can do nothing but manifest their Grievances and petition for relief By the way I must tell him that I have read in a Speech of King James's to both Houses March 21. 1609. these words I would wish you of the lower House especially to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of Grievances 1. That you do not meddle with the main points of Government That is my Craft Tractent fabrilia fabri To meddle with that were to lessen me I must not be taught my office 2. Nor with such ancient Rights of mine as I have received from my Predecessors possessing them more Majorum For that were to judge me unworthy of that which my Predecessors had and left me 3. I pray you beware to exhibit for Grievance any thing that is established by a settled Law for to be grieved with the Law is to be grieved with the King who is sworn to be the Patron and maintainer thereof In general beware that your Grievances savour not of particular mens thoughts but of the general Griefs rising out of the minds of the people and not out of the humour of the Propounder If these Cautions had been carefully observed by the thing called the Long-Parliament it had not been it self the greatest grievance the Subject ever felt 2. I have read says he that by the Constitution it hath part in the Soveraignty and so it hath part in the Legislative power and in the final Judgment I question whether he hath read this thus expressed in any Book but his own I rather think it a mistake and that he had read somewhere that the Parliament hath part in the Legislative power and so it hath part in the Soveraignty there being a Treatise extant wherein the Parliament's part in the Soveraignty is inferred from its part in the Legislative power but none that I know of wherein its part in the Legislative power is argued from its part in the Soveraignty Now says he when as a part of the Legislative power resides in the two Houses as also a power to redress Grievances and to call into Question all Ministers of State and Justice and all Subjects of whatsoever degrees in case of Delinquency it might be thought that a part of the Supreme power doth reside in them though they have not the Honorary Title To which I answer 1. 'T is denyed that either or both Houses have any power of themselves to redress the Grievances of the Kingdom or to call into question any Delinquents I have read in his Majesties forementioned Declaration that the House of Commons hath never assumed or in the least degree pretended to a power of Judicature having no more Authority to administer an Oath the only way to discover and find out Facts to than to cut off the Heads of any Subjects And in Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 116. That a Court must be either by the Kings Patent or Statute-Law or Common-Law which is common and constant usage The House of Commons hath neither Patent Statute-Law nor Common-Law enabling them to be a Court or to give an Oath p. 27. and 140 141. or to examine a man p. 65. as also that both the Houses can make no Court without the King p. 148. 122. that the two Houses by the Law of this Land have no colour of power either to make or pardon Delinquents the King contradicting p. 24. and 119. and that though it belong to the Lords to reform erroneous Judgments given in other Courts for that all the Judges of the Land the Kings Council and the twelve Masters of the Chancery assist there by whose advice erroneous Judgments are redressed yet when the writ of error is brought to reverse any Judgment there is first a Petition to the King for the allowance thereof p. 55. 106. I have read also in the Hist of Independ p. 1. p. 61 62. That the House of Peers is no Court of Judicature without the Kings special Authority granted to them either by his Writ or his Commission and therefore in the trial of the Earl of Strafford and in all other trials upon Life and Death in the Lord's House the King grants his Commission to a Lord high Steward to sit as Judge and the rest of the Lords are but in the name of Jurors and says J. Jenkins p. 103. When the Lords had condemn'd to death by an Ordinance Sir Simon de Beriford a free Commoner of England they afterwards better considered the matter and that they might be acquitted of the sentence became suiters to the King that what they had so done might not in future time be drawn into President because that which they had done was against Law and the Judge gives this reason against taking away mens lives by Ordinances because an Ordinance binds not at all but pro tempore as the two Houses then affirmed and a mans life cannot be tri'd by that which is not binding and to continue for all times for a life lost cannot be restored From which premises I conclude that neither one nor both Houses though legally summoned and elected have power to redress publick Grievances or try Delinquents without the King's consent And as for that part of the Legislative power which is said to reside in them and from whence their part in the Supremacy is thought fit to be concluded 1. The two Houses even when full and free have so constantly acknowledged themselves in Statutes and Acts of Parliament most loyal faithful and obedient subjects to the King their Soveraign Lord that from this alone 't is manifest enough they did not deem themselves to have any such part in the Legislative power as might entitle them to a part in the Soveraignty 2. I have read in the Rebels Plea examined p. 12. these words Neither is it true that the Legislative power is partly in them the two Houses they are I grant to consent to the making new and abolishing old Laws but that is no cogent proof of the partition of the Supreme and Legislative power for which p. 14. he quotes these words of Grotius c. 3. de jure Belli sect 18. who says Multum falluntur qui existimant cum Reges acta quaedam sua nolunt esse rata nisi à Senatu probentur partitionem fieri potestatis They are much deceived who think that the Supreme power is divided if Kings will not account some of their Acts valid without the approbation of the Senate I have read also in the Book called The Kings Supremacy asserted by Mr. Sheringham p. 96 97. That the concurrence of one or both the other Estates with the Monarch in the making and promulgation of Laws is no good colour or pretence much less a sufficient ground for such a coordination and mixture as is pressed Although their assents be free and not depending upon the will of the Monarch yet that makes them not coordinate with him in the Rights of Soveraignty It 's the common Assertion
to it so it takes nothing away from it If there be any clashing of Jurisdictions or defect in this kind they lay the fault at the Magistrates door accounting it a great sin or wickedness for the Magistrate to hinder the exercise or execution of Ecclesiastical Discipline But we say they do give Christian Magistrates a Political power to convocate Synods to preside in Synods to ratify the Acts of Synods to reform the Church we make him the keeper of both Tables Take nothing says the discerning Bishop and hold it fust Here are good words but they signify nothing for they teach that this power of the Christian Magistrate is not privative and destructive to the power of the Church but cumulative and only auxiliary or assisting Which very Doctrine is taught by the highest of the Presbyterian way here in England in their Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici where their concessions just now mentioned by this Author are to be found but p. 77. with this restriction All the former power say they that is granted or may be granted circa sacra to the Magistrate is only cumulative not privative he may help her in Reformation not hinder her in reforming her self convening Synods her self as in Act. 15. otherwise her condition were better without than with a Magistrate The Christian Magistrate much less ought to prejudice her herein otherwise her state were worse under the Christian than under the Pagan Magistrate Thus the Presbyterian Authors or Author of that Book Besides the power as the Bishop goes on which they abusively call authoritative but is indeed ministerial of executing their Decrees and contributing to their settlement they ascribe to the Magistrate concerning the Acts of Synods that which every private man hath a judgment of discretion but they retain to themselves the judgment of Jurisdiction and if he judge not as they would have him but suspend out of conscience the influence of his Political power where they would have him exercise it they will either teach him another part of Popery that is an implicit Faith or he may perchance feel the weight of their Church-censures and find quickly what manner of men they be as our late gracious King Charles and before him his Father his Grandmother and his great-Grandmother did all to their cost See more p. 11 12. Mr. Parker in his discourse concerning Puritans printed 1641 though he talk sometimes extravagantly enough in their favour yet now and then he has his Lucida intervalla wherein he speaks more agreeably to Truth and Reason Having mentioned some Tenents concerning Spiritual and Temporal Jurisdiction maintained by that great Arch-Prelate Mr. Calvin p. 28. according to the Popish Grounds p. 29. he tells us that that method of Mr. Calvin ' s is the way to crect Regnum in Regno and to maintain such concurrent Jurisdictions as cannot possibly stand together p. 31. for all being subject to sin and offence as well the Spiritual as Temporal either the one or other must go unquestioned and this may produce division or else both and that will cause most certain confâ—â—sion Both sides here seem says he sâ—rangely puzzled of which assertion he subjoyns not so much as a seeming reason as to the Episcopal side but proceeds thus The rigidest of the Episcopal Faction allow Princes a coercive power over Priests and Prelates where they perform not what their duty is in their Functions or Jurisdictions and this power requires an higher power of summoning arraigning and legally trying them and yet the moderatest of the Presbyterian Faction would have Princes questionable tryable and punishable by the Spiritualty Which sufficiently implyes that he thought not any Episcopal men guilty of that crime From which premisses I conclude that notwithstanding any thing produc'd here by this Author to the contrary this first charge against Presbyterians is a true accusation not a calumny He proceeds to a second and tells us p. 43. 53. There goes a voice that Presbyterians are Antimonarchical as if 't were vox praeterea nihil But are their Principles inconsistent with Monarchy or any impeachment to the same These are contained in the character above written But what if that Character of them be traiterously partial and in reference to the Question here treated of ridiculously impertinent and abominably deceitful whereof if this Author or any of his Brethren desire farther proof I may chance to satisfy their desires before I conclude these Animadversions In the mean time let 's listen to his fine Apologies Peradventure says he p. 44. 54. the exact Presbytery that is the parity of degree and Authority in all Ministers is that against which this charge is directed Judge then whether that forementioned character where that which is exact Presbytery is altogether concealed be an exact description of Presbytery Although this parity is not insisted on Was it not insisted on at the Isle of Wight Treaty or urged to the breach of peace He did but think p. 20. that most Presbyterians here in England allowed in order to peace Episcopum Praesidem but here he 's more peremptory and withal it seems so scandalously ignorant as to believe that Tumults Riots Covenanting and fighting in the behalf of Scotch-Presbytery is no breach of peace Neither is it essential to Presbytery whence I gather that exact Presbytery is not essential to Presbytery but was it not essential to the Presbytery contended for at the Isle of Wight was it not essential to that Form of Government which they had before Covenanted to introduce Yet what reason can be rendred why this may not comport with Kingly Government A. Even the self-same reason which some of his own party have as I take it made use of to prove that Episcopacy cannot comport with Kingly Government viz. that it pretends as some men discourse of it to be Jure Divino which since presbyterian parity also pretends to 't is upon that score inconsistent with Monarchical Government as much as Episcopacy the argument is as good against both Forms as against either But 2. Since this Author is guilty either of such gross ignorance or such Treasonable dishonesty as to make us believe either that there is or that he knows not any ground of this Accusation but what is fetcht from the presbyterian parity I shall for his and other such mens better information take the pains to transcribe part of the Answer to a Letter written at Oxford and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof Examine says the Answerer p. 15. the Presbyterian principles and you will clearly find Kings and they cannot stand together for either you consider that new Government in the Scottish sence which allows no appeal to any other power and then it 's plain that where men admit this they admit of a Supremacy which doth not reside in the King and by consequence of two several supremacies within the bounds of the self-same Kingdom which can
Fundamental Laws to impose unlawful Taxes or new Oaths to levy War within the Realm without authority from the King 'T is confessed also by Sir Edw. Cooke that no priviledge of Parliament holds or is grantable for Treason Felony or breach of the Peace 4. Institut 25. If not to any one Member says J. Jenkins p. 15. not to two nor to ten nor to the major part Now I suppose this Author is not either so ignorant or so perverse as to deny that the two Houses did levy War against the King that they counterfeited the Great Seal that they seized upon the Kings Ports Forts Magazines for War that they usurpt the Royal power raised rumors and gave out words to alienate the people from the King imposed a new Oath unlawful Taxes and levied War without yea against the Kings Authority From which premises I discern not any difficulty in deducing this genuine though sad and dismal consequence that those two Houses and the presbyterian party which adhered to them and gave them aid and comfort were guilty of Disobedience Treason and Rebellion If the major part of a Parliament commit Treason they must not be judges of it for no man or body can be judge in his own cause and as well as ten or any number may commit Treason the greater number may as well says J. Jenkins Lex Terrae P. 15 16. In this high and tender point it belongs not says our Author to me to determine The main reason of which scrupulosity is most probably no other than this that he 's so much a Presbyterian that either his blind and deluded understanding or rather his disloyal and rebellious heart will not suffer him to determine the Question on the Kings side For if this Rector of Bramshot be not mis-reported he was heretofore a Preacher in a two-Houses-Garrison and Chaplain to the Governor of that Garrison and at that time I presume this was not look'd upon by him as a point too high and tender But now tempora mutantur and yet not so chang'd it seems but that this Author still dares to insinuate Apologies for the former damnable Presbyterian practices of fighting against the King witness these following words p. 50. 60. And as touching the much debated point of resisting the higher Powers without passing any judgment in the great case of England I shall only make rehearsal of the words of Grotius a man of renown and known to be neither Anti-Monarchical nor Anti-Prelatical which are found in his Book de jure Belli Pacis by himself dedicated to the French King Si Rex partem habeat summi imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis justa opponi poterit quia eatenus Imperium non habet Quod locum habere censco etiamsi dictum sit belli potestatem penes Regem fore Id enim de bello externo intelligendum est cum alioqui quisquis Imperii summam partem habeat non possit non jus habere eam partem tuendi L. 1. c. 4. sect 13. which Chapter by the way is proved to be dangerously Anti-Monarchical by the Author of the Observations on the original of Government p. 34 c. but Here I demand 1. Whether this Author can reasonably be imagined to produce these words of Grotius to any other end than to justifie the War of the Presbyterian Lords and Commons against the King 2. Whether therefore his pretending not to pass any judgment in the great case of England in not sillily and yet sadly hypocritical especially considering 1 That in the precedent p. he takes it for granted that the two Houses had a part in the supreme power 2. That the same Author who insers their having such a part from their having as he fancies a part in the Legislative power quotes this very passage out of Grotius to justifie the two Houses and himself in fighting and encouraging others to fight against the King which Author yet ingenuously promises that he will offer his Head he meant I suppose his Neck to justice as a Rebel when 't is proved that the King was the highest power in the time of the divisions and that he had power to make that War which he made He here implicitly confesses says Dr. Pierce Impartial Enquiry Postscript p. 14 15. the King was once the highest power and implies he lost it by the divisions but that he never could lose it and that demonstrably he had it I have made most evident in the Appendix of this Book which concerns Mr. B. as much as Mr. H. at least as far as I have proved the supremacy of the King § 78. And that the King had power to make that War which he made in defence of pars sua viz. the ordering of the Militia his Negative voice in Parliament his right to the possession of all Castles Ports Ports Magazines within his Dominions c. is as clearly the opinion of Grotius in this passage as 't is that the two Houses in partem non suam involantes had power to make that War which they made to defend their own violation of the Kings Rights The truth is those words of Grotius are no argument of the justness of the late War on either side and therefore they are impertinently produced to such a purpose till these minors are well and soundly proved 1. That the two Houses had legally a part in the supremacy which Grotius himself denies can be concluded from that part which they had in Legislation And 2. that the King did involare in partem summi Imperii non suam invade any such prerogative or part in the supremacy for of that only Grotius speaks as did by Law belong to the two Houses For though it could be proved that the King did intrench upon some priviledge of theirs yet if that priviledge did not belong to them quatenus having a share in the Soveraignty Grotius his words though they should be granted of infallible truth will not justifie their fighting against the King upon that account But this sly discourser was perswaded it seems that when he had rehearsed this hypothetical major Si Rex partem habeat summi Imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis just a opponi poterit Every Presbyterian that understood Latin and had engaged against the King under the Authority of the two Houses would willingly take the minor for granted Sed Senatus ille qualis qualis partem habuit summi Imperii in eam partem non suam involavit Rex and thence very hastily and joyfully conclude Ergò vis à Senatu isto vel potius Senatûs quisquiliis retrimentis Regi opposita erat justa even by the verdict of Grotius that man of renown At this Presbyterian rate of disputing are Arguments hudled up in the Book called The Covenanters Plea against Absolvers the sophistry of some parts of which