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
chief Rulers only but also to the whole body of the people and to every member of the same as occasion vocation and ability shall serve to revenge the injury done against God That the people are bound by Oath to God to revenge to the utmost of their power the injury done against his Majesty That if Princes be Tyrants against God and his Truth their Subjects are freed from their Oath of obedience And out of Bucanan these That the people may arraign the Prince bestow the Crown at their pleasure that the Ministery may excommunicate him that an excommunicate person is not worthy to enjoy any life on earth that it were good that rewards were appointed by the people for such as should kill Tyrants And Ch. 5. To this objection God places Tyrants sometimes for the punishment of his people this answer given by the Reverend Bucanan so doth he private men sometimes to Kill them And this new Divinity says the Bishop of dealing thus with Kings and Princes is not held only by Knox and Bucanan but generally for ought I can learn by most of the Consistorians of chief name beyond the Seas who being of the Geneva humour do endeavour by most unjust and disloyal means to subject to their forged Presbyteries the Scepters and Swords of Kings and Princes as Calvin Beza Hottoman Ursin as he cometh out from Newstadt vindiciae contra Tyrannos Eusebius Philadelphus c. These also B. 2. Ch. 1. I find out of Goodman Evil Princes ought by the Law of God to be deposed and inferiour Magistrates ought chiefly to do it It is lawful to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants when Magistrates cease to do their duties in thus deposing or killing Princes the people are as it were without officers and then God gives the sword into their hands and he himself is become immediately their Head for to the multitude a portion of the Sword of Justice is committed And out of him and a Book of Obedience these If neither the inferiour Magistrates nor the greatest part of the people will do their Offices in punishing deposing or killing of Princes then the Minister must excommunicate such a King any Minister may do it against the greatest Prince God will send to the rest of the people who are willing to do their duty but not able some Moses or Othoniel by the word of God a private man having some special inward motion may kill a Tyrant Or otherwise a private man may do so if he be commanded or permitted by the Commonwealth Now if some inferiour Magistrate a handful of the people yea one man may kill a Tyrant an evil Prince one that refuses to reform Religion this implyes that the same person or persons may be a Judge or Judges whether such or such a King be a Tyrant an evil Prince a refuser to reform and consequently one that deserves death or no. Upon such wicked principles as these dictated and taught by Presbyterian Oracles in conjunction with this minor that the late King was a person so criminal as to deserve death which they that ordered his Trial took upon them to be Judges of as they might well by these now mentioned principles horrid Regicide was pathetically recommended to his Auditors at Vxbridge-Treaty by Mr. Christopher Love a Presbyterian Minister of London and long after that perpetrated by Order of a part of the people some Commons and the High Court of Justice who adjudged the King to be thus criminous and apologiz'd for by John Price Citizen of London in his Clerico-Classicum as an Act agreeable enough to the declared judgment of many protestant he means Presbyterian Divines in testimony whereof he quotes several passages out of Presbyterian Authors p. 32. to 35. which pamphlet if the Title-page deceive us not may serve as a brief answer to that Vindication of the London Ministers here spoken of And indeed 't is a discourse so abounding with strong and rational Arguments ad homines that I doubt 't is beyond the skill of a Presbyterian to give a solid and satisfactory reply to it From all which it follows that either the presbyterian Ministers of London must damn the now mentioned Principles and Tenents of those their presbyterian Ancestors and their own opinions also at the Vxbridge-Treaty if they were the same with Mr. Love's one of their Tribe or else they must justifie this inference That the taking away the life of the King in that then present way of Trial was rather a duty than a crime Which though it be a wretched and Traiterous conclusion yet is very regularly deducible from those principles And I appeal to any intelligent and ingenuous persons and desire them to tell me whether the murderers of the late King did infer that bloudy Corollary from any more treasonable and rebellious Theorems and Consectaries than these which I have now produced and whether Independents did not in justifying that horrid Fact write exactly after those Copies which Presbyterians both ancient and modern had set them And hence I think I may reasonably affirm that those principles of the Protestant Religion which are contrary to King-killing are no otherwise owned by such Presbyterians as I have now spoken of than as most Presbyterians say that Papists own some Articles of our Faith viz. damnably because they hold together with them other principles which consequentially overthrow those Articles And therefore 't was but a vanity in the London Ministers to vindicate themselves by speaking of those principles as opposite to that way of Trial a greater folly was it to produce the solemn League and Covenant which in the third Article talks so loosely and crudely of defending the Kings person and Authority that Presbyterians might without offering any violence to the words plunder him of all his Authority and both they and the Independents take away his life notwithstanding that Article whensoever they should think fit to determine that the true Religion and Libertie of the Kingdoms could not be defended and preserved unless the Kings person and Authority were destroyed But in the fourth Article there 's as clear and smooth a way opened to the commission of that heinous sin as the most forward Actors in it needed to desire for there the Covenanters are bound with all faithfulness to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Incendiaries Malignants evil Instruments that they may be brought to publick Trial and receive condign punishment not only as the degree of their offences required or deserved but also as the Supreme Judicatories whether de facto or de jure we are not certified of both Kingdoms respectively or others having power from them for that effect should judge convenient So that since the men who ordered the Trial of the King were at that time de facto the supreme Judicatory of England and since they look'd upon him as an Incendiary and evil Instrument and therefore to be brought to publick Trial and the
in Scotland assume a power to abrogate and invalidate Laws and Acts of Parliament if they seem disadvantagious to the Church Church Assemblies says one of their Books of Discipline have power to abrogate and abolish all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Ecclesiastical matters that are found noysome and unprofitable and agree not with the times or are abused by the people The Acts of Parliament 1584. at the very same time that they were proclaimed were protested against at the Market Cross of Edenburgh by the Ministers in the name of the Kirk of Scotland The general Assembly of Glascow 1638. impugned Episcopacy and Perth Articles although ratified by Acts of Parliament and standing Laws then unrepealed And if Presbytery should chance to be established in England by a Law what shall assure us that English presbyterians also would not prove unruly and disobedient Subjects against both King and Parliament that shall prescribe any Rule to them in order to the preventing of their arrogant Tyranny Not their Oaths unless they had kept those of Supremacy Allegiance and Canonical obedience better But this Author has another remedy Moreover quoth he to cut off all occasions and prevent all appearance of domineering all political coercive jurisdiction in matters of Religion may be withheld if need require from Ecclesiastical Persons and that meer spiritual power alone by which he means Admonition and Excommunication may be left to their management The man sure would perswade us that he thinks there can be no occasion of domineering afforded by the granting nor appearance of it in the exercise of power meerly spiritual and then there is some hopes that he is not in the number of those who imagine that the Prelates heretofore did Tyrannically abuse that power But for all this he is unwilling that Presbyterians should have only spiritual power at their command and be wholly devested of political and therefore what he takes away with one hand he gives with the other in the following words And because spiritual censures appertaining only to the Conscience may be too little regarded when no temporal damage is annext unto them there may be a collateral civil power always present in Ecclesiastical meetings to take cognizance of all causes therein debated and adjudged in order to temporal penalties From which words we may gather 1. That the man is loth that all occasion of domineering should be cut off from Presbyterians and all appearance of it prevented 2. That he can well enough digest prelatical power and as many Ecclesiastical Courts in a County as there are Ecclesiastical meetings if so be Presbyterian Priests and Lay-Elders may have the management of that power and sit as Judges in those Courts which is another indication that ambitious affections rather than an impartial judgment make presbyterians exclaim so much against Prelacy viz. because they are not allowed to exercise that dominion themselves which they condemn in others as Tyrannical Vpon the whole matter says he aforegoing we firmly build this position That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Justice or Reason of State to be rejected and depressed but ought to be protected and encouraged And upon the answer to that matter contained in these Papers I firmly build this contradictory Position That the Presbyterian Party ought not in Justice or Reason of State to be protected and much less encouraged but to be rejected and depressed unless they will renounce the practises and principles here objected and laid to their charge and will disclaim that Covenant which otherwise will engage them in such turbulent and seditious practices as can never be justified but by such rebellious Principles THE END A Summary OF THE CONTENTS The Question proposed WHether in Justice or Reason of state the Presbyterian Party should be rejected and depressed or protected and encouraged The Character given of Presbyterians is considered and manifested to be very imperfect and deceitful p. 4 5 6 c. Of their zeal p. 13. their resembling the Anabaptists in Germany p. 14. their being called Fanaticks p. 15. Of their varying from themselves p. 20 21. their multitudes p. 24 25 Of the great things for which they are said to contend p. 26 c. Whether the Protestant Doctrine by Law established in the Church of England be owned by Presbyterians p. 29 c. Of the pure spiritual heavenly doctrine which they ought to be actuated by if they expect to be encouraged p. 33 c. Of Principles striking to the heart of Popery p. 37. Which sort of men are more pernicious in a Commonwealth Jesuits or Presbyterians p. 40 41 c. Whether Presbyterians ought to be protected and encouraged because of their averseness from Popish Idolatries and Innovations p. 44. Whether they erect Imperium in Imperio p. 47 c. Whether their principles and Government are Anti-monarchical p. 53 c. Of their unwillingness to come under any yoke but that of the Law of the Land p. 66. and to pay Taxes levyed without consent of Parliament p. 67 c. Of their valuing the native happiness of freeborn English Subjects p. 69. Whether they have any true knowledge or sense of the nature of the Christian Religion as it refers to the question discussed p. 71 c. Whether they were not guilty of rebellion in the late wars p. 76 c. Whether the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom was not subverted by the Presbyterian members of the Long-Parliament p. 95 c. The London Ministers vindication of themselves in reference to the Kings murder considered p. 104 c. The murderers of the King acted therein suitably to such principles as are owned by Presbyterian writers p. 109 c. and to the fourth Article of the Covenant p. 114. Of the Presbyterian Ministers exhorting men to pray that God would not permit the King to be put to death p. 115 c. Whether Presbyterians disclaimed their lawful Prince p. 120. Whether they suffered themselves to be trodden under foot rather than they would comply with Republicans p. 123 c. Whether they were more conscientious in their duty to God and man than Prelatists p. 130 c. The Plea that Presbyterians teach obedience active in all Lawful and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the Higher power considered p. 137 c. Whether the restraint of profaneness intemperance c. in the late times ought to be attributed to the doctrine and orderly walking of Presbyterian Ministers p. 145 c. Of the inconstancy of Presbyterians their inconsistency with themselves and their unfaithfulness to their principles when their Interest tempts them to a change p. 153 c. In what sense they are willing to bring things to the capacity of political Government p. 170. Whether Sects and Schisms may justly be reckoned the off-spring of Presbytery p. 175. Of the Synod of Dort and its healing the breach in the Netherlands p. 176 177 c. Whether Presbytery is unjustly represented as Tyrannical and domineering p. 187 ad fin The ERRATA PAge 3. line 29. read particulars p. 11. l. 15. r. p. 1â— p. 28. l. 25. leave out So. p. 32. l. 26. r. approves p. 35. l. 18. r. to do your own p. 55. l. 9. r. Turner printed 1647. p. 56. l. 28. r. check'd p. 78. l. 8. r. the great Seal and. p. 81. l. 18. r. de Bereford p. 94. l. 25. r. shall conclude is 1. p. 99. l. 25. r. president p. 106. l. 26. r. sending p. 115. l. 3. r. in the humble Edenburgh Remonstrance of March 1. 1648. p. 118. l. 16. r. mentioned p. 29. 30. p. 121. l. 14. r. In stead p. 159. l. 1. r. p. 17. l. 2. r. constitution l. 3. r. Sermons alters and changes p. 165. l. 8. r. p. 63. l. 21. r. 99. l. 25. r. 96. p. 166. l. 29. after 85 add 96. p. 167. l. 31. r. 98. p. 175. l. 29. r. rumperet l. 30. r. tollerentur The inconvenient distance of the Author from London hath occasioned some Errata's more than ordinary to pass the Press which I shall desire the Reader to amend with his Pen. R. Royston Lately Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Amen-Corner THE Estate of the EMPIRE or an Abridgment of the Laws and Government of Germany farther shewing what Condition the EMPIRE was in when the Peace was concluded at Munster Also the several Fights Battels and Desolation of Cities during the War in that EMPIRE And also of the GOLDEN BVLL In Octavo The Sycillian Tyrant Or The Life and Death of AGATHOCLES With some Restections on our Modern Usurpers Octavo The ROYAL MARTYR and the Dutiful Subject In two Sermons By Gilbert Burnet In Quarto The Generosity of Christian Love Delivered in a Sermon by William Gould Quarto The Witnesses to Christanity By Sy. Patrick D. D. Octavo Dâ—ctor Dubitaâ—tium Or Bishop Taylors Cases of Conscience The Fourth Edition Folio The Life and Death of K. CHARLES the First By R. Perenchief D. D. Octavo A Modest Plea for the Church of England Octavo The Spiritual Sacrifice or Devotions and Prayers fitted to the main uses of a Christian Life by a late Reverend Author In 12o. Chirurgical Treatises By Richard Wiseman Serjeant-Chirurgion to his MAJESTY Folio