called so in opposition to all forraign jurisdictions Lex Rex Quest 43. page 437. and over all Persons and Estates separatim but not over Lawes or over Estates taken conjunctim as convened in Parliaments The King was Major singulis but minor universis so that asserting him supreme in the Oath of supremacy infers not that his power and consequently allegiance was not under the power of any other for though he was supreme in respect of every single person yet the Representatives of their whole Nation were above him 2. Notwithstanding all the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons took the Oath of Allegiance themselves it will not follow that they had no power over allegiance they took that Oath as private men not as Representers of the Majesty of the people As Parliament-men they cannot fall under the notion of singulars they vote not as singulars but as publick Representative persons as those who have the power of the Counties and Towns they represent intrusted to them they therefore representing the community of the whole Nation are not were not properly Subjects Every singular person was a Subject to the King but the whole Community or University of the Nation is a Common-wealth having a Nomothetique power in it self Paramount to all its Magistrates and this University is represented by the House of Commons They therefore as Representatives might vote as a Parliament might enact the abrogation of allegiance As for that evasion of Non-scribers That the priviledge of a Superiour to unloose the Oath or Vow of his inferior is expresly restrained by the Law of God to the immediate declared dissent of the Superior Plea c. pag. 53. I answer that granting this were so the Parliament never gave way to the taking off the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy in Non-scribers sence they never intended to make the King above Parliaments they never gave him an irrecoverable power as I have shewed before out of Mr. Prinne They assented that the Oaths should be taken whereby the King was acknowledged the supreme executer of the Lawes it will not follow from hence that they made him free from all Lawes that he should not be as a Subject to them as the meanest of his Subjects as by ancient Lawes he ought to be nay they could not do this it had been a giving up the power intrusted by the people to them and could not have obliged the people Sen. Contr. lib. 2. Cont. 9. et si parendum in omnibus Patri in eo non parendum est quo efficitur nè Pater sit The Parliament gave the King a power to execute Lawes made and to be made by them the makers of all Lawes the King by force endeavours to cut in sunder the Lawes which he ought to have protected and raises Arms against the Parliament his superior to the dissolution of their Government as they voted May 23. 1642. he hereby becomes guilty of High Treason the Law excludes Traytors issue from all hereditary successions here is no need of dissent to the Oathes once taken for upholding his Authority it was forfeited by himself his Superiours by Law executed him by Law judge his posterity uncapable of succession the Subjects are free from obligations unless we must say that the King is above all Lawes as Court-Parasites have done Non-scribers therefore abuse the world when they say a dissent came too late to that which was never sworn to by any Englishman the Oaths were never allowed to be taken but with the necessary implyed Salvo saving our obedience to the Lawes and Common wealth Nor do they deale any better in the case of the House of Lords We are bound by Covenant to preserve the priviledges of Parliament Plea c. p. 47. Now say they we are confident that at the taking of the Protestation and Covenant there was no usage of the word Parliament either in written Lawes Statutes or other Records but what necessarily intended the House of Lords Soveraign Power of Parliaments part 1. p 43. as one main and separable part but they must be believed upon this their confidence for besides confidence I might say impudence they have nothing to prove it One of Mr. Prinn's Authours was as confident on the other side that there were Parliaments in England when there was neither Bishop Earl nor Baron so that the Priviledges of Parliament may be safe and yet neither Bishop Earl nor Baron be in any power The House of Lords were not intended as a main and inseparable part of the Parliament but as Judges in all plaints against the King and his Children with whom when faulty if they collude and neglect their trust the Commons might discard them nor will it stand with the Rule of Christian obedience that any private persons should defâ—nd them against the just sentence of the Commons their superiors whose priviledges were above theirs and therefore are to be respected before them 2. Non-scribers grant Plea c. pag. 53. that Oathes cease to oblige by the cessation of the matter sworne The matter is ceased The King and House of Lords are ceased to be a power in regard of right as I have shewed before Thus by their owne concessions it is evident that the former Oathes are no just barre to hinder them from taking the Engagement I might adde other wayes how an Oath may be rendered unobliging but I shall content my selfe with their owne concessions and leave what they say in their Appendix to such who are engaged already by Non-scribers quarrelling with their principles It were but to waste Paper Plea c. pag. 51. 53. 54. to answer what else they say about the duration of the obligation of those Oathes we require no Pope nor other power to absolve us from them we are not drawne aside by any changes we see the powers to which the Engagements were made taken away by their Superior power and now being a nullity which is in Non-scribers language a civil Idol we are sure nothing can oblige us to that which is not either in being or right Nor are the Powers of the King and Lords hîc nunc lawfull they were lawfull heretofore because established by the Legislative power now the same power hath abrogated them and are to us as if they had not bin Neither is it possible to set them up again I meane to any meerly private Illud possumus quod jure possumus Lucius Florus lib. 1. cap. 9. I dare not owne the possibility of that which is unlawfull Brutus put his two Sons to death for endevouring to reduce Tarquin the reason was not because Kingly power was unlawfull but because it was at that time unlawfull to them the Lawes of the Roman State forbidding it I wish Non-scribers so much wisdom and morality as that heathen Counsel had for in all their Plea there is want of sound reason to maintaine what they call the dictate of their
all separate Congregations and desired that no Members of such might be admitted to any place of publick trust Yet instead of seeing in this their affliction which in their delivered Consciences if they be conscientious will not suffer them to do what is lawful and acknowledging with Adonibezek that God is righteous they obliquely persecute others by censuring their Consciences nay and plainly say Judges 1.7 that they are angry with them because they have not so great a swallow as themselves Of these we may say as the holy Chronicler of Ahaz These are the Ministers who when they were afflicted 2 Chronicles 28.22 Prov. 21.24 Prov. 19.25 Prov. 21.11 compared did yet more wickedly Had their Apology been modest I should not have troubled the Reader with thus much but since they deal in proud wrath Solomon as he tells them their name so he directs us how to deal with them that the simple may be wise and beware The Ministers in their Appendix answer some Arguments which are made by others for the Engagement I shall not stand upon their Answer to any Argument that I make not use of my self But leave the Northern Subscribers and the Authour of the grand case of Conscience to speak for themselves for they have both age and abilities which I may more truly say of them then these men of their Baal Berith which terme I desire that it may not be understood as if I derogated from the Covenant but as setting forth the abuse of it by these men who make it a perfect and compleat directory for all things sacred and civil It cannot be a dishonour to it to be called so in respect of the abuse no more then it was to the Brazen Serpent to be called Nehushtan 2 Kings 18.4 when it was Idolized Animadversions on a Book called a Plea for Non-scribers IT alwayes hath been the practice of men that delight in vitilitigation to obscure things in themselves plain by their devising of many sences for them This do the Non-scribers for I shall hereafter use this name which themselves have imposed on themselves charging the Engagement with a Protean ambiguity from which diversity of interpretation they require some to free them Spumantemque dari pecora inter inertia votis Optat Aprum aut fulvum descendere monte Leonem Virgil. Aenead lib. 2. whose interpretation may bear a warrant in it A desire fit for Non-scribers modesty who as youthful Ascanius weary of chasing fearful Deere Wished a foaming Boare his Game to mend Or-Lion from the Mountain to descend So they dare Authority all other reason is but impar congressus Achilli Yet to let them see that the Engagement is not of such a Protean ambiguity but that an engager may agree with them in that sence which they say is most plain proper and equitable I shall after rectifying a few mistakes of theirs close with them in the main of their construction 1. Plea c. Pag. 11. By the Common-wealth of England they understand a particular form of Government But here is the matter with its form the people or community of England in the form of a Common-wealth as the Kingdom of England was the people of England under that form of Monarchy This they might have disâ—erned in the Acts they quote themselves Plea c. pag. 10. in the Margin where they find mention of the Nation under this present Government and the well Government thereof in a way of Common-wealth or free State so that when it is said the Common-wealth of England England is not * As they say Appendix p. 34. a whole abstracted from all formes but cloathed with its form of a Common-wealth or free State Arist polit l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. They understand that this is invested in certain persons but this betrayes their ignorance in the nature of a Common-wealth or free State it being proper to a Common-wealth that in vicissitudes the same persons both command obey And therefore when we engage to a Common-wealth we understand the vicissitudes of Magistrates we engage to this Parliament for the present and to all other Representatives of the people hereafter to be chosen and to the people we engage to preserve their liberty of chusing their Representatives For a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Common-wealth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Government in which the people Govern Arist Polit. lib. 3. which they could not be made to do had they not the liberty to elect their supreme Magistrates Upon these mistakes many of their Arguments are grounded and hence it followes that in many things they fight against a man of straw Quae enim populi partes in civitate si jure suffragii in creandis Magistratibus negotiis similibus destituatur Vbbo Emmius Descript Reipub Atheniensis pag. 12. that themselves have set up In the matter and form of the Engagement I agree with them and confess it is not in the power of the Engagers as single private persons to put a period to its duration but in the hands of the engaged to viz. the people of England in the form of a Common-wealth It lies I say in their power to chuse to themselves what other form shall hereafter most tend to their own being and wel-being which is the end of all civil society The whole sense of the Engagement is this I declare and promisâ— that I will be true and faithful not only negatively but positively to the people of England as now moulded in the form of a Common wealth withâ—â—t a King or House of Lords Let us hear their Plea against it In the first place they argue thus A power unjust in attainment and possession we cannot be either positively or negatively faitâ—ful to Plea c. pag. 11. But the power in the Engagement is such Ergo Neither of these prppositions are undeniably true the weakness of the Major and its supporters hath been sufficiently evinced by a most able and learned Authour in answer to the exercitation concerning usurped Powers I purposely forbear to answer it not out of doubt of its infirmity but because of the specious pretences that such as Non-scribers take from defense of the lawfulness of submission and obedience to Powers unjust in attainment to bespatter the present power See Plea c. pag. 34. Plea c. pag. 19.20 Appendix page 3. as confessed to be unjust by its defenders Of which fault of wresting suppositions into concessions the Non-scribers are not innocent Come we then to the examination of the Minors strength for the confirming of which they argue from two mediums The present power say they is unjust in its attainment 1. In regard of its removal disposition and subversion of the ancient established Government which was a multiformed or compound Magistracy of King Lords and Commons coordinate the one to the other I expected in a charge of this nature that they
our ancient Chronologers for immediately before the passage they quote he acknowledges that before Richards Coronation most writers call him not a King and then he holds that Sycophantical glosse which Non-scribers make use of A Lawyer and that a friend of their own tells us from Walfingham a farre more authentique Historian then the Merchant-Taylor that in the Coronation of Richard the 2d when the King had taken his Oath Archiepiscopus praecedente eum c. the Arch Bishop Henry Percy the Marshal of England going before him turned himself to all the parts of the Church and acquainted the people with the Kings Oath asking them whether they would obey such a Prince and it was answered by all the people with a loud voice that they would which custom saith he hath bin constantly before and since observed And another of his profession saith Soveraign power of Parliaments part 1. p. 75. That the King ought to take his Oath before he should require his Subjects homage when any Subjects have sworn homage before the King had done his homage sworn fealty to the State Law it hath been observed by Historians as some kind of Comet or Prodigy in State-politiques so that notwithstanding Rights of the Kingdom p. 32 that for peace sake the next of the blood hath usually succeeded yet he could not require homage before he had first sworn to the Lords the Commons consâ—quently hath his Kingly bâ—ing from that stipulation He cannot then be coordinate with them whose swearing obedience to the Lawes they shall chuse gives him his Kingly power and dignity 3. Lex Rex quest 21. p. 177. 178. Those who make a King and have power to unmake him in point of misgovernment must be above the King in point of Government But the Parliament makes Kâ—ngs and Kings make not Parliaments the Kings power is fiduciary and put in his hands upon trust and must be ministerial and borrowed from those who put him in trust his power must then be lesse When the King hath received power from them they have the whole power they had before that is to make Lawes and resigned no power to the King but to execute Lawes and his convening them is an act of royal duty c. Lex Rex quest 24. p. 210. all this is Mr. Rutherford's and therefore should take more with Non-scribers And again the Parliament is coordinate with the King ordinarily but the coordination on the King's part is by derivation on the Parliaments part originaliter and fontaliter In ordinary there is a coordination but if the King turn tyrant the Parliament is to use their fountain power and that of the Law Par in parem non habet potestatem is no better from his pen saith Mr. Rutherford that is from the excommunicate Bishops of Rosse then from Barclay Grotius Arnisaeus Blackwood c. We hold the Parliament that made the King at Hebron to be above their Creature the King See then Reader who are the Patriarchs and Prophets of Non-scribers fast Cavaliers excommunicated Prelates But what say Non-scribers to this Argument Even run themselves into the height of Cavalierisme Appendix p. 35. The Authour of the Engagement vindicated saith the people chuse their Representatives and they set up Kings who are therefore meerly the peoples Creatures depend upon continuation of their pleasures Ejus est instituere cujus est destituere To this they answer This is spoken as if it were undeniably true that Kings with us have been wont to be set up by the Representatives of the people but we have neither seen nor read of any such custome in England we have not any one president of a King created meerly by a Representative Is this their knowledge of Histories to which they send us elsewhere for satisfaction Sir Thomas Smith calls the Parliament the Representative body of all England wherein every Englishman is presumed to be either by himself or by his Proxie And many Kings have been made by this Who made William the first King his Conquest Non-scribers will say was no just title the right successive heir of the Crown Edgar Etheling surviving who made William the 2. and Henry the 1. Kings while their elder Brother Robert was alive What Title had King John by succession as long as Arthur and Anne the Children of his elder Brother George Frey Duke of Brittain lived the latter of which Anne lived in the Reign of Henry the third Son of John The Arch-Bishop Hubert at the Coronation of John spake thus Noverit discretio vestra c. Be it known to your discretion that none hath right or any fore title to succeed another in a Kingdom unless first he be with invocation for grace and guidance of Gods spirit by the body of the Kingdom thereunto chosen Soveraign power of Parliaments part 1. p. 54. Rights of their Kingdoms p. 70. So Mr. Prinne out of Hoveden to which all the Assembly consented scientes quod non sine causa sic defini verat as the Authour of the rights of their Kingdom out of Matthew Paris and Wendover compared with Hoveden and others which Authour tells us that if Bracton and Fleta 2 ancient Judges may be made Judges of our Kings Titles they will tell us that in their times our Kings were elective And one of them lived in Henry the thirds time the other soâ—ewâ—at after Edward the 3. was made King by the same power that his Father was deposed by and what that was Speed Ed. 2. S. 74. Speed will tell you the sentence was pronâ—unced by William Tâ—ussel of all the men in England and of the Parliament Procurator Fractus Temporum part 7. Rich. 2. Henry the 4. was chosen and made King of England by the people for the rightful manhood they found in him as the old Fructus Temporum But to conclude who made Henry the 7. King not succession for by his Father he was a meer stranger to the Royal Line and by his Mother of such a â—prout of the Family of Lancaster as was excluded from succession to the Crown by that Law which made it capable of succeeding to ordinary Inheritances Speed Hen. 7. S. 1. as Speed confesseth By his wife he had it not for he exercised all the Acts of Royal Power before he was married His Conquest Non-scribers will deny to be a Title it must then follow Speed Rich. 3. S. 53. that it was from the Parliament he had his Title unless they will say with Speed he had it by election of the people in the field at Bâ—sworth But I believe Non-scribers will say that Act was more valid which was done by an orderly Parliament then that which was done by the Souldiers in the height and heat of their victory If they have not seen or heard these things they are strangers in English History But it was not the obscurity of these things in our Histories that made
yet will not this make them coordinate with the Commons The means are subordinate to the end The Patron is but an honorary servant to his Client As if a Patron having bargained with his Clients adversarie for a share of the profits should betray his Clients cause he would not hurt his Clients rights So the conspiracie of great ones to the hurt and destruction of the people cannot detract any thing from the Peoples right They will fall into the punishment the Law ordains against prevaricators and the Law will permit the people to choose another Patron and pursue their own right Thus Junius Brutus If the House of the Lords then refuse to judge Hamilton's Army publick Enemies if they continue in a destructive Treaty with a Tyrant their Judiciall power which themselves desert is lost The legislative power may deprive them of that power for the future 2. The Fountain of this power considered will shew them not to be coordinate with the Commons The fore-praised Author out of the British Antiquities and an old Law-book called The Mirror shews that the Lords were raised out of and by the Commons of late they have been made by the King Now if the King be not coordinate with the Representers of the People much lesse can they be that have their Honor from him The Kings of England heretofore have been constrained by Parliament to lessen the number of their meniall Servants And although the late Kings might be tolerated to make mushrom Lords to furnish out a Court-jigge or a Coronation-Pomp yet could they make none to equall them who gave Laws to them both the Commons of England 3. The Lords sate in a personall capacitie onely not so much as representing their own Families thence were their Brethren and Sons Members of the House of Commons as Denzill Hollis Nathaniel Fienes c. So many single Persons cannot equall the Representives of the whole people The Senate of Rome who had a greater power then the House of Lords were not equal to the Colledge of the Tribunes of the people Neither should we grant that there were an equalitie of Power between the King Lords and Commons would it follow that therefore they have no power one over the other There are exceptions from the generall rule Par in Parem non habet potestatem Neither will their Major be firm should we keep the terme coordinate For 1. The End of Coordination of Powers is that if one should prove pernicious to the Common-wealth there might not be wanting a Power to restrain it and if necessity require the taking of it away there might be a face of publick Authoâ—ity remaining 2. Superiors may become obnoxious to their Inferiors when by contract they make themselves so Much more may coordinates become obnoxious to each other if they be all bound to pursuc one end and some prevaricate 'T is to be confest indeed that ordinarily Coordinates have no privitive power over one another but yet the Rule holds not in all cases where one Coordinate endeavors to destroy the End for which it was ordained the other Coordinate may remove it The End of both their Coordination being to be preferred before the means conducing to it and it being not onely dangerous to let the remedie fall into the hands of the multitude but unlawfull for the innocent coordinate to quit his station Constantine the great Pari potestate praeditiâ— notum verò est quod vuâ—go dicitur Par in parem non habet imperium nibil-ominus tamen Conâ—tantinus Licinium Christianos in iisque nobiles plaerosque religionis sive causâ sive praetextu re egantem divexantem contrucidantem bello peâ—it religionis liberum cultum Christianis vi impetrat fidem denique frangentem ad pristinam saevitiam revertentem Thessalonicae morte mulciari jubet Vindiciae contra Tyrannos Quae. 4. pag. 204. and Licinius were both of them Emperors in one Common-wealth of equall power and that vulgar saying is well known Par in parem non habet potestatem yet notwithstanding when Licinius banished vexed killed many Christians and among them many Noble ones either because of their Religion or under that pretence Constantine waged war upon him by force procures for the Christians free exercise of their Religion and at last puts Licinius to death at Thessalâ—nica who had broken his promise and returned to his former cruelty so Junius Brutus who also adds that when the Empire was divided between Constantines three Sons and Constantine the eldest maintained the Arrians Constans the yongest the orthodox the yonger threatned the elder to force him to restore Athanasius whom he had banished The Consuls were set up at Rome Ne potestas soâ—â—tudine corrumperetur Florus l. 1. c. 9. Suet. in Julio cap. 49. Plea c. p. 21. lest a power without companion should turn to Tyranny the Consuls therefore were coordinate yet when Caesar affected Tyranny his Collegue Bibulus proscribed him and had he had strength would doubtlesse have executed the sentence he pronounced But yet there is another stumbling block Those that removed the King and Lords are not an House of Commons they are but a parcell of one of the Estates the majority being excluded by them and kept from them by force of Arms. To which I answer 1. By denying that the House did exclude the Members that were excluded at the first the force that was used in exclusion of them was not by the consent of their fellow-Members as appears by their Message to the Generall and Councell of War Neither doth the omission of the prosecution of the Authors of it argue their consent The punishment of an Error suppose that this we speak of be one may be omitted by Authority if such punishment be dangerous to the Publick Peace Page 9. 10. but of this the Exercitation Answered speaks sufficiently 2. By denying that they are kept out by force but by Order of the House which hath power to punish its offending Members The majority of the House that followed the King to Oxford were excluded by Vote The House past severall Votes to exclude them that would not take the Covenant yet none ever questioned the remaining part to be an House unlesse it were the Oxford Cavaliers The majority of the Lords House were excluded by Vote Petition of 12500. c. and kept out by the minor part and yet the Lancashire Ministers call this minor part The House of Peers in their Petition and their Answer received August 25. 1646. the Answer of the House of Peers And I can conceive no reason why the exclusion of some Members out of the House of Commons should make them no House and the exclusion of the major part of the House of Peers not make â—hem no House unlesse it be that Non-scribers have forsâ—ken their former principles But Plea c. p. 23. this Vote by which the majority was excluded was contrary to the Vote of that
Democratical the Government of these Deligates is Oligarchical they being chosen out of the wealthiest of every County and both these put together make up a Pol ty as Aristotle calls it but as Plato whose termes differ from Aristottles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To prove the erection of this unlawful they much labour but that toyl of theirs might very well have been spared The people of this Land have in all ages had a supreme power over their King and Lords which was exercised by their Representatives who by old Lawes were to meet twice a year and by a latter Statute once a year though the Tyranny of wicked Kings had brought that of late into a disuse Which prescription notwithstanding cannot take away the Peoples right It s vulgarly said That no prescription lies against the Kings Exchequer much less can a prescription lie against the People who are greater then the Prince and for whose sake the Prince hath that priviledge Dicores quatuor esse in quibus sita est tota vis Majestas Reipublicae nimirum Jus Magistratuum creandorum Deliberationes omnes de Pace de Bello Legum lationes tandèmque Provocationes Donatus Janottius de Repub Venetâ pag. 59. Speed Book 5. Chap. 5. Suma imperii bellique administrandi communi concilio commissa est â—assivellauâ—e Nostro adventu commoti Britani hunc toti bello imperióque praefecerant Caesar Commenter lâ—b 5. Spe. d. lib. 7. cap. 1. S. 6. saith Junius Brutus The form of Government is that which dat esse operari as Non-scribers say and natural order and reason requires that propriae operationes propriae formae respondeant if therefore it be proved that the Representatives have ever had de jure a power to do the Acts proper to the supreme power it will follow that the supreme power was formally in them and that they were a Common-wealth having supreme Authority in themselves Let me here use the words of a learned Florentine I say saith he that there are four things in which the whole power and Majesty of every politique body is placed the power of creating Magistrates all deliberations concerning Peace and Warre making of Lawes and the last appeales If therefore the Representatives of the people have had the right to create all general Magistrates to consult of Peace and Warre to make and abrogate Lawes and the priviledge of the last appeal to be made to them they have been the supreme power That they have had these Rights I shall prove and begin first with Creation of Magistrates Julius Caesar before whose entrance into this Island the times are obscure through whose mists no Eagles eyes can pierce as the beloved Historian of Non-scribers Speed confesseth found the supreme power of electing Magistrates in a Common-Councel of the people The chief power of Rule and administring the Warre was by a Common Councel committed to Cassivellauâ—e And again the Britâ—ains being troubled at our landing set him that is Cassivellaune over the whole Warre and Empire The Common Councel then that made Cassivellaune King and General was a Tan-Britanicum an Assembly representing all Britain And when the Romans quitted their tooting here the Britains being invaded by the Picts joyntly united their meanes and powers and with one consent elect a King to manage those affairâ—s which was Vortigerne whom afterwards they deposed and elected his Sonne Vortimer But I must for further satisfaction in this point refer them to the Authour of the Rights of the Kingdom who after many Examples of such Creation of Kings concludes thus We see the Law at lest the â—ustom of those times both for electing anointing judging and executing of Kings themselves among our British Ancestors Conceâ—ning our Saxon Ancestors saith the same Authour the Minor is very clear that they did elect or chuse their Kings from among themselves who well agrees therein with the witness of Tacitus Rights of the Kingdom p. 55. Rights of the Kingdom p. 35. Reges ex nâ—bilitate duces ex virtute sumunt Tacitus de moribus Germanorum Soveraign Power of Parliaments part â— p 78. Soveraign Power of Parliaments part 2. p. 41. Soveraign Power of Parliaments part 1. p. 91. who speaking of the ancient Germans of whom the Saxons were a branch saith they chose their Kings for their Nobility their Leaders for their vertue which Testimony informs us that they enobled some for their vertues and out of them chose their Kings Concerning the Normans I have spoken already To conclude with the Testimony of Mr. Prinne who tells us That our Parliament and Kingdom observe the opposition anciently have both claimed and exercised a Supreme Power over the Crown of England it self and that we may be sure what he meanes by Parâ—iament in another place he saith out of Fortescue Chancellor of England in Henry the sixth's time that Kings were created and elected at first by the general Votes of the people from whom alone they receive all their lawful Authority having still no other or greater lawful power then they conferred on them only for the defence of Lawes Persons Liberties Estates and the Republicks welfare which they may regulate augment or diminish for the common good as they see just cause Neither did the setting of Kings over them divest them of the supreme power it self if Mr. Prinne while a defender of Parliaments may be credited I doubt not saith he but our Parliaments Kings and all other Nations would say they never intended to erect such an absolute eternal unlimited Monarchy over them and that they ever intended to reserve the absolute original soveraign jurisdiction in themselves that if their Princes should degenerate into Tyrants they might have a remedy to preserve themselves An impregnable evidence that the whole Kingdom and Parliament representing it observe what is a Parliament the Representative of a Kingdom and then not the Lords that represent no body are the most Soveraign power and above the King because having the supreme jurisdiction in them at first they never totally transferred it to the King but reserved it in themselves I should tire my Reader should I say all that might be said concerning the Commons Creation of other Magistrates Soveraigâ— Power of Parliaments part 2. p. 7. Mr. Prinne brings in Sir Edward Cook affirming that the Lord Chancellor Treasurer privy Sealâ— Lord chief Justice Privy Councellors Heretoches Sheriffs with all Officers of the Kingdom of England and Constables of Castles were usuâ—lly elected by the Parliament to whom of ancient right their election belonged who being commonly stiled the Lord Chancellor Treasurer chief Justice c. of England not of the King were of right elected by the Representative body of the Realm of England to whom they were accountable for their misdemeanors Rights of the Kingdom p. 77. 78. 2. All consultations of Peace and Warre of right appertain to the Commons of England It was the great Councel saith the Authour of the Rights
assertion I have shewed before Kings of politique kingdoms as England was in Fortescue's Judgement cannot change the Laws 2 Chronicles 21.10 Soveraign power of Parliaments Part. page 37. but the people are to be ruled by Laws only of their own making If the Representatives of the people have by the Law of nature a power over their Magistates and have exercised in it almost all Nations and the legislative power in England rests in them they had a power sufficient to take away the King and House of Lords and the powers that are taken away by their lawfull superiors are noe Power nor doth any tye lie upon their quondam Subjects to obey them What they adde ex abundanti Eccles 5.1 2 3. Plea c. page 41. Rom. 13.7 to prove the power of King and Lords still to remain is from such abundance as their sacrifice is whose voice is known by a multitude of words indeed meere Battology They say 1. The sanction of that Government from God is not disanulled they busie themselves to find out a way how it may be said to be dissolved I shall tell them Obedientia limitari semper debet secundùm limites potestatis quam habet superior praecipiens Medulla Theol. lib. 2. cap. 17. Thes 54. Plea c. page 42. God commanding obedience to powers commands to give every one their due and learned Ames will tell them that obedience ought alwayes to be limited according to the limits of the power of the superior commanding whence he concludes that the bond of obedience to an inferiour power ceases when the superior power commands it not to be obeyed We may safely conclude then that the Sanction of obedience to King and Lords is disanulled by the taking away of their Offices by the Representatives of the People of England their lawful Superiours 2. They would perswade us that the original constitution of the people in King Lords and Commons coordinate is not made void But the people never constituted such a Lordly King and Kingly Lords as they dream of they never gave them a joint power with themselves Non-scribers are pittifully mistaken in saying that the people chose their Delegates to consult and concurrently act with the King in Parliament They were chosen ad faciendum as the writ of Summons speakes to make Lawes for Kings and Lords as well as others not to be only Councellors or concurrent actors with them For their Reasons which they say they would produce to prove that it is unlawful for a people to depose their supreme Magistrate they would be very impertinent at the present for the supreme Magistrate is not deposed as long as the House of Commons stands and I doubt unconclusive unlesse they fully answer what Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Prinne two of their own friends have said in asserting the peoples power in that particular 3. Lawes say they are not repealed that give the sway of Government to certain persons and their issue To which I answer that such Lawes Plea c. page 43. if such there were are at lestwise virtually repealed in the Acts for taking away the Kingly Office and House of Lords and such repeales are lawful the whole legislative power being in the Representatives of the people who as an House are above all our common Law and positive Statutes and may change alter and abrogate them as they see most rationally convenient for the publick utility of the people These things considered engaging will appear nothing contrary to the Scriptures they quote page 37. The Senate was above Caesar and our Representatives of greater power then the Roman Senate the Parliament and people are the highest power No King is dishonoured by a Tyrants deposition no Ordinance of God is violated since God never ordained Tyranny in Exercise more then in Title Non-scribers are the men given to change who joyned with the Parliament in Armes against the King ere a while and one of the highest Acts of Soveraignty is the voting and making Warre and now are ready to joyn with his hopeless brood against the Parliament Plea c. page 44. In Judaeos Mahumeristas sub Christianism◠latitantes exerceri solet Grotius Antiqu Reip. Bat. c. 6. Paul Servita History of the Inquisition page 12. Their second Argument to prove that they are preingaged is grounded upon their Oathes Protestations Covenants Of which they affirm 1. Their contrariety to the Engagement 2. Their unremitted obligation In the entry to the answer of this Argument I cannot but observe that Non-scribers make the same use of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Protestation and Covenant which the Spaniards make of the Inquisition-Office which being at the first erected for the purging out of Jews and Moores professed enemies to Christianity is now used for the keeping out of all power of Christianity from coming amongst them so those Oaths and Obligations which were at first imposed to secure us against the enemies of our State and to discover Priests Jesuites and Cavaliers are now urged in the favour of a party who hath interwoven their interest so with that of the Romanists and Malignant Royalists that should they be observed with Non-scribers interpretation our Religion and Liberties are likely utterly to be subverted at lest-wise we should be put into as dangerous contests for them as we have through Gods assistance waded through in our late commotions Should we grant them that those former Engagements are opposite to the Engagement which well may be denied in the proof of which negative some of late have worthily travelled yet it will not thence follow that the Engagement is unlawful if it may be made appear that the obligation of them is ceased Non-scribers confess Plea c. page 52. that an Oath may be rendred void 1. By the revocation of a Superior having lawful power in the matter of the Oath The lawfulness of the superiority of the Peoples Representatives over the King c. hath been proved and if they had power over the Powers to whom the Oath is made so that they might lawfully divest them of their power they had power over allegiance the matter of the Oath Neither is this power of theirs over the matter of the Oaths weakened by any thing that Non-scribers say For 1. Notwithstanding the Oath of Supremacy acknowledges the King to be supreme Governour yet the Parliament and Kingdom are the supreme power paramount to him saith Mr. Prinne He was the supreme executioner of publick justice had a supreme executive power but not a supreme legislative power Soveraign Power of Parliaments part 1. pag◠104.105 that still was retained by the Representatives of the people To this we may adde what Mr. Prinne saith that the supremacy given to the King relates to the Popes and forraign Princes Authority formerly usurped not to Parliaments and their jurisdiction with whom Mr. Rutherford well agrees who scaning how the King is called supreme saith he is