of the Scotch Discipline and Government which so manifestly erects Imperium in Imperio may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent in Scotland 2. Why they who swear to endeavour to bring the Churches of God in England Scotland and Ireland to Uniformity in Discipline and Church-Government and consequently to endeavour the Introduction of that Scotch Form of Church-Government into England may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy in England also and render it too impotent by setting up there also Imperium in Imperio 3. Why they who swear the extirpation of Prelacy that is Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops c. may not justly be look'd upon as men that would enervate the power of that Monarchy which esteems that Form of Church-Government as a very considerable support and strengthening to it Witness the Aphorism of that wise Monarch King James No Bishop no King the truth whereof King Charles found by sad experience * Dum Episcoporum Jurisdictionem invadunt Anarchae caveant Principes Scitè admodum monet Poeta Tunc tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet ubi enim Episcoporum ditio expugnanda obsidetur ibidem proximè imo potissimè in Regum Principatus irruptio tentabitur S. Clara Apolog. Episc p. 20. 4. Why they who when they had power in their hands constrained our former Soveraign to grant such Propositions as left him only a titular Kingship may not justly be look'd upon as persons that would whensoever 't is in their power again enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent When he hath given a satisfactory answer to these Queries I may possibly trouble him with some more of the like import for I believe there are so many grounds of making this objection that in probability the only reason why this Author could find no other rise of it than what he mentions was because he would not seek it That which he is pleased to mention as the rise is That the Presbyterians were not willing 1. To come under any Yoke but that of the Laws of the Realm Or 2. To pay arbitrary Taxes levied without consent of Parliament To the 1. hoping that whatsoever this Authors words imply to the contrary they were willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of God also at least such of them as they thought would not lie too heavy upon their Necks I answer 1. If they had been willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of the Realm they would long ago have ceased to be Presbyterians that is shakers off of the yoke of Prelacy and Ceremonies establisht by those Laws 2. If they had been unwilling to come under any other yoke they would not have come under the yoke of the Covenant since it was not injoyned by any Law of the Realm 3. They have not shewed themselves willing to come under the yoke of the Oath of Supremacy imposed by Law since they have been far from a practical acknowledgment that the King of England is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and all other his Dominions and Countries in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes and that the reforming ordering corrrecting of them is by a Statute 1. Eliz. for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm but on the contrary themselves usurpt the power of reforming ordering correcting them without yea against his consent and in so doing they enervated our Monarchy and rendred it too impotent in a chief part of its Prerogative nay too many of them are so far from acknowledging the Kings Supremacy in their actions that they refrain even from a verbal acknowledgment of it in their prayers for when they pray for the King they make a halt at the end of those words Defender of the Faith as if the confessing him Supreme Head in all Ecclesiastical causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons were either Error Heresie or a piece of Treason To the 2. I answer by demanding 1. Whether there be not as much if not more Law for the Kings imposing Taxes in some cases without the consent of Lords Temporal and Commons than there is for their imposing them without the Kings consent 2. Whether the King and his Privy Council are not more competent Judges of the exigency of times and cases in reference to such impositions than Presbyterian subjects 3. Whether any Law of the Land forbids the payment of Taxes imposed by the King without consent of the three Estates viz. Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons 4. Whether it does not equally forbid the payment of Taxes imposed by the three Estates and much more by two only without the King 5. Whether Presbyterians were not willing enough to pay arbitrary Taxes to the Presbyterian Lords Temporal and Commons though levied without the Kings consent and therefore without consent of Parliament and consequently whether that be not false which this Author tells us that they were not willing to pay Taxes levied without consent of Parliament 6. Whether in so doing they did not abundantly manifest that 't was not the arbitrariness of the Taxes but either their being imposed by the King or else their being imposed to such ends as did not serve the Presbyterian Interest that was the main reason of their quarrelling with and contending against those Imposition 'T is therefore too evident that the Presbyterians had a design to enervate our English Monarchy since though they refused not to pay arbitrary Taxes to some Lords Temporal and Commons levied without the Kings consent and on purpose to carry on a War against him yet they were unwilling to pay arbitrary Taxes to the King though levied for the defence of his person and Authority because levied without consent of Parliament Upon which pretence also their great Advocate Mr. Prynne would fain have perswaded them to deny the payment of the Assessments imposed by those powers that routed the Presbyterian Lords and Commons That Author in his Reasons why he would not pay Taxes viz. to the Independent Lords and Commons tells us p. 1. That by the Fundamental Laws and known Statutes of this Realm no Tax Tallage Aid Imposition Contribution Loan or Assessment whatsoever may or ought to be imposed or levied on the Free-men and people of this Realm of England but by the will and common assent of the Earls Barons Knights Burgesses Commons and whole Realm in a free and full Parliament by Act of Parliament all Taxes not so imposed and levied though for the common defence and profit of the Realm being unjust oppressive c. This is sound Doctrine it seems when Independents domineer but in the time of the Presbyterian Tyranny Taxes might be imposed and levied by some Lords Temporal and Commons only without Act of Parliament and yet not be accounted either unjust or oppressive or inconsistent with the Liberty of the Subject The reason was because Presbyterian ambition was cherish'd and
1. Their suppressing Lectures and Afternoon Sermons which is nothing to the purpose unless he had proved also that these are of Divine Institution or are necessary means of unfeigned Faith and holy Life 2. A book for sports and pastimes on Sundays enjoyn'd to be read by Ministers in their Parish Churches under penalty of deprivation What so as to exclude either Common-Prayer and preaching in the Morning or Divine Service and Catechizing in the Afternoon or so as to licence the absence of any Parishioner from that service either part of the day 3. Superstitious Innovations introduc'd Si accusâsse suffecerit quis erit innocens 4. A new Book of Canons composed and a new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy inforc'd By whom were not this Oath and those Canons composed in Convocation by our Church-Governours were they not confirmed and imposed by the Royal Assent And why I pray was the new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy establish'd by Law more superstitious than the newer Oath for destroying that Hierarchy so established Far be it from me says he p. 32. 42. to impute these things to all that were in judgment Episcopal for I am perswaded a great if not the greater part of them disallowed these Innovations These Innovations what Innovations The word must in reason refer to the particulars just now enumerated viz. The new Book of Canons the new Oath the Book for sports and pastimes on Sundays But are these men in justice and Reason of State to be protected and encouraged who dare to call new Laws either of State or Church or both occasioned by new emergencies Innovations or new practices superstitious meerly because not commanded in Gods word Now these things are so far from being a proof of the inconsistency of Prelacy with the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel with the upholding of all Divine Institutions a laborious and efficacious Ministry c. that the contrary is evident from the instance of the Right Reverend Bishop Morton whom this very Author I believe hath scarce confidence enough to accuse as a Delinquent in those particulars since p. 67. 77. he reckons Bishop Morton in the number of those Episcopal Divines whose Doctrine is entirely embrac'd by the Presbyterians Who yet did not only approve of but had the chief hand in contriving and publishing that Declaration which allowed some Sports and Pastimes as that which was then the most probable course to stop the current of Popery and profaneness as appears from the story of that Bishop's life publish'd by Dr. Barwick p. 80 81. So 't is evident also from the Augustan Confession c. 7. De Potest Ecclesiasticâ and Mr. Calvin's Institutions that both he and the Lutheran Reformers were far enough from thinking the Lords day of Divine Institution who yet were for a lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel and a laborious efficacious ministry In some following Pages the Author pretends to manifest that the Presbyterian Interest will never be extinguished while the State of England continues Protestant For says he p. 34. 44. let but the Protestant Doctrine as 't is by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd and 't will raise up a genuine off-spring of this people whose way is no other than the life and power of that Doctrine But I as confidently affirm on the other side that if the Protestant Doctrine by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd 't will raise up such a genuine off-spring of true English Protestants as shall own Prelacy and the Churches Authority in appointing Ceremonies both which are establisht by that Doctrine but rejected by Presbyterians If their way be no other than the life and power of that Doctrine they act suitably to these Principles viz. That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith Artic. 20. That whosoever through his private Judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God and be ordained and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly that others may fear to do the like as he that offends against the Common Order of the Church and hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren Every particular or National Church hath authority to ordain change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying Artic. 34. They practically own the Kings power within his Realms of England Scotland and Ireland and all other his Dominions and Countries as the highest power under God to whom all men as well inhabitants as born within the same do by Gods Laws owe most loyalty and obedience afore and above all other Potentates in Earth They act as if they believed his Majesty to have the same Authority in causes Ecclesiastical that the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church They use the Form of Gods worship in the Church of England establisht by Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments without surmising it to be either corrupt superstitious or unlawful or to contain any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures They are obedient to the Government of the Church of England by Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons and the rest that bear office in the same not fancying it to be either Antichristian or repugnant to the word of God They do not combine themselves together in a new brotherhood accounting the Christians who are conformable to the Doctrine Government Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England to be profane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Christian Profession They imagine not 1. that any of the 39. Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or 2. that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law establisht are wicked Antichristian or superstitious or such as being commanded by lawful Authority men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them or as occasion requires subscribe to them or 3. that the sign of the Cross used in Baptism is any part of the substance of that Sacrament They hold that things of themselves indifferent do in some sort alter their natures when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magistrate and may not be omitted at every mans pleasure contrary to the Law when they be commanded nor used when they are prohibited These are parts of the Doctrine establisht by Law in the Church of England as is evident from the 1 2 4 7 9 5 6 30. Canons legally framed and ratified But where are those English Presbyterians to be found whose way hath been no other than the life and power of this Doctrine Have not their practises too loudly proclaimed to the world that they have
Princes the French Calvinistical Church hath made in their Confession of Faith speaking of obedience due to the Supreme Magistrate appears at least every Sunday in all their hands in Print where they acknowledge such Obedience due to them except the Law of God and Religion be interessed on condition that Gods Soveraignty remain undiminish'd which clause says he what it means their so many and so long continued Rebellions do expound What turbulent things Scotch and English presbyterians have been those very practises of theirs which these sheets have mentioned to which many more might be added are a competent Testimony But this Quaere shall not scape so let 's view it again If Presbytery and Rebellion be connatural how comes it to pass that those States or Kingdoms where it hath been establisht or tolerated have for any time been free from broils and commotions A. 1. It may be 't was because though their minds were always enclined by their principles to rebellion yet they had not power and opportunity to act suitably to those inclinations with hopes of success 'T were a sad thing indeed if Rebels should be able at all times to put their traiterous Designs in execution 2. It suffices in reference to the grand Question now disputed if Presbyterian spirits are prone to Rebellion in case their way of Worship be not either est ablisht or tolerated For they deserve not to be so much as tolerated in any Kingdom that will when they have power rebel against Kings if they be not tolerated 3. If this Quaere implies any good proof that Presbytery and Rebellion is not connatural by which he means I suppose not usually conjoyn'd it does as strongly imply that Jesuitism and Rebellion are not connatural since those States and Kingdoms where Jesuits have been tolerated have for some time been free from broils and commotions It follows Or how comes it to pass that Presbyterians have never disclaimed or abandoned their lawful Prince As if to let pass other Instances English Presbyterians did not disclaim and abandon the late King when they denied him to be in a condition to Govern H. of Comm. Decl. 28. Nov. 1646. when they denied him the exercise of that power in the Militia which themselves acknowledged did belong unto him Veritas inconcussa p. 147. 168. When they affirmed that the Soveraign power resided in both Houses of Parliament that the King had no Negative voice that whatsoever the two Houses should Vote was not by Law to be questioned either by the King or Subjects that it belonged to them only to judge of the Law Declar. of May 26. 1642. as if likewise they did not make others to disclaim and abandon him by making them swear that they would neither directly nor indirectly adhere unto or willingly assist the King in his War and Cause But he proceeds How comes it to pass that they have never ceased to solicit and supplicate his regards and favour even when their power hath been at the highest and his sunk lowest Whereas I read in Philips his Veritas inconcussa his Book that proves K. Charles 1. no man of bloud these words p. 124. Indstead of offering any thing which was like to bring peace they the Presbyterian Lords and Commons caused men and women in the first year of their war to be killed because they did but petition them to accept of a peace And in the third and fourth year of their war plundered and robbed them that petitioned them but to hearken to it And put out of Office and made all as Delinquents in the seventh year of their war that did but petition them for a Treaty with the King and refused all the Kings many very many messages for peace not only when he was at the highest of his success in the war but when he was at the lowest and a prisoner to them and conjured them as they would answer it at the dreadful day of judgment to pity the bleeding condition of his Kingdomes and People and send propositions of peace unto him and years and half-years and more than a whole year together after the battel at Naseby insomuch as their fellow-Rebels the Scotch Commissioners did heavily complain of it were at several times trifled away and spent before any propositions could be made ready Was this perpetually to supplicate their lawful Princes regards and favour And p. 126. We are told they were so unwilling to have any peace at all as that 6 or 7 Messengers or Trumpeters could come from the King before they could be at leisure or so mannerly as to answer one of them but this or that message from the King was received and read and laid by till a week or when they would after And p. 128 129. When they did treat they desired the granting of such propositions as were purposely contrived and stood upon to hinder a peace and were not to be asked or granted by any that could but entitle themselves to the least part of reason or humanity c. And p. 68. The King complains that although he had used all ways and means to prevent the distractions and dangers of the Kingdom all his labours had been fruitless that not so much as a Treaty earnestly desired by him could be obtained though he disclaimed all his Proclamations and Declarations and the Erecting of his Standard as against his Parliament unless he should denude himself of all force to defend him from a visible strength marching against him And when the business of the Treaty 1647 as I suppose came into discourse the Assembly of Divines quickly resolved all of them but four to be against it See considerations touching the present Factions in the King's Dominions p. 6. And yet this Brazen-face would perswade us that Presbyterians never ceased to solicit and supplicate the Kings regards and favour It seems their voting 1647 that they would receive no more messages from the King and that no man should presume to bring any from him and that they would make no farther applications and addresses to him was so far from being a disclaiming and abandoning him that 't was not so much as a ceasing to supplicate his regards and favour statuimus i. e. abrogamus what shall be done unto thee O thou false Tongue and ridiculous Flatterer The other part of his Quaere is How comes it to pass that the Presbyterians suffered themselves rather to be trodden under foot than to comply with men of violence in changing the Government A. 1. 'T was because they were unable to make their parts good against those men of violence here intended Independents had cheated them out of that power which before they had 2. Themselves were the men of violence that did first of all really change the Government by acting without and fighting against the Kings Person and Authority Independents took away the name King but Presbyterians had long before destroyed the thing 3. 'T were no great wonder if Presbyterians suffered
robbed the King of his Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs and traiterously placed it in some Lords Temporal and Commons Is the metamorphosing of our venerable Church-Liturgy into a thing called a Directory the extirpating of our Church-government by Archbishops Bishops Deans c. the casting off of the Rites and Ceremonies establisht by Law and fancying them unlawful is this I say the life and power of that Doctrine before mentioned Is Covenanting and combining against the loyal Asserters of the Kings Supremacy and our Liturgy of our Prelacy and Ceremonies as Incendiaries Malignants and evil Instruments the life and power of that Doctrine Durst this J. C. have canted at this rate unless he had before-hand braz'd his Forehead with Impudence For what besides was it that made him talk thus and further to say and testifie that Let but the Free use of the Holy Bible be permitted to the common people and this Presbyterian Generation of men will spring up afresh by the immortal seed of the word Let him prove if he can that they will spring up any otherwise than Independents Anabaptists and Quakers do viz. by a misunderstanding of some places in the holy Bible and perverting them to unholy practises which 't is no great wonder if unlearned and unstable persons such as too many of the common people are be guilty of Grotius in his notes on Cassander's consultation would have the reading of the Scripture permitted to all men but Hauriant says he quantum necesse actutum est minimè verò de locis omnibus jus sibi sumant interpretandi sed consulant eruditos He would not have them assume to themselves a right of Interpreting all places of Scripture but to advise with learned men and ask their judgment Which counsel as Rivet approved of in his Animadversions p. 203. so it behooves common people to follow lest otherwise that permission occasion their destruction 2 Pet. 3. 16. He goes on For that pure spiritual and heavenly Doctrine pressing internal renovation or the new birth and the way of holy singularity and circumspection and being written with such Authority and majesty must needs beget though not in the most yet in many a disposition and practice in some sort thereunto conformable Which words by the way unless understood cum grano salis will smell of Socinianism but come out of the clouds O thou Presbyterian and tell us whether thou thinkest this to be pure spiritual heavenly Doctrine Let every soul be subject to the higher powers Whosoever resisteth the power resists the Ordinance of God And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation Be subject not for wrath only but for Conscience sake Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou Mark them which cause divisions among you contrary to the Doctrine which you have been taught and avoid them The works of the Flesh are manifest which are these Hatred variance emulation wrath strife seditions heresies envyings Murders They that do these thing shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Put them in mind that they be subject to Principalities and Powers that they obey Magistrates be ready to every good work that they speak evil of no man that they be no brawlers fighters but gentle soft shewing all meekness to all men Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves Where envying and strife is there is confusion and every evil work Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether unto the King as Supreme or to Governours as to those that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers Honour all men Love the brotherhood Fear God Honour the King Servants be subject to your Masters with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward Let none of you suffer as a murderer or as a Thief or an evil-doer or as a busie-body in other mens matters c. What thinkest thou J. C. Do these and the like Scriptures press any point of internal renovation and the new birth and the power of Christianity or no Is the Presbyterian party perswaded of the heavenliness and spirituality of this Doctrine or do they account it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to love their enemies to bless such as curse them to do good to those that hate them to pray for such as despitefully use them and persecute them Hath their practice manifested that they esteem this imitation of the divine goodness a piece of holy singularity Hath their way here in England been none other than the life and power of that part of the Law of Christ Have they accounted it a part of holy circumspection to redeem time in evil days to purchase to themselves a longer time to do good in by all just complyances by honest actions by a fair civil carriage a peaceable conversation by bending in all those flexures of fortune and condition which they cannot help See Dr. Taylor 's Sermon on Mat. 10. 16. Or have they acted as if they believed these other passages of Scripture to be divinely inspired If any man will come after me let him deny himself and take up his Cross and follow me Except you be converted and become as little children in all humility and subjection ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Take my yoke upon you Learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart If when you do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently this is acceptable with God Christ hath suffered for us leaving us an example that we should follow his steps who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not In the last days perilous times shall come for men shall be lovers of themselves covetous boasters proud cursed speakers false accusers intemperate fierce despisers of them that are good traytors heady high-minded having a Form of Godliness but denying the power thereof from such turn away We beseech you brethren that you study to be quiet and to meddle with your own business If any man love life and would see good days let him refrain his Tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no guile let him seek peace and ensue it Follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall ever see the Lord. The fruit of the spirit is love peace long-suffering meekness gentleness Now speak out man is this pure spiritual heavenly Doctrine or no Is the practising of it a duty incumbent upon all that would testifie themselves internally renewed or is it not Is the contrary neglect an argument of an unregenerate person were these things written by the Pen-men of Scripture with such Authority and Majesty as to beget in Presbyterians a disposition and practice in any tolerable measure thereunto conformable If this Author has the confidence to answer in favour of Presbyterians let him evince or at least endeavour to evince that their Covenanting to overthrow
no more stand with Monarchy than it can with Monogamy to be married to two several Wives and though 't is said that this Presbyterian Government meddles only with spiritual things which concern the good of the Soul and so it cannot hurt Regal power yet this is but only said and no more for 't is well known that in ordine ad spiritualia and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this rank as they have been by the Church of Rome this Government intrudes upon what things it pleaseth and where a supremacy is once acknowledged no wise man can think that it will carry it self otherwise so that King James his maxim was undoubtedly most true No Bishop no King For that most prudent Prince did soon discern that if a power were once set up which at least in the legal execution of it did not derive it self from the King there was no doubt to be made that it would ere long destroy the very King himself Or consider the Presbyterian Government in the English sence as it 's now set up by the two Houses at Westminster which is a Government limited by an Appeal to the Parliament for either by Parliament here they mean the two Houses excluding the King and then 't is as plain as before they set up two supremacies his Majesties and their own or else by Parliament they mean the King with both Houses and then 't will follow that either there must be a perpetual Parliament which sure the King nor Kingdom can't have cause to like or else the supremacy will be for the most part in the Presbytery because whenever a Parliament sits not there will be no Judge to appeal to or if it be said the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive Appeals in such Ecclesiastical causes then either in this Committee the King hath no Negative and in that case 't is clear that the Ecclesiastical supremacy will be not at all in the King or else the King hath a Negative but yet is joyned with persons whom he himself chuseth not and so most probably will be chek'd and affronted in any sentence he intends to give and this clearly overthrows that which is already declared by Parliament to be a right in the King as inherent in his Crown that Ecclesiastical Appeals may be made to him alone in Chancery for the Statute names no other and that his Majesty alone may appoint what Commissioners he pleases for their final decision I say consider the Presbyterian Government in the English Parliament sence and in the sence of the English Assembly for the Presbyterians there are wholly for the Scottish Form as appears by their quarrels at what the Houses have already done in their Ordinances and 't will appear that their aim is not only to set up a new Government but in plain terms a new Supremacy and hence to say truth he must see very little who discerns not that though the Presbyterian party seems to strike at the Bishops yet their main aim is at the King whose supremacy they endure not as being a flower which they intend for their own Garland and so though they hypocritically cry out that they may abuse the people against the pride of the Lordly Bishops yet in the mean time the wiser sort must needs see that they intend to make themselves no less than indeed Kingly Presbyters Thus he And if this Author thinks this reasoning insufficient to prove Presbytery Antimonarchical let him tell us why In the mean time it follows p. 44. 54. Or would his sort of men Presbyterians have no King to reign over them A. None if he will not comply with their humours Doth a Republick better please them A. Not an Independent or Anabaptistical Republick but time hath been when a Presbyterian Republick some parcels of the two Houses did please them far better than an Episcopal King Did the English or Scottish Presbyters ever go about to dissolve Monarchy and to erect some other kind of Government In no wise quoth he for in the Solemn League and Covenant they bound themselves to endeavour the preservation of the Kings person and Authority and declared they had no intent to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness Of the justness of which power themselves would be judges But did not all Covenanters do so as well as Presbyterians The man sure would make us believe either that our Monarchy was not dissolved and another kind of Government exected or else that 't was done by some that were not Covenanters For why is not this Argument as good Independents Covenanted to preserve the Kings person and Authority Therefore they never went about to dissolve Monarchy This is a much better consequence Neither the English nor Scottish Presbyterians endeavoured to preserve the Kings Authority just power and greatness the Justness whereof must be judged of by Law not by the dictates of insolent minds puft up with prosperity therefore either they never bound themselves and intended to preserve it or else they practised contrary to those obligations and intentions If he has the confidence to deny the Antecedent I may chance to evince it to him before we part Indeed his next words suggest a very considerable proof of it After the violent change of Government they the Presbyterians came slowest and entred latest into those new Engagements imposed by the Vsurpt powers Which is an implicit confession 1. That those Engagements were inconsistent with fidelity to Monarchical Goyernment and the Kings Authority 2. That yet at last the Presbyterians did enter into them whence I gather 1. That whereas the third Article of the Covenant obliged them to endeavour not only sincerely but also constantly with their Estates and Lives to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Authority just power and greatness they ceased to do so at last when they entred upon those new Engagements and consequently did then break their Covenant And 2. That the Presbyterians are not such fixt and unalterable Creatures as he would needs have perswaded us p. 29. 39. they are since they did upon changes in Government vary by degrees from themselves and either deserted those principles which kept them from engaging with the foremost or else contradicted them by engaging at last though slowly And truly that they did so is tacitly acknowledged by this Author p. 45. 55. where he tells us that the generality of conscientious Presbyterians never ran with the current of those times which sadly implies either that the generality of Presbyterians were not conscientious since they generally ran with the current at last or that some conscientious Presbyterians did notwithstanding the dictates of their conscience run with the current For either he must mean that the generality of Presbyterians otherwise conscientious did in that particular by an error of Conscience run with the current but this seems not to have been this Authors meaning for then it follows by his own confession that the
of Canonists Civilians Schoolmen nor is it to my knowledge contradicted by any that the Legislative power is delegable that such a concurrence is no Argument of supremacy or of such a mixture as some would infer out of it Some call it therefore apparens mixtura because it seems to destroy a simple Form of Government and to make a mixture in the power it self but doth not though otherwise they acknowledge it to be such a mixture as doth remit the simplicity thereof Grotius affirms to this purpose de Imperio summ potest circa sacra c. 8. N. 11. Illam legislationem quae alii quà m summae potestati competit nihil imminuere de jure summae porestatis He speaks this of Laws made by general Conventions whose concurrence he saith doth not in the least manner diminish the Rights of Majesty Such a mixture of the three Estates hath been in other Monarchies which all men acknowledge to have been absolute in respect of power as in the Persian which appears from Dan. 6 7 8 9. and the Roman Empire And not only whole representative Bodies but divers particular free Cities have the same priviledge yet have not supreme Authority As for the enacting Authority attributed in latter times to the Lords and Commons in the beginning of some Acts he affirms p. 101. That 't is only a power of assenting for it hath been resolved by the Judges that this clause Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and the Authority of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament is no more in substance and effect than that which was used anciently The King with the assent of the Lords and Commons establisheth the words assenteth and enacteth being equivalent in this case and p. 45. he tells us that though the two Houses have Authority granted them by the King to assent or dissent yet the Legislative power belongs to the King alone by the Common Law the Authority that animates a Bill agreed upon by the two Houses and makes it differ from a dead letter being in the King who is the life and soul of the Law which was resolved also by divers Earls and Barons and by all the Justices in the time of Edw. 3. For one Hardlow and his Wife having a controversie with the King and desiring to have it decided in Parliament a reference being made to divers Earls and Barons and to all the Justices to consider of the business it was resolved that the two Houses were not coordinate with the King in the legislative power but that the King alone made Laws by the assent of the two Houses that he had none equal or coordinate with him in his Realm and that he could not be judged by the Lords and Commons From all which it appears 1. That that part which the two Houses have by Law in the Legislative power is not a sufficient medium to perswade us that they have a part in the supremacy and 2. That they have no share at all in any power which may properly be called Legislative I mean in that sence in which the words Legislative power are now adays commonly taken viz. for a power of making Laws For among the Romans Legem ferre was no more than Legem ad populum in concionem quasi in medium afferre proponere and Legislation was no more than Legis Rogatio à populo the proposing the matter of a Law to the Roman Citizens and asking their assent in order to its establishment I conclude therefore that the supremacy is wholly in the King notwithstanding this insinuation to the contrary For the proof whereof if this Author stand in need of more Arguments I refer him to the Rebels Plea examined p. 11 12. to Dr. Pierce's Impartial Enquiry into the Nature of sin Appendix p. 210 211 c. To Mr. Sheringham's Remonstrance of the King 's Right or the King's supremacy asserted To Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 7 8 9. Indeed this consideration alone is sufficient to evince it that by the Oath administred to all that sit in the lower House the King is acknowledged the only Supreme Governor in all Causes then in Parliament-Causes says J. Jenkins Lex Terrae p. 127. over all Persons then over the two Houses ibid. which Oath every Member of the House of Commons is enjoyned by Law to take or else he hath no Voice in that House 5 Eliz. c. 1. Lex Terrae p. 67. Therefore the King is by Law the only supreme Governor and consequently it may not be thought that a part of the Supreme Power doth reside in the two Houses Our Author goes on And this part of the Supreme Power is capable indeed of doing wrong but how it might be capable of Rebellion is more difficult to conceive 1. Here he confidently takes it for granted that the two Houses are part of the Supreme Power whereas in the precedent words he spake more modestly and told us only it might be thought that a part of the Supreme Power did reside in them not peremptorily inferring that it doth reside in them And indeed he could not rationally have so concluded unless he had produced more cogent Arguments to make good that conclusion 2. Whereas he acknowledges the two Houses capable of doing wrong and tells us only that 't is difficult to conceive how they may be guilty of Rebellion 1. Notwithstanding this Apology the Presbyterians that acted in and by Authority derived from the two Houses may have been guilty of Rebellion since the difficulty of conceiving how they might be thus guilty will not evince their innocence 2. I demand of him whether 1. they are capable of doing such wrong to the King as the Law makes Treason and Rebellion whether 2. if they do such wrong it be not easie to conceive that they are guilty of Rebellion and Treason The Law of the Land 25 Edw. 3. ch 2. makes it treason to levy war against our Lord the King in his Realm or to be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving to them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere and also to counterfeit the Kings Great or Privy Seal or Money The resolutions of all the Judges of England upon the said Statute have been that to seize upon the Kings Ports Forts Magazines for War is high Treason Lex Terrae p. 77. as likewise to levy War either to alter the Religion or any Law establisht p. 22. 40. or to remove the Kings Counsellors p. 22. Yea these things were acknowledged to be Treason not only by Sir Edw. Cooke in his Institutes printed by an Order of both Houses dated May 12. 1641. but also by Mr. Solicitor S. John and Mr. Pym in their speeches touching the Earl of Strafford Where as J. Jenkins quotes them Lex Terrae p. 187 188. they likewise affirm it Treason to usurp the Royal power to raise rumors and give out words to alienate the peoples affections from the King to subvert the
of Parliament and that inviolably by the 42 of Edw. 3. enacting that if any statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none and consequently the Act of Parliament so called against that Priviledge of the Bishops was ipso facto null and void by robbing the King of his Negative voice of his power in the Militia by making Ordinances without him yea against him and so practically denying what they verbally swore that he was the only supreme Governour in all Causes and over all Persons By their electing new members warranted only by a counterfeit Seal By their taking upon them to create new Judges Justices and other Officers without the Kings consent For Laws and Liberties says J. Jenkins p. 146. have not the prevailing party in the two Houses destroyed above an hundred Acts of Parliament and in effect Magna Charta and Charta de Forestâ which are the Common Laws of the Land And p. 135. The Writ of Summons to this Parliament is the Basis and Foundation of the Parliament if the Foundation be destroyed the Parliament falls The Assembly of Parliament is for three purposes Rex est habiturus colloquium tractatum cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus super arduis negotiis concernentibus 1. Nos 2. Defensionem Regni nostri 3. Defensionem Ecclesiae Anglicanae The King says the Writ intends to confer and treat with the Prelates Earls Barons about the arduous affairs relating to 1. our Royal self 2. the defence of our Realm 3. the defence of the Church of England This Parliament says the Judge hath overthrown this Foundation in all three parts 1. Nos Our Royal self the King they have chased away and imprisoned at Holmbey they have voted no Prelates and that a number of other Lords about forty in the City must not come to the House and about forty more are out of Town the conference and treaty is made void thereby for the King cannot consult and treat there with men removed from thence 2. The defence of our Realm that is gone they have made it their Kingdom not his for they have usurp'd all his Soveraignty 3. The defence of the Church of England that is gone By the Church of England must be understood necessarily that Church that at the Teste of the Writ was Ecclesia Anglicana they have destroyed that too So now these men would be called a Parliament having quashed and made nothing of the Writ whereby they were summoned and assembled If the Writ be made void the Process must be void also The House must needs fall where the Foundation is overthrown thus he And all this was done before those Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian were many of them imprisoned and others forcibly secluded by the violence of the Army So that 't is very wonderful how this Rector of Bramshot could be either so ignorant or so impudent as to utter such an assertion especially since in his own following words which it seems he fancied to be a proof of its Truth a very considerable Argument is suggested to evince it an egregious Falshood For quoth he They had voted the Kings Concessions a ground sufficient for the Houses to proceed on to settle the Nation and were willing to cast whatsoever they contended for upon a legal security Now in that very Treaty at the Isle of Wight the Presbyterian party wrested such Concessions from the King as did in their own nature subvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom as is evident from the speech of Mr. Pryn himself concerning those Concessions 3. Edit p. 38. wherein he confesses that the Kings of England have always held two swords in their hands the sword of Mars in time of War the sword of Justice in time of Peace And p. 37. he tells us that in those Concessions the King had wholly stript himself his Heirs and Successors for ever of all that power and interest which his Predecessors always enjoyed in the Militia Forces Forts Navy Magazines p. 36. not only of England but Ireland Wales Jersey Guernsey and Barwick too so as he and they can neither raise nor arm one man nor introduce any foreign Forces into any of them by vertue of any Commission Deputation or Authority without consent of both Houses of Parliament and that he had vested the sole power and disposition of the Militia Forts and Navy of all these in both Houses in such ample manner that they should never part with it to any King of England unless they pleased themselves A security says Mr. Pryn so grand and firm that none of our Ancestors ever demanded or enjoyed the like nor any other Kingdom whatsoever since the Creation for ought that I can find and such a self-denying condescension in the King to his people in this particular as no Age can Precedent Thus the sword of Mars which themselves confess the former Kings of England always held was insolently wrested out of the late Kings hands and consequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation subverted in this particular Besides some Parliaments says he p. 40. in former times have had the nomination of the Lord Chancellor some of the Lord Treasurer some of the great Justiciary or some few Judges of England only but never any Parliament of England claim'd or enjoy'd the nomination and appointment of any the great Officers Barons Judges or Treasurers places in Ireland nor yet of the Lord Warden of the Cinque-Ports Chancellors of the Exchequer and Dutchy Secretaries of State Master of the Rolls or Barons of the Exchequer of England yet all these the King for peace-sake hath parted with to us And p. 41. we have the disposal he might have added Horresco referens of all these Officers in England and Ireland both Military and Civil of his sword of War and Peace his Justice his Conscience his Purse his Treasury his Papers his publick Records his Cabinet his Great Seal more than ever we at first expected or desired Thus horridly was the sword of Justice also wrested out of his Majesties hands and consequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation subverted in that particular likewise Another Concession was that no Peer who should be after that Treaty made by the King his Heirs and Successors should sit or vote in the Parliament of England without consent of both Houses of Parliament which says Mr. Pryn p. 43. gives such an extraordinary new power to the House of Commons as they never formerly enjoyed nor pretended to By which provision p. 44. the Commons are made not only in some sence the Judges of Peers themselves which they could not try or judge before by the express letter of Magna Charta cap. 29. and the Common Law but even their very Creators too And if the House of Commons might justly be term'd any part of the Fundamental constitution of our Nation what was this but to subvert the Fundamental Government By other Concessions the Houses were enabled p. 45.
Supreme Governour but the Parliament by which he understood those two Houses was the Supreme Power which is very strange says Judge Jenkins for who can govern without power p. 57. Whence all that I shall conclude is 1. That this part of the Authors Apology is rather an implicit confession and proof of the crime objected than an Argument of Presbyterian Innocence And 2. That it concerns his Majesty before he resolve to protect and encourage Presbyterians to catechize them very particularly and strictly touching those Loyal principles which this J. C. pretends to be embraced by them that so it may appear whether when they take the Oath of Supremacy they do it not with that Jesuitical or more than Jesuitical Equivocation just now mentioned or with such a mental reservation as will infer their approving now as well as in the late Wars of that Treasonable distinction between the King 's personal and politick capacity and that damnable and damned opinion as it seems Cook 's Reports call it B. 7. in Calvin's Case that Homage and the Oath of Allegiance was more by reason of the Kings Crown his Politick capacity than by reason of the Person of the King whence they inferred these detestable consequences 1. If the King demean not himself by reason his Leiges are bound by Oath to remove him 2. Seeing the King could not be reformed by Suit at Law that it ought to be done per aspertè by force 3. That his Leiges are bound to govern in aid of him all which were condemned by two Parliaments one in the reign of Edw. 2. and the other 1 Edw. 3. ch 1. See Sheringham's Remonstrance of the King 's right p. 75. And yet all these three damnable detestable and execrable consequences are the grounds whereupon the present time of the late Wars relies and the principles whereupon the two Houses found their cause says J. Jenkins p. 10. For ought I know Presbyterians own these principles to this day and so are prepared in mind again to teach men actively to disobey the King yea and to dethrone his Majesty by acknowledging two such Houses and obeying them as the Higher power whensoever they can by their disturbing Arts and Influences in raising and countenancing barbarous and seditious Tumults divide the King from the Houses the Loyal part of the Houses from the Disloyal and then patch them up again by Treasonable Elections and so pack together a company of men whom they will be bold enough to call a Parliament If all Presbyterians are of the same belief with Zachary Crofton in his Berith Anti-Baal they are still of opinion That the Covenant-imposing and taking Lords and Commons were a most lawful rightly called and constituted Assembly the Princes and principal Rulers of the people though themselves swear that the King is the only supreme Governour p. 7. that they were the Princes yea more the body of the people p. 30. That their Oath Covenant was the most positive authentick repeal of any Laws obliging to the contrary p. 31. 51. This says he Mr. Crofton and all rational men do believe That succeeding Parliaments are bound to repeal those Laws which establish the thing which those Lords and Commons had sworn to extirpate p. 31. That their swearing those things as the collective body of the Nation binds all posterity who shall any way succeed into that national capacity 'T is no reason of State for the King when he is able to suppress and reject them to protect and encourage any Party of men thus principl'd and dispos'd and therefore reason of State will put his Majesty upon a curious and diligent enquiry whether Presbyterians and others retain these and the like principles as that the Long Parliament is yet in being which is favour'd also p. 52. and will oblige him to deny them protection and encouragement till they renounce and abjure all such damnable and pernicious maxims In the following Lines p. 55-65 this Author would fain perswade us that Presbyterians must needs be good Subjects to a Christian King because Profaneness intemperance revellings outrages and filthy lewdness were not at any time in the memory of the present Age held under more restraint than in the late distracted times the special reason whereof was because a practical Ministry was more thick set throughout the Nation and the places where Presbyterian Ministers had the greatest influence were most reformed and civilized and the orderly walking of Religious Persons did keep others more within compass Which is no better than non causa pro causâ for 't is evident enough that that supposed effect must be attributed to Presbyterian Ordinances not Sermons and the Executors of them Presbyterian Magistrates I mean Mayors Bayliffs Justices of the peace Constables illegally chosen as the special principal cause without whose coercive power presbyterian Ministers might have preacht their hearts out before they had wrought the Reformation here talkt of especially considering 1. That himself p. 65. pleads for the annexing of some temporal damage and penalty to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction because spiritual censures and then say I much more Sermons pertaining only to the Conscience may be too little regarded And 2. That 't was easy enough for many filthy prophane intemperate persons thus to bespeak many of those practical Ministers as S. Paul did the Pharisaical Jew Behold thou art called a Presbyterian and restest in the Bible and makest thy boast of God and knowest his will and approvest the things that are excellent being instructed out of the Law and art confident that thou thy self art a guide of the Blind a light of them who are in darkness an instructer of the foolish a teacher of Babes who hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law Thou therefore who teachest another teachest thou not thy self Thou that preachest a man should not steal dost thou year after year reap the profits of that Living which by Law belongs to another who was plundered of it by illegal violence and that because he was a more loyal Subject than thy self Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou justifie and approve of the committing Sacriledge the robbing of God as well as man Thou that gloryest in the Law of the first Table at least by breaking the Law of the second Table dishonourest thou God Knowest thou not that he that said Thou shalt not commit adultery said also Honour thy Father and thy Mother Thou shalt not Kill nor Steal nor bear false witness nor covet other mens goods Thou thunderest out rebukes and threatnest damnation against us that are Adulterers Fornicators Unclean Drunkards Revellers and yet thou thy self art notoriously guilty of those other crimes which together with these are usually and equally forbidden and condemned in the same or the next verse and the doers of them sentenc'd to Hell When we lewd prophane and intemperate persons read in the Old Testament that Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft and stubbornness is as iniquity