powerâ— which alone though we have no fear of Forreigners were ground enough to put the Sword and Scepter into the same Hand Supposing therefore Power to have originally been in the People which shall be afterwards examined it will not at all upon pretence of misuser entitle them to snatch it back any more than I can forcibly take away what I gave because I can prove it was once mine If the people are still Judges of what is to the publick good and have the Power of the Sword they are what they were before they were no Subjects But Mr. Baxter tells us not after the rate of Mr. Calvin who thinks it possible for the tres Ordines Regni to have a Power of resisting Princes but according to the worst principles of his most Scotized followers The People may Fight against King and Parliament both for the Common good if they be both against it Thes. 365. Of Obedience and resistance Kings conditions are very little bettered by those men who free them from the Popes Supremacy in ordine ad bonum spirituale and subject them to the Peoples in ordine ad bonum Publicum But it 's strange that the multitude for what else can the People signifie distinct from and opposed to the King and Parliament that the multitude I say should by Mr. Baxter be thus solemnly invested with the highest piece of Regality the Judging of the publique good whose â—ncapacity Levity Ignorance Naughtinesse Unaptnesse for even the meanest employment of this nature In his Book against Harrington he labours to demonstrate see his twenty Arguments against Popular Government King Iames in the Conference at Hampton Court told us out of experience how zealously the Presbyterian Ministers defended the Kings Power in Spirituals while there was need of it to pull down the Pope but that being done more wisely put it into their own hands So now it seems it shall fare even with Parliaments While the King could not be pulled down but by that Assemby their Omnipotency was every where proclaimed but now they must learn too to use the Power the People gave them for their good or else the people may take it from them But secondly This Tenent is destructive of its very pretence as being extreamly opposite to the publique good because to the peace of the Nation which is the onely time in which we can securely enjoy the benefit of the Governours care of the publique Affaires by having opportunity of following our private ones There is much fault to be found in the Administration of perhaps every Nation in the world private men injured by corrupt Officers c. But that the inconveniences are so great in any one place that it should be the concernment of the maâ—ority of the Nation to redresse them by a War whose effects aâ—e so calamitous and universall I durst be tryed by any besides the Needy Ambitious and Discontented men of the same place Man is by Nature a sociable Creature which though Mr. Hobs denyeth because another had said it before him is evident in this that if a man were furnished withall the delights the most wanton can fancy and freed from the feare of any assaults yet to be totally debarred the company of men would make all his pleasures irksome nor is there any other imaginable reason to be given how men of even good parts spend a very vast proportion of their time in hearing the flat and impertinent discourses of idle and weak men and women were there not a sociable principle in our nature so that we can no more put off our delighting in the company of men then we can our being men We are naturally then inclined to society which society cannot be maintained without Government nor Government possibly without the power of the Sword the natural right of Judging for our selves and maintaining that judgement by what force we can make being the inconvenience that attended want of Government and therefore sure laid down in the very Constitution He therefore that takes up the Sword without nay against the Command of the Supream Magistraâ—e resumes that Right which by mutuall consent all had laid down denies himself his Subject stands upon terms with him as equall which is as much as in him lyes to dissolve the Government reduce all to Anarchy and is therefore not more inâ—urious to the â—rince whose Authority he Usurps then to the Nation whose peace he thus treacherously disturbs Publique good and Liberty are two fine words that engage Nations to their own ruine alwayes insisted upon by those who have not so great a share of Wealth or Power in the present state of Affaires as they think they deserve or at least hope for in the next Change Their discoâ—rses are usually such as these
For as much as divers complaints have been made to our Soveraign Lord the King by the Commons in this present Parliament Our Soveraign Lord the King hath ordained This will certainly shew the Legislative power to have been solely in the Kings Majesty in those dayes and therefore discovers the foolery to say no worse of those who upon that head assert a partition of that important piece of Soveraignty between him and the two Houses Be it enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament or Lords and Commons began in H. 7. time but that that variation of phrase should make such a considerable alteration of Government and no notice taken either by the King that parted or the people who received by it so large as is pretended a share in the Government is not easily imaginable Sure their apprehensions were very small of it the notice they took of it being so little We finde after that not to insist upon each act or reign which would be tedious and he that doubts may consult the Books Anno 1. Eliz. The Lords and Commons her majesties humble and faithfull Subjects most humbly beseeching that it may be Enacted c. And in the Act of Uniformity among others it is Be it Enacted by the Queens Highnesse with the assent of the Lords and Commons c. to which those words likewise inserted in some places of that Act by authority of this present Parliament cannot be thought without great imputation of folly to those members to be repugnant and the straining of those words is all that he can rely on I might here urge the old form Anno. 13. Eliz. Be it Enacted by the Queens most Excellent Majesty with the Assent c. among many others I will onely cite one of 4. Jac cap. 1. Be it Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty with the Assent of c. Now to speak of the fundamentall partitian of the Soveraignty in the very constititon of the Government and to make it out by a phrase newly taken up and to take no notice of the old forms The King Grants the King Wils the King provides argues one very desirous to say some thing in a bad matter but when this form is it self varied and in many Acts both are used sure the latter was never intended to evacuate the former and it is very unlikely so great a change of the Legislative power would passe without any notice either of King or People it deserved at least one Act or Parliament to have transmitted it to posterity when alas we finde even in King Charls his dayes an Act framed according to the old regular way in the Petition of Right even there when we were not sure giving away nor unmindfull of our liberties To the Kings most excellent Majesty in which the Lords and Commons do humbly pray that no such thing as they Complained of c. To which the answer was Soiâ— droit come est desire The Laws are alwayes called the Kings laws but very improperly if this new doctrine be true I conclude all with the words of Bracton an Author the Antimonarchical party make much use of Quod Principi placuit i. e. non quicquid est à Rege temere ex animi perturbati impetu quodam aestu praesumptum sed quicquid ex Magnatum suorum consilio REGIO Assensu Authortatem praestante habitâ super hoc deliberatione tractatu recti fuerit definitum legis habet vigorem What the reason and the effect of their assent is is not hard now to judge men have been so often taught to say that because they must assent to the making of Laws they have a part of the Legislative power in them and will call it non-sense and absurd to think otherwise I will cite Grotius cap. 3. de jure belli Sect. 18. and I the rather cite him because living in a Popular State he naturally favoured it so much as in this point especially of sharing in the Government he shewed himself tender of the peoples Rights Multum falâ—unâ—â—r qui existimant cum Reges acta quaedam sua nolunt esse rata nisi à Senatu probentur partitionem fieri potestatis nam quae acta in eum modum rescinduntur intelligi debent rescindi regis imperio qui eo modo sibi cavere voluit nèquid fallaciter impetratum pro verâ— ipsius voluntate haberetur which is not much different from what we cited out of Bracton The sum of which is this when the assent of the Senate is necessary to any of the Kings Acts it is not that they share in the doing but that they truly â—nform the Kâ—ng what it is he does He cites the example of Antiochus who wrote as our Kings use Nè sibi parerent siquid legibus adversum jussâ—sset They should not obey him in things contrary to law And Constantine nè pupilli aut viduae those forlorn people should not lose their priviledges etiam si Imperatoris rescriptum proferatur though by order under the Emperors own hand and yet the world took never any for their equals or them for any other then Soveraign Princes The same Author Sect. 1â— Non desinere summum esse imperium etiamsi is qui imperaturus est promittat aliqua sui ditis aut Deo etiam talia quae ad imperii rationem pertineant A Soveraign ceases not to be so though he promise his Subjects not to exercise by himself some parts even of the Soverâ—â—gn power Adrian the Emperour swore he neveâ— would punâ—sh a Senatoâ— without the assent of the â—enate which was a greater priviledge then our members can plead yet never any was so fond as to take them lesse for Subjects or him for Soveraign Princes upon the misinformation of corrupt men may doe much to the grievance of the Subjects if they to avoid this inconvenience to the people shall provide so for their security as to promise not to exercise such parts of their power without their advice and assent first in a Common Counsell assembled our old style they shew themselves unworthy of such an Act or grace who will interpret it to the disadvantage nay to the dethroning of him that passed it To apply it to our particular case suppose the King hath graciously promised not to leavy money on his Subjects without their assent first had in Parliament The King now cannot do it the King hath so far restrained the exercise of his power but is by this any power placed in them grant they had it will not reach their purpose The King cannot leavy mony without their assent but is there any law that gives them power to leavy any without his though they may give mony to the King I doubt it will puzzle a good Lawyer to prove they can give the Subjects money to themselves without which I doubt Contribution Excise and those other fine words was but Theft and Robbery That the assent of the two Houses
mechanick Readers amused with that venerable name when in all these cases there is but one that looks toward the Subâ—ect and that too upon the groundlesse fancy of diviâ—ion of Supremacy and with an exception that reaches the Case The Laws in England are above the King because not his Acts alone Whose Acts the Laws are hath been above discussed the consequences of this Proposition I understand not because he hath not done us the favour as to let us know its meaning if it is not more then the words signifie that the King ought to rule according to Law and cannot abrogate Laws at pleasure the King asserted it in all his Declarations In the exactest Monarchies I have shewed there were laws which the Kings were obliged by might they therefore be resisted if they broke them Let us blot then all the precepts of Obedience and Submission out of the Bible as things sit for that pusillanimous if not crafty age And let that patience of the Primitive Christians which made their persecutors admire and love be thought want of opportunity not desire of revenge The King was to execute judgement by his Iudges in his Court of Iustice and his Parliaments was his highest Court By the Parliament meaning the two Houses they are no Court of Judicature the House of Commons have nothing that looks like a Court of Judicature not the power of administring an Oath not the power of Imprisoning any but their own Members notwithstanding the contrary proceedings of those tender Gentlemen of the Liberty of the Subject the Members of the long-Parliament whose Committees could contrary to law imprison men and deny them their Habeas Corpus The House of Lord it is true is a Court of Judicature but that is as they are the Court of the Kings Barons whose judgment is but ministerial and not soveraign as appears in this that though they have power to reverse the Sentence of other Courts yet they cannot reverse their own judgment a clear argument their Authority is not soveraâ—gn whose judgement cannot be so far restrained no not by it self For the two Houses joyned together as the ingenious Author of the Case of our Affaires demonstrates they cannot so unite or conjoyn as to be an entire Court either of soveraign as ministeriall Jurisdictâ—on no otherwise cooperating then by concurrence of Votes in their severall Houses for preparing matters in order to an Act and his Argument is very good which when they have done they are so far from having any legall Authority in the State as that in law there is no stile or or form of their joynt acts nor doth the law so much as take notice of them untill they have the Royall Assent Should it be granted they were yet it is as evident there was a force upon the House then as there was in 1648. â—o that neither the House was full or free first for the Commons a very great number of persons fairly elected kept out upon pretence they had some Project Patent or Monoply and kept in Sr. Henry Mildmay Mr. Lawrence Whitaker the first the chief promoter and notoriously known to be so of the businesse of the gold and silver thred a Commission complained of viewed and examined the other as much employed in matters of that nature as any man but they voted as that party would have them Secondly Severall members of their party sate in the House against the consent of the Burroughs they pretended to serve for when such men were concerned and complaints made all the answer the honest elected Gentlemen could get was questions about Elections were of 〈◊〉 private a nature to be considered and would interrupt their proceedings too much If the Election of any such persons hath been heard at the Committee and they voted out of the House as unduely chosen that report must not be made whereby a good member may be lost as in the case of Mr. Nichols Mr. Pyms Nephew and others Thirdly The Scots Army was not suffered to disband that they might awe the King and dissenting members and Mr. Strode blushed not to say openly They could not yet spare them the sons of Zerviah were too hard for them Though the Bishops and Popish Lords had a Legal Right then at least to sit yet they invited tumults to cry No Bishops no popish Lords Nay made a stand at White-hall and said They would have 〈◊〉 more Porters lodge but would speake with the King when they pleased Proof was offered against that Captain who conducted the Rabble and sollicited them to come with Swords and Pistols yet he was not suffered to be brought to answer the intollerable violence upon the members of both Houses The Bishops were threatned to be pulled in pieces as they came from the House they were faine to steale away for feare of their lives see Bishop Hall's Narrative before his last Work The Lords made an Order to suppresse the Tumults but the Commons would not concurr Severall speeches were made in their Justification They must not discourage their friends this being a time they must makeuse of all their friends Mr. Pym saying God forbid the house of Commons should proceed in any way to dishearten the people to obtain their just desire in such a way Were not the names of these Gentlemen that voted not according to the sence of the good members posted up their persons assaulted did not Alderman Pennington Captain Ven brings down armed multitudes to terrify the members when the worser party as they call it were like to prevaile That the liberty of the house of Peers was no better preserved the arguments are too numerous Mr. Pym could tell the Earle of Doâ—er if he looked for any preferment he must comply with them in their wayes Mr Hollu demanded publickly 〈◊〉 the Bar the names of those Lords who would not consent to some propositions concerning the Militia sent by the Commons they got multitudes to deliver Petitions to both houses and to desire leave that they might protest against those Lords-who would not agree to the Votes of the House of Commons as the Petition of Surrey Harfordshire In this Petition of the poor people about London against the Malignant faction it was desired that those worthies of the Upper house who concurred with them in their happy Votes might sit and Vote in the House of Commons as one entire house professing that unlesse obstructions were removed They should be enforced to lay hold on the next remedy which was at hand to remove the disturbers of the peace 5. The four next Sections amount to this Our Rights were evidently invaded Ship money the new Oath against Law men punished for preaching Lectures twice on the Lords day The Parliament remonstrated our danger we had reason to beleeve them there was a generall endeavour to change the face of things among us many new orders brought into the Church abundance of painfull though peacable preachers cast out ignorant scandalous readers
kept in the Irish Rebells declared for the King we should have been butchred by them when they had conquered Ireland The Right of the people to resist their Prince having been examined we now come to the reasons upon which they did it 1. Shipmoney Not to insist upon the frequent practises of our Kings in that nature the consent of so many venerable judges the abundant care the King took to be informed the employments of it to those worthy ends for which it was raised were enough with al ingenuous minds if there were any miscarriages in the getting at least to excuse them But some men with their Loyalty put of their good nature with their Religion loose their civility But Mr. B. ought to have known that the King had relinquished his claim to Shipmoney before the Warr and therefore that could not be a cause of it Kings may confesse and forsake their faults yet some subâ—ects will not forget them Praticall serious godlinesse was a scorne That was not part of the kings cause but it was very suspicious to see men solemnize a few fasts and think that entiled them to eat other mens bread all their lives after to scruple at being like prophane Absalon who wore long hare yet immitate that good man Absalon that could pay his vow and Rebell devoutly The new Orders in the Church amount to no more then this Those to whom the administration of Ecclesiasticall affairs belong to by the Laws of this land observing some neglect order rudeness in the performance of divine service appointed for its future decency some ceremonies neither commanded nor forbidden in the word of God but some of them were used in the Church of Rome whereupon they were esteemed or at least wise called Popish All that can possibly be said against this is that it is unlawfull to use any thing in Divine Service for which there is neither command nor example in Scripture when by the way the latter confutes the former supposing there may be imitable examples in Scripture of things uncommanded there which would make the black and white caps as much Antichristian as the square one Or secondly it is lawfull to use it but not if it be enjoyned but this cannot be said by Mr B. who pleades for the Civill Magistrates Power in matter of Religion though I think he is scarce resolved to allow him any thing may be called Power but that sure is of a strange nature that ceases to be lawfull when it is commaded by a lawfull Magistrate Or thirdly The being used in the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to be used in the Church of England A very pretty principle truly we must differ from them when we have reason and when we have not reason when they reproach us with separation out of pride humour novelty the most rationall way to acquit our selves sure is to make it appeare we gladly will come as neare to them in Doctrine and Discipline as they will to Truth and pure Antiquity We did not in those things conform to Rome but to the Primitive Church and reduce those things as it were ex postlimino to their native innocent usage from which no additionall corruption of any abroad can rationally debarre us The last is a trim devise That the King would have destroyed us by the Irish Rebels who professed to raise Armes for the King Sect. 10. I suppose Mr. Baxter can tell of some in England who professed to fight for the King yet never had his Commission It seems the King must suffer as the Earle of Strafford was said to doe not for what he had but what he possibly might have done hereafter The War against the Parliament was just upon as good a ground we feared they would undo the Church and State with their Army of Sectaries whom they countenanced when he did not the Rebels in Ireland If the King had made use of the money raised for the relief of Ireland in the War at home when the poore Protestants were like to starve for want of it as the two Houses did he might have been thought to have abetted that Rebellion The Parliament could make such an inhumane Order for divertion of that money from the use it was raised for and when the King sent to them to revoke it for their own credits sake if not for the lives of his poor Irish subjects they according to their usuall rant Voted his messuage a breach of priviledge and made use of that mony to fight against him and yet they would be thought friends to the Protestants in Ireland If inferiour Courts of justice may prosecute the execution of their sentence in severall cases against the Kings will and the Sheriff may raise the power of the County to assist that execution much more may the highest Court but the former is true ergo The Argument is this If the Sheriff may raise the posse Commitatûs when by the law he is enabled so to do ergo the two houses may though the Law doth not enable them raise the posse regni Courts of judicature may use such force as doth not disturbe the peace of the Nation ergo the two houses may raise a war is a far fetcht consequence Again The house of Peers is solely the Court of Judicature the major part of which were evidently with the King The summe of the next three leaves is The warr was not against the Kings person or authority nor to change the Government of King Lords c. nor to take away the magistrates power in matters of Religion as appears by Protestation solemne league Covenant Declarations When I consider their Declarations for the King and their actions against him all I can gather is that notwithstanding their bitter remonstrances of the State of the Kingdome their unworthy unexampled ripping up and publishing to the vulgar all the faults and infelicities of his raigne which Parliaments were in a greater measure the cause of in not yeelding seasonable supply without taking any notice of the satiafaction made and care taken by him for prevention of the like for the time to come or the happy dayes men now remember they then enjoyed by which wayes it is easily to render any Government odious to the credulous and undiscerning populacy notwithstanding all this and the seditious invectives of Pen and Pulpit The King stood so clear in the eyes of all men that the being against him was a thing that they durst not own Though they spoyled him of his goods and endeavoured to do so of his good name ruined his friends preferred his most enraged enemies chased him from place to place they said to bring him to his Parliament when they caught him would not let him come thither though they deprived him of all authority as a King by taking it into their own hands his liberty as a man by imprisonment as an husband by keeping him from his wife as a father from his Children as a Christian
from his Chaplaines all which was done before the armies purge though they did all this yet they said and which is most rediculous some of them say so still they were for the King Quid verba audiam cum facta videam Their actions being such their loyall declarations shew them not more honest but more dissembling if they had too openly discovered they would never have compassed their intentions For example one of their first proposals without which there could be no peace was That all officers civill and military all honours should be conferred on such as were approved by the two houses of Parliament see 19. Prop. The People were willing to fight for so gay as they thought it a priviledge Had the English been a little plainer and it was if men had not been besorted plain enough viz Except all the wealth honour power of the Nation be shared among us and our friends neither King nor people shall be at quiet in these termes which differ little in expression and not at all in sense from the former the Nation would scarce have been fond of being undone in order to the procuring of it Some of their Declarations speak very fair as it was necessary they should and it is a great wonder how such wise and wary men suffered others to be so plaine wherein they palpably reduce to nothing the King and Peers To begin with the King see the Declaration of May 26. 1642. Where they declare that they have power to depose the King and the King had deserved they should do so We should not want either modesty or duty should we follow the highest presidâ—nts of former Parliaments See exact collection of all Remonstrances c. published by order of the house of Commons p. 265. Now Parliaments have deposed Kings as Edw 2. Rich. 2. and that the authors of that Declaration had a particular eye upon those monstrous proceedings is evident by the following words All the world knows what they put in act In the same Declaration they deny the King his Negative Vote so that he hath no Vote at all in making or repealing laws which the meanest Burgesse hath nay the meanest Commoner hath at least one that represents him so that the King is the onely man in the Nation except I may now reckon the Clergy too that is in so high a degree of slavery as to be bound by laws he in no sence concurrs to the making of So farr was he in 1642. from being a King that he was not so much as one of the free-borne people of England This new Doctrine they can prove as what could not the two houses do in those dayes from the very forme used by the King to those bills he fancied not Le Roy Saviserà which say they is a suspension rather then a refusall of assent A suspension if it must be called so was ever heretofore a thing of that validity that during it they are not able to quote one law ever reputed in force If they thought the law to be otherwise they might have done very well to have declared all the bills dashed for so many ages for want of the royall assent to be obliging laws But alas that forme intimates another thing not so pleasing viz. That notwithstanding the two Houses are the Kings great councill and have presented their advice in their concurring Votes yet le Roy Savisera the King may advise with other men as it is notorious in all Chronicles to have been the practise and take their advice if he like it better How little of a king they intended to leave him see nineteen Propositions sent the second of June in 1642 it is to be observed what I cite the Parliament in its purity as the phrase is Ex. Col. p. 307. the summe of all which are That all Peers Iudges Councellers Officers civill and military may be approved by themselves all Ecclesiasticall affairs Forts Castles Pardons Censures New Oaths The Mariage Government of his own Children may be at the disposall of the two houses After the forementioned declaration of May 26. the ordinance concerning the Militia these Propositions I would willingly know in what consists the authority of the King which Mr. B. saies he and they swore and fought to defend Certainly they could not call him Soveraign without a jeere If the houses have once this Power let them be sworne to defend us and no longer let us mock God the King and the world with giving an oath to a man to do that we our selves have rendred it as impossible for him to do as the Chaire in his Presence Chamber The King complaines in severall of his Declarations particularly that of August the 12. 1642. of severall insolent speeches which passed in the house of Commons unreproved as of Mr. Martin That the Kings Office was forfeitable that the happinesse of this Kingdome did not depend upon him nor any of the royall branches of that stock and of Sr. Henry Ludlow That he was not worthy to be King of England p. 550. Ex. Coll. He tells them plainly in his answer to their Declaration of May 26. 1642. That of that monstrous language by the help of God and the Law he must have some examination Ex Coll. p 28. But it may be said these things were done in the height of passion when the sence of those grievances they lately fancied they felt was fresh upon them Afterwards they were more moderate as I have shewed how the Parliament went at the very beginning of the Warr upon those principles their freinds now would be thought to detest I will briefly demonstrate they went by the same when the Warr was ended even whilst it continued Presbyterian for I shall not once mention what was done after the seclusion of Members by the Army and shall quote no Historian but him who wrote alwayes for the Parliament Mr May who in his Historiae Parl. Breviatium p. 146 tells us that on the fiftteenth of July 1646. there were propositions sent by the hands of some Lords and commons and Commissioners for the Scots The King looked upon those proposals as derogatory to his Crown injurious to his people as inconsistent with the quiet of the Nation as of his own conscience and therefore demurred upon them The Earle of Lounden tells the King in a trim Oration that unlesse he will agree to those propositions which himself acknowledges very hard ones it is to be feared he would be deposed and the nation setle in another way of Government without him or any of his Posterity The King resolved he would not give them his Crown they must take it forcibly if they would have it after that he was their Prisoner now he was from his evill Councill one would have thought they would have desired him at least not have denyed him to come nere his Parliament His usage was various sometimes their malice made him know what it was to be confined other times more
Parliament The Covenant is lyable to more exceptions then at present I am willing to take the very designe was extreamly scandalous and as great a blow to Religion I am perswaded as it ever receiâ—ed in the world as representing it to be the parent of the worst of vices rebellions sacriledge and perjury some men have adventured to teach that God is the author of all sin these men come very neer them that can do the worst of Villanies upon his score fear God and break his commandements and all upon the newly revealed Doctrine of Piety and Plunder Surely Humility Patience self-deniall taking up the Cross loving enemies praying for persecutors are things commended only to pusillanimous and morrall men Hath the spirit that came down upon Christ in the forme of a Dove appeared since in the shape of a Vulture or a Roman Eagle was it weaknesse not religion that kept the primitive Châ—â—stians obedient must whatever they said about Rebelion be construed with this tacite reserve untill we have an opportunity We read in Scripture of a blessing laid up for those who in defence of Christ and his truth part with their Lands Houses or Life but not of any for those who upon that score invade other mens That there were no rewards appointed for those who killed Tyrants Buchanan esteemed it as a defect in policy and it is one in religion too He might as easily observed it to be an omission in the Law of God as man The quarrel was not then about Doctrine so much as discipline our articles were esteemed Orthodox our discipline not appostolick enough Their discipline in terminis in Scripture and as a command to introduce it with fire and sword in defiance of Prince and Laws are surely to be found in the same chapter These tender Consciences are very prety things that dare not conform to an indifferent Ceremony in obedience to all the authority the law of England takes notice Civill or Ecclesiasticall without an expresse command or example of Christ or his Apostles and yet without either can take up arms against their Soveraign plunder and slay all whose Consciences are not of the same size The Covenant not to mention upon what grounds they who at first Idolized it do now look upon it as an abominable Idoll lyes open to very just and very many material Obâ—ections It being my businesse onely by the by I shall onely intimate those that are so obvious that they cannot escape a very ordinary observer First It is directly contrary to the Oath of Supremacy formerly taken wherein they swear the King to be the oâ—ely supream Governour in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporall which power they there swear to defend and by resolving to reform the Church without nay against his direct Command they now as absolutely with an Oath too deny it Secondly It is contrary to the Oaths of Canonical obedience to their Ordinary Bishops Chancellors c. which those of them which had entered into Orders took and conscienciously observed by swearing their utter exterpation a Government they by subsciption testified to be lawfull which judgement many of them were known never to change till it was their interest the late usuall season of conversion so to do And some think a good Bishoprick would seduce many of them to their old errour again Thirdly Ecclesiasticall affaires never were nor can be by the law of England which they broke even in this very act of Covenanting for the laws as they said consulted on in Parliament but onely to have the civill Sanction and that after the law is expresse they have been determined by the Clergy in Convocation See The Reformation of the Church of England Justified a whole book to that purpose Now whether the Assembly of Divines being not called by the King who alone hath power by the Law to do it nor elected by the Clergy who alone have power to send the true Convocation not dissolved may be called The Clergy in Convocation I will leave to any one to determine and onely observe that as in other illegall Acts the late Powers proceeded according to their example so in this particularly Their naming what members they pleased without Election of the Clergy to sit in the Assembly was a fit President for Oliver Cromwel to call whom he pleased without choice of the Country to sit in the little Parliament The State and Church was pulled down the same way Fourthly The Covenant could not be imposed according to the Doctrine of the long Parliament who Ex Col. p. 859. tels us Men are not to be compelled to be sworn without an Act of Parliament which certainly the Votes of the two Houses are not I shall not prosecute these things any further but observe some few particulars in the Covenant it self and onely wonder with what face not to say with what Conscience men the professed Champions of our Liberty and of no part so much as our Consciences in regard of Oaths imposed even by an unquestionable Authority could on the sudden use such barbarous rigour toward the freeborn people of England for not taking that Oath which themselves had according to the fore-cited Doctrine no power to impose and the others had the â—ommand of the Prince Law and unanswered Reason to refuse at least they could say what themselves once thought enough it was against their Consciences We shall now examine whether there is any amends made in the Materiall Cause for the faultinesse of the Efficient and there is a presumption that it is so sure such good men would not involve their Country in the miseries of a War resist their Prince but in an order to a thing that was very excellent if not necessary That assertion in the Preface which gives chief countenance to the undertaking is a most horrible falsity that it was according to the Commendable practise of these kingdomes in former times and the example of Gods people in other Nations England hath behaved her self so commendably that it is impossible to make it out to have been her practise whosoever swears it to have been untill he can produce his instances if he doth not meet with very charitable persons will be looked upon as one horribly Perjured The Churches of God if there were any before Presbytery Rebelled into a being whose examples may be Rules to us must be either the holy men before the law under the law or the Primitive Christians beofore Religion was made a Bawde to Interest He that thinks there can be a thing fetcht from their doings in favour of this league let him serve that cause so far as to attempt The History of Covenants and see how many examples he can produce of Fighters with their Prince for not introducing a form of Worship they better liked of than what was by law established The Covenants we read of in Scripture were not against the King but with the King nor when the Kings refused doe we
part of that Assertion or at least explain it so as to be intended onely of lawfull ones For to Usurpers they have shewed themselves friends and true Subjects They will not molest their Prince no not for their Covenant provided he hath but a bad Title let them see right trampled upon they are contented they ask no more The reasons of which prodigious dealing are these I am bound in Conscience to submit to the present Government first because a full and free Parliament â—atâ— owned it which is notoriously the consent of the people which is the evidence former Princes had to justifie their BEST TITLES Absurd absurb absurd And it is the opinion of Grotius upon Mat. 22. 20. That private men are not judges of the Controvertible Titles of Princes And Christ commanded to give 〈…〉 was in 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 Assertion that the consent of Parliaments was former Princes best Title hath in it I know not whether more of non-sense than treason it sounds certainly strange in the ears of English-men who have been hitherto told that there was no interregnum here the death of the former Prince being all that was required to compleat the title of the latter whom no act no not an Attainder in Parliament could debar from his Throne the Parliament deriving its Authority from the Writ of the Prince without Authority from whom as King already they could not have met â—ut here by the glorious name of Parliament he means onely the House of Commons the Other House being not at all elected by the People and so not involving their consents Now that the House of Commons may give away the Heire of the Crown and all the Peers native Rights to whom they please even the meanest and most wicked Varlets is one of their very New Priviledges But Christ bad us pay tribute to Caesar because he was in Possession Between which Case and ours there is this difference There the lawfull Magistrate receded from his Right which in our Case was not done The Romans title to that being not as in most other places meer Conquest but dedition Aristobulus the younger brother getting possession by wrong Hircanuâ— the elder parted with his Right to the Romans on condition they would conquer it by their Armes He chose rather by their help to rule as a Deputy of theirs then to keep a more noble title he had no likelihood ever to enjoy see Dr. Hammond on the place The Romanes then had the right of him who had the very right the onely remaining difficulty is how Câ—sar came to have the right of the Romanes which notoriously was in the â—â—nate and People To which I say this The Senate and people upon what inducement it concerns me not to enquire at present laid down their claim parted with their power submitted to and acknowledged the Emperours to be their very good Lords Pusillanimously I must confesse and their own Historians proclaim it but quilibet post credere juri suâ— If they parted with their right to Câ—sar then Câ—sar â—ad it King Charls never did so and Res inter alios aâ—â—a 〈…〉 debet I may now confidently say this example reacheth not the question but if it did paying necessary Tribute is one thing writing fine daintily fiâ—e canting Epistles is another but this I will not at present urge because Mr. Baxter shall not say I endeavour to disgrace him but onely commend his or his friends discretion that one of his Prefaces viz. that before his book of Church Government is very rarely to be met with of late times This argument tempts me to put this one question by what name are those Ministers of this Nation to be known that had rather Richard Cromwel should have raigned then King Charlsâ— I have now gone over so much of Mr. Baâ—ters Books as seemed in any degree argumentative I have left out much which I might pertinently and truly have urged because I would not mention any thing which might seem exasperating For I could heartily wish the Parliament could passe such an act of Oblivion that all that is past may be not only pardoned but forgot There hath certainly so much of folly as well as impiety been seen in our late Proceedings that it were much for the credit of this present age if posterity would give as little credit to those who tell them these things were so as we fools did to those wise and honest men who time enough before hand told us they would be so If any thing in these papers seem offensive though I have taken all possible care nothing should to some men who think the onely way to secure their honour and innocence is to be angry I do assure them the rubbing upon the sore places was not to hinder the healing or to vex and inflame the distempred parts but onely to free them from that errour of taking themselves to be whole already If any thing here may be of use to any reader I shall think my pains well bestowed however I shall at any time gladly hazard morâ— then alittle labour in the service of that cause I plead for FINIS Errata