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
soly in the King We shall easily reconcile that apparition of contradiction if we consider that we use the word Parliament to divers senses and that in two senses wherein we use the word Parliament there is no Soveraignitie to be ascribed to it We sometimes use the word Parliament for the House of Lords onely As when upon Writs of Errour any Judgement in the Kings Bench is examined in the House of Lords and there affirmed or reversed the Judgement is said to be affirmed or reversed by Parliament And yet though in that sense the House of Lords is well enough called The Parliament yet is it not the high Court of Parliament which is the supreme Judgement power and Authoritie of the Kingdome and that we may easily see in this that though the Lords have power there to reverse the Judgements of their inferiour Courts yet have they not power to reverse their own Judgements nor to restore again any Judgement that they have reversed for they judging ministerially and not soveraignely do as well binde their own hands as the hands of their inferiours whereas the absolute soveraigne power doth not so but may reverse any judgement that they themselves have given and again restore the judgement that they themselves reversed for the absolute supreme Court having Juris dandi dictionem can never be at the last period of her jurisdiction but looking ever forward to the present occasion whatsoever passed before it pro re natâ legislatively judgeth maketh and declareth Law But the House of Lords though the most superiour of all Courts of ministeriall iurisdiction and all other inferiour Courts they having no other iurisdiction than onely juris dati dictionem in using their iurisdiction do consummate it and bring it to a period beyond which they cannot go Besides the House of Lords is nor universally to all occasions a iudicatorie and therefore not soveraigne but is the distinct Court of the Kings Barons of Parliament of particular and ministeriall iurisdiction in which the King though one of the three Voters in Parliament yet in those things which come by processe of Law to receive determination there onely hath no Vote at all no more than in all other Courts of ministeriall iurisdiction Sometime we use the word Parliament for the two Houses of Parliament onely and that in regard they are the grosse of the Bodie whereof the Parliament consists there wanting onely the Soveraigne Head to compleat it But the two Houses alone without the King are so farre from being the supreme and high Court of Parliament as that they are not at all a compleat Court neither can they so unite or conioyne as to be an entire Court of either soveraigne or ministeriall iurisdiction But are two distinct Courts if so be the House of Commons which cannot minister an Oath nor fine nor imprison any but their own Members may be called a Court then are they Courts not otherwise co-operating than by concurrence of Votes in their severall Houses for preparing matters in order to an Act of all the three Orders of the Parliament which when they have done their Votes are so farre from having any Legall Authoritie in the State as that in Law there is no stile nor forme of their joynt Acts nor doth the Law so much as take notice of them untill they have the royall assent which if the King refuses he yet doth no injurie to any for that every of the three Orders that are the formall parts of the high Court of Parliament that is the King the Peeres and Commons are every of them by Law trusted for their own respective interests to be the onely assured Conservatours of the rights that do belong unto them and may therefore every one of them freely dissent from the Votes of the other two nor is their any danger that it should be so but contrarily the most assured safetie that may be for the consequence of their not agreeing can be no worse than that their severall interests shall still remain in the condition that they were before untill such time as that they shall all three agree upon the state of alteration Now when the two Houses alone do no way make an entire Bodie House or Court and when their is no known stile nor forme of any Law or Edict by the Votes of them two onely nor any notice of them taken by the Law it is apparant there is no Soveraignitie in their two Votes alone To argue now as some do that the King must not deny His Vote for if by denying it He may frustrate the Votes of the two Houses by the same reason may He frustrate the Votes of all inferiour Courts and open a way to the most boundlesse tyrannie that ever was is a most perverse and absurde falsitie there being no affinitie nor resemblance of the course of those Courts with that of Parliament For in inferiour Courts the Judges sit and give Judgement for the King and not for themselves and the Law there authorises them to give the Kings Judgement and none but them and therefore the Kings Dissent or Countermand cannot frustrate their Judgements But in Parliament the Peeres and Commons neither sit nor Vote for the King but for themselves And the Law appoints the King himselfe to give His own Vote there which if the Peeres and Commons in His absence could have supplied the Statute 33. H. 8.21 needed not have provided that His Consent or Vote by His Letters under His Great Seale should be as effectuall as if He himselfe in Person had assented Besides the Judgement given by the Judges in inferiour Courts is compleat in Law without the assent of the King and therefore cannot be frustrate by the Kings dissent but the Votes of the two Houses are therefore to be frustrated for want of the Kings assent because without it they are not compleat nor perfect The high Court of Parliament therefore resembling a Chaire of three feet the two Houses make but two of the three which without the third is lame and uselesse as to making of Law but with the third becomes a firme and usefull seate and makes that sacred Tripos from whence the Civil Oracles of our Law are delivered When therefore we speake of the Soveraigne power and Authoritie of the Parliament that never is to be understood of the power of the two Houses onely nor any such Soveraigne power to be ascribed unto them Now in the last place we use the word Parliament for the three Orders of Parliament agreeing in their Votes then and then onely use we the word Parliament properly and in that sense onely is the Parliament the supreme Court the highest judicatorie and most soveraigne power and authoritie in the Kingdom But we must ever understand that it is not the most Soveraigne Court for any Soveraignitie placed in the two Houses and from them transferred or communicated to His Majestie by their joyning or consenting with him but it is therefore
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
without any claime of right made by the two Houses and our Law hath not a surer badge of right than continuall and unquestioned possession Besides the Parliament it selfe 7. E. 1. declares unto the King that To him of right belongs straightly to defend that is to forbid all force of Armes and thereunto they are bound to assist him as their Soveraigne Lord The Statute 11. H. 7 18. reciteth Where every Subject by the dutie of his Alleageance is bound to serve assist his Prince and Soveraigne Lord at all seasons when need shall require c. In the 3. of Edw. 3. The House of Commons disclaime the having cognizance of such matters as the guarding of the Seas and Marches of the Kingdom And by the Statute 25. E. 3.2 It is made High Treason for any to meddle with the Militia so farre as To levie Warre against the King or to aide them that do it And we all know that to levie Warre without Commission from the King or to give aide unto it is by our Law to levie War and give aide against our Soveraigne Lord the King His Crown and Dignitie And we never knew of any exception out of that Law in case the Warre were levied by Authoritie of the two Houses And when we have not in our power to search the Parliament rols for clearing these things If besides our published Statutes our Law-bookes have any authoritie we have not onely Bracton whom they insist upon but other authentique Law-bookes concurring with him who all speaking of the King and the Houses do expresly say that seeing The King hath no Peere The King cannot be iudged by them So that whatsoever authoritie is in the constant practice of the Kingdom and whatsoever authoritie in the known and published Lawes and Statutes all do conclude the Soveraignitie in the person of the King and the alleageance faith obedience of the Subject even of the Subject virtually united in the Bodie Representative to be inevitably devinct and obliged to the person of the King The Soveraignitie both of the frame of the State and positive Lawes of the Kingdome being fixed in the person of the King and the Alleageance of the Subject by Law inevitably thither assigned then comes in Religion and fortifies and enforces all those bonds of dutie and obedience and that under the severe menace of damnation which when it is in divers precepts and examples well known unto us abundantly set forth in the Scriptures It will not be safe for us to let slip the consideration of two examples especially The Children of Israel being redeemed out of Egypt baptized in the Red Sea and brought for triall into the wildernesse as they were the type of the Church of God in all Kingdomes whatsoever in this world so Moses their Governour was the type of that regall power under which the Church of God in this world was generally to be governed so as though he were not a King in point of interest for the people were not yet in the Countrey that was to be the Kingdom neither was Moses of the Tribe to whom the Kingdom was promised yet saith the Text He was King when the heads of the people were assembled Moses so personating the kingly Office when as yet there was no expresse command concerning obedience and subjection more than Honour thy father and thy mother and he that curseth father or mother let him die the death It happened that Corah Dathan and Abiram rebelled against him and their rebellion was but this they in the behalfe of the Congregation of the Lord because that it was holy every one of them and the Lord among them question Moses his Soveraignitie charge him and Aaron that they exalted themselves above the Congregation of the Lord and that Moses had not kept touch with them to bring them to a Land that flowed with milke and honey but sought to starve them in the wildernesse while blinding the eyes of the people he might in the mean time make himselfe a Prince over them and out of jealousie of this they refused obedience to Moses and would not come at him when he sent to call them and so much was their cause believed to be just and right as that they were seconded with two hundred and fifty Princes of the Assemblie famous in the Congregation all of them so confident that they durst joyne issue with Moses and put themselves upon triall by Gods immediate judgement in the case and they were also backed with many thousands of the people This was the Rebellion the Judgement we all know to be most exemplar Judgement that ever was given in any case The Heads of the Rebellion Corah Dathan and Abiram with their wives their children and all their substance were swallowed up of the earth they went down quicke into Hell saith the Psalmist The two hundred and fifty that invaded the holy Office were slain with fire from Heaven and fourteen thousand and seven hundred of the people that favoured their attempts and murmured at the Judgement were in an instant in lesse than Aaron could get his Censer with fire from the Altar and run among them consumed in a speedy plague It will be objected that Moses was a man of extraordinary calling and that Rebellion against an ordinary Governour though a soveraigne King is not like Rebellion against a Governour of so extraordinary calling and priviledge all that granted yet this exemplar Judgement comes home to manifest the hainous sin of rebelling against Kings at this day Moses had an extraordinary calling he could not else have been a type of regal Authoritie but in type He was King when the heads of the people were assembled He had the Priest made subordinate to him He shall be unto thee instead of a mouth and thou shalt be unto him instead of God And had the Magistracie derived from his Authoritie to beare the burthen with him God took off the spirit that was upon him and put it upon the seventie two Elders So Moses was clearly endued with regall power and for trangression against that very Authoritie of his was the Judgement made so exemplar It could not be exemplar in regard of any other Authoritie which he had then and no other since either had or could have but that we may know the Judgement was exemplar against Rebellion against regall Dominion which would often be committed in the later dayes the holy Ghost speaking against the seducers deceivers wch in the later dayes should make perilous times describes them not onely by being Cursed speakers disobedient to parents that is as well to Civil parents as Natural traiterous headie high-minded resisting the truth like them that resisted Moses Despising Dominion despising Government speaking evill of Dignities of those that are in Authoritie of those things which they know not c. but by this likewise that They perish in the gainsaying of Corah The other
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
example is that of David Saul was a wicked apostate King from whom The Spirit of God the inward anointing was departed Saul reiected from raigning over Israel So by God himselfe declared David in his stead by God provided to be King and to that end by Gods command anointed by all which David's priviledge then was more above the priviledge of all Subjects now than Saul's priviledge of that time was above the priviledge of Kings at this day and yet David for all those circumstances so much authorising him and dis-authorising Saul did not know Who could lay his hands upon the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse Nay he did but lay his hand upon Saul's garment to cut off the lap for a testimonie of his loyaltie and innocent intention toward Saul and yet even for that saith the Text his heart smote him that he cried out The Lord forbid I should do that thing to my Master to lay mine hand upon the Lords Anointed his reason we may know in the other words of his The Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to die or he shall descend into battaile and perish the Lord keep me from laying mine hand upon him plainly inferring that to call Princes to account belongs onely to God that God hath time and wayes of his own to do it in and will do it and that therefore man must not meddle with the doing of it for if anointed David might not intermeddle with rejected Saul much lesse may common Subjects meddle with their unrejected Soveraignes Sufficiently therefore do these examples shew the heinousnesse of Subiects lifting up themselves and resisting the person of their Soveraigne upon what pretence soever Now while the severitie of these examples and other passages of Scripture iustly striking terrour into every soule does make us wonder what great straight of humane affaires could be so violent an impulsive with us as to make Christian Subiects contrary to sworne Faith to Law and to Religion not onely disobey their Soveraigne but resist invade the soveraigne rights and imploy their Soveraignes Militia Shippes Forts Armes Treasure yea and his own sworne Subiects too against Him truly all that the most searching thought can finde to secure his conscience with against the horrour of so foule a guilt is that otherwise we feare or pretend to feare that His Maiestie seduced by evill Counsellours by popishly affected Prelates Courtiers and Cavaliers should destroy our Law our Parliaments our established Forme of Government and change them into tyrannnie and the true Protestant Religion into Poperie This this Feare or pretence of Fear alone is all the warrant we can finde for our unparallelled proceedings against our Soveraigne And if this before the Tribunall of God and of our own Lawes be not sufficient for our excuse then have we nothing to discharge us of the guilt of publique violence robberie murder periurie treason resistance of the Ordinance of God and of forcing others against their consciences by act or aid to resist with us Now all these evils are universally committed all over the Kingdome and all these evils upon no other warrant done than that the good of Reformation as is pretended may come thereon So make we the Word of God of none effect while we entertain and preferre the Jesuitique tradition before it and maintain that what is for the good of the Church must be done notwithstanding any bonds of dutie of Faith or Oath whatsoever to the contrary And if we examine the grounds of this Feare and what iust suspition and probabilitie of such an innovation as is pretended to be feared is given We see for our assurance to the contrary that His Maiestie after once He was truly informed of our grievances condescended not onely to give us ease of them but to make His Acts of Grace in them at once exceed the Acts of all His Predecessours since the granting of our Magna Charta and did not onely in present relieve our sufferings but often invoking the Sacred Maiestie of God as a severe Witnesse of His purpose for the time to come tie Himselfe for ever to settle matters of Religion according to the purest times of the Protestant Church of England with such ease for tender Consciences as by a lawfull iudgement of the Clergie should be iudged fit and to governe according to the known Lawes of the Land Here is little signe of one led by evill counsaile or of a minde that would subdue Law Religion to the satisfaction of His private will This shewes our Fear to be both groundles and wicked and indeed after this if iealousie it selfe could yet make scruple of any thing how easie were it for the wisdome of the Bodie Representative by preparing a Law of severitie against the instruments of innovation exposing their persons and fortunes to certain ruine nullifying the innovations themselves and discharging the Subiect from all obedience and conformitie unto them to have secured the Kingdom against all manner of fear in that kinde when as His Majestie freely offers His Gracious assent to any Act that should in that behalfe be necessary But if what cause what ground what reason of dutie soever we finde though constantly and universally received for true both by the judgement of our Law and by the authoritie of our Religion we must notwithstanding reject all to believe the all concluding judgement of the Bodie Representative whom we never knew to have such Supremacie of iudgement till it selfe bearing witnesse of it selfe did tell us so it cannot yet but make much to the satisfaction of the conscience to examine how well the two Houses now sitting do attain the condition of a full and free Assemblie of the two Houses of Parliament that pretend to have such iudgement And first it is known that the House of Commons now sitting however elected was never yet perfected by a right determination of Elections but that some set as Members there that ought not to have been returned and some are not received that yet were rightly chosen some are excluded for having hands in Monopolies and proiects and others as much interessed in them for their assured affection reteined the greatest part of both Houses by meanes of popular menacings tumults poasting up of names branding men with the name of Malignants things never known before in Parliaments and again undeserved expellings from the House or imprisonings have been so over-awed that they have been forced to suppresse their Votes to give them contrary to their iudgements to hide themselves or to flie from the Houses the residue of both Houses and among them the Knights and Burgesses which the Countries sent to reside in Parliament that there the whole Representative advising together might with the more safetie Vote and consent for us they make over their Countries trust to a few Committees of their own and wholly betake themselves to martiall Offices and imployments exercising in them a new found arbitrary power over