but even to those that are froward 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. and that do afflict for well-doing For so the Apostle speaking to servants which by proportion holds unto subjects both because every Master is a Magistrate but especially because the ground of non-resistance here is not the lawful power he had neither as to the obtaining of it for he might take his servant by praedation pyracy or other unlawful ways nor the lawfulness of his commands for the Apostle supposeth the Masters to be such as punish for well-doing in which case God did never give direct power to command though he have given indirect power for the trial of his servants faith and patience The Apostle after he had required subjection to the King and others under him 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. explained in every Ordinance and command comes in the same chapter unto servants with the same precept but with this further explication which belongs to both that this subjection should be to the froward that is to the wicked and for not doing things they commanded against â—od for so the sense must be also The words are If a man for conscience toward God endure grief suffering wrongfully You see it is â—ods Ordinance not to resist though he suffer wrongfully that is for things wherein there is no direct right to command which is the same with that of our Saviour Resist not evil Matth. 5.39 explained but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek which sure he hath no right to do turn to him the other also Which is to be understood especially with reference unto Superiors and comparatively that is rather than resist Plead a subject may as Paul did Act. 16.37 chap. 22.25 against oppression of Magistrates resist he may not because God hath in so many places of his Word ordained otherwise but least of all by arms and in a publick way What cases may fall out wherein subjects may be no subjects they are very rare and are spoken to else-where in this Treatise but are far from our case in this Nation and so concern us not SECT IV. A State a Parliament or inferior Magistrates THe fourth mistake of the former Authors is that they distinguish in this question betwixt a Parliament or State or inferior Magistrates and private persons granting defence unto the one though denyed unto the other and so would avoid the Scriptures as well as Reasons prohibition not to resist the higher powers But first they say that a private person is not prohibited resistance but for want of strength so not for conscience sake a vile position If the power in a Parliament or State or inferior Magistrates be derived from a Superior they have no power to use it against him for it is his and theirs onely by concession from him nor is it conferred on them but with that intention for his service not his opposition If they use it against him it must be by some other superior power that hath conferred other powers upon them and that must be some visible one too for their very esse and being as such a Parliament State or Magistracy is wholly dependent from him who conferred those powers upon them This for Reason Then for the Scripture they would so elude by saying That it doth not forbid the Senate to resist if it did prohibit private persons because neither Paul nor Peter wrote to them not being Christians We must note that the Apostle Rom. 13. forbidding every soul to resist the higher powers as being the Ordinance and order of God by and among men 1 Pet. 2. explained must mean according to the known practise of those times whether by Law or Custom or Will of the Prince Now if the Law did enable any to resist as the Senate or other why then that is the higher power for resistance is by the Sword Note and it is the higher power onely that bears the sword and so such resistance should not be resistance to but an execution of the higher power If the Laws formally or really gave no power then by this prohibition of the Apostle they could not resist because none might resist the higher power He speaks distributively every soul that he might be understood the more comprehensively all together And he speaks indefinitely without restraining or excepting lest any should plead exemption What the Senate did against that Prince under whose government they were when the Apostle wrote to the Romans viz. Nero by proclaiming him an enemy to the Common-wealth proscribing of him and decreeing he should be punished more majorum And what their power or the foundation of it was and what their case is not much material for us to query seeing the constitution or at least the practice of their State and ours as they do so they ought to differ as much as Heathenism and Christianity And this for their fourth mistake in placing any difference betwixt inferior Magistrates and private men in case of resistance beyond the Laws for in that respect they are but private men as genera species subalternae respectu superiorum But from the Thesis of States and inferior Magistrates in general they come SECT V. The co-ordinate power of the two Houses in making Laws TO the Hypothesis and in particular in reference unto the Government of this Nation They say That the King is not wholly supreme because as he hath a negative voice so also each of the Houses of Parliament and that he cannot make alter or abrogate a Law of himself but that they have a co-ordinate power with him For answer It were more for the personal advantage Answ and perhaps satisfaction of Kings if there were no Laws but that they govern'd after their own judgment It is therefore of concession and a departing from their advantage to have Laws and to limit themselves by them for the better satisfaction of their subjects Now although it be truly affirm'd by a present and reverend Pen Dr. Sanderson L. Bishop of Lincoln Preface to B. Usher of the right of Kings pag. 4. That the justice of succession is the onely right and proper foundation of Government wherein he was foregone by him who saith of succession * D. Hen. Savilius praefat ded R. Jacob. prefix operib J. Chrysost Gr. Quod si cui leve videatur sciat eam rem tanti apud majores nostros fuisse ponderis ut non priùs justum legitimum Normannorum in Anglia imperium fuisse arbitrarentur quà m Mathildis Davidis soror Henrico primo enupta regiam nobis sobolem daret ex antiqua regum Saxonicorum stirpe derivatam Which Succession saith mine Author if it seem a small matter to any man he must know that it was of so great weight with our Ancestors that they never thought that the Government of William the Conqueror and the Normans was just and lawful until Mathildis the sister of David * Abnepos grandchild to
Ethelred the Saxon King being married to Henry the first brought us forth a Royal seed derived from the antient blood of the Saxon Kings Yet why may we not think that some of our Princes originally might be as free as another lately who had no such such title either of Succession or Conquest professeth himself to have been in points of Law and Government Lord Protectors speech Septemb. 12. p. 11. and p. 13. untill he limited himself I say saith he the Authority I had in my hand being so boundless Again my power again by this resignation was boundless and unlimited as before All things being subject to Arbitrariness and a person having power over the three Nations pag. 14. boundless and unlimited Again The Government limited me and bâ—und my hands to act nothing to the prejudice of the Nations without consent of a Councel until Parliament and then limited by a Parliament I did accept it I was arbitrary in power May it not then have been in Princes as it was in this Vsurper and invader of the publick Liberties And indeed the Coronation-Oath seems to imply so much Coronation-Oath H. scrips 24. Apr. 61. die Coronationis casu non consilio dum opus recognoscerem wherein among other things the King is asked ' Sir will you grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightful customs which the Commonalty of this Realm consuetudines quas vulgus elegerit His Majesties answer to the Remonstrance of May 26. 1642. pag. 17. 15. whether you expound it have or shall choose Which words do not imply a force upon the King It is for the ease of Princes and satisfaction of Subjects that that unlimited power given by God to Princes is bounded in all places by Laws with their own consent Dr. Sandersons preface to Dr. Usher of the right of Kings pag. 12. but a desire of his engagement Therefore the choice of Laws being not the Princes but the Peoples advantage and priviledge is left unto them not as implying a co-ordinate power but a concession of liberty not now to be changed because established both by Law and Oath yet so that the King reserves to himself the power of a negative voice Negative voice and of refusing to pass their Elections into Laws if he like them not If it be said Object That the Houses have the like negative voice that 's a mistake Answ they have it in order the one house to the other but not in order to the King because he doth not propound Laws unto them his desiâ—es he may but they to him So that there is no such thing as a negative voice in the Houses about the Laws in order to the King it is onely in reference of the one House to the other So that to speak properly according to the known practise of the Parliament the two Houses seem to have no co-ordinate share in making Laws but in choosing things to be made Laws the King onely making of them for the Houses acknowledge Declar. Parl. ' That they are not Laws till the Royal assent But I may not correct the King who saith Object in this Kingdom the Laws are joyntly made by a King Kings answ to the 19 proposit p. 12. by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the people all having free votes and particular privileges Nor do I but explain what he must intend Answ The making of the matter of the Laws belongs to the two Houses the conferring of the form Declar. Parl. in defence of that May 26. 1642. and giving them the esse and being of Laws is from the King onely and so acknowledged by the Houses viz. That if he do deny it is no Law without him Script Reas sect 5. p. 64. Kings answ to 19 Proposit p. 19. and so acknowledged by the greatest pleaders for the taking up of Arms. But secondly because his Majesty saith a little after We conjure you that you allow us our share in the Legislative power which would be counted in us not onely a breach of priviledge but Tyranny and subversion of Parliaments to deny you Which implies the other have a share also I answer That they have a share but derivative not original subordinate as subjects even in Parliament for so they call themselves not co-ordinate as equals The wife hath a share in the government of the family for sure she is more in point of right relating to the government of it than a servant but it is not a co-ordinate but subordinate power The King would not be understood to confute his Father Himself or the Laws Not his Father K. James's Law of Free Monarchies who saith That the King is above the Law as both the Author and giver of strength thereto Not Himself who hath several times avowed his Soveraignty though not his solitude his Supremacy though not his aloneness in government who at the time of publishing that answer had drawn his sword to vindicate his Sovereinty prerogative Nor was it his intent to confute the Law which maketh him the fountain of justice as we saw above therfore what waters of power any else have must needs flow originally from him Thirdly the King hath said he is no Lawyer neither is it necessary that he should so be if then his Majesty out of zeal to content his subjects should let fal any * To the 19 Propositions expression in that answer of his so much insisted on that might prejudice his legal right it ought not in duty as it cannot in conscience be improved against him contrary to the known practise of Laws and Parliament It is true the two Houses say in their declaration of November 2. 1642. That the Kings Soveraignty is in and with the two Houses That they are the supreme Court whose determinations ought not to be question'd by the King That the Kings power is a trust from the people That the two Houses may dispose of any thing of the King or Kingdoms But seeing no Law is produc'd a sentence of out Fleta above answered is not sufficient to bottom in my conscience so high assertions To conclude All that have share in Legislative power have it not equally the King is acknowledged by the Oath of Supremacy sworn by every Parliament man before he sit to be Supreme over all in these his Dominions Neither have they it originally but by concession and grant though now setledly But though they have this derivative power in Legâ—slation and in some cases in declaring Law so it be not against the known Lavvs yet have they none in execution of the Lavvs much less the povver of the Sword further then the King shall grant unto them For vvhich though Laws vvere spoken of yet vvere they never produc'd Though the King declare That there is no power in either or both Houses Kings Answer to the Declaration of both Houses in answer to his
the Kingdom Dec. 15. 1642. was the fountain of all the following mischiefs The very first line is Your Majesties most humble and loyal subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled Next the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy do declare That the Kings Majesty is the onely Supream Governor of this Realm over all persons and in all causes 2. Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance 3 Eliz. cap. 1. Kings Answer to the Remonstrance of May 26. 1642. Remonstr of Lords and Commons Nov. 2. 1642. Ecclesiastical and Temporal and of all other his Dominions and Countries Yea and every Parliament-man before he can sit is bound by Law to swear them Now this is not answered in my judgment by a saying out of a Private * Fleta lib. 1. cap. 17. de justitiariis substituendis Lawyer that Rex habet in populo regendo superiores legem per quam factus est curiam suam videlicet Comites Barones And by that other that Rex est major singulis but minor universis For the former Author hath that sentence and words out of Bracton who hath several times also the quite contrary as shall appear Again It is against the tenor and current of Law and Lawyers and the known practise of the Nation Thirdly It may bear an other interpretation namely understanding the Law either of God who makes Kings Prov. 8. or of men made with the Kings consent whereunto he hath voluntarily obliged himself from which at first he might be free And by the superiority of his Court their legal jurisdiction conferred on them by his approbation for decision of ordinary controversies that may fall betwixt himself and his Subjects but not simply his superiors first because he calls it His Court now the owner is greater than the thing owned as such Again else the Earls and Barons were the superior power to the King Fourthly This refers not at all to the House of Commons whereof neither Fleta nor his Author Bracton in this sentence make any mention Again secondly the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance and the style the Parliament speak in of his Majesties loyal and humble subjects the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Remonstr Nov. 2. 1642. are not answered by saying that this of supream head and governor over all persons Object in all causes is meant of singular persons rather than of Courts or of the collective Body of the whole Kingdom And that it is meant in Curia not in Camera in his Courts not in his private Capacity and properly onely in his high Court of Parliament wherein and wherewith his Majesty hath supream Power For first Answ 1 The Oathes speak comprehensively both of Persons and Causes over all and in all So again the style of humble and obedient subjects is spoken as from them as the two Houses of Parliament for so they say assembled in Parliament Now if Subjects then and there sure Soveraigns or associates in Soveraignty they cannot be the terms in the same respect are contradictory Thirdly If the King be acknowledged to be the fountain of justice as the Law and Lawyers say he is of which anon then both Laws and Courts flow from him and thence are called his Laws his Courts and so ordine naturae dignitatis both in nature and dignity must be before and above both His splendor is in his Courts but his Supremacy not onely there but in his person also from whence it was derived to his Courts For there must be a First in nature either the King or his Courts and if they be His Courts then he made them and therefore in esse naturae before them Neither doth it hence follow as is there inferred Object That then the King may over-rule all his Courts Ibid. even the Parliament it self and so the goodly frame of Government should soon be dissolved and Arbitrary power brought in Answ For the King having both consented and sworn to the Laws and to the maintaining the jurisdiction of his Courts acting according to those Laws is not now in that respect sui juris and arbitrary in Government but obliged both to God and man to act by Laws and to preserve his Courts unviolate But if any Court shall assume a greater power than the King and Law hath given them or act in opposition to that power from whom they had their being whilst he doth not openly reject all Laws and Government much less when he doth rationally together with as many or more both of Lords and Commons though excluded the formality of being in such a place judge that he acts according to Law in the main of his proceedings In such case and in such actings they are not such a Court nor are not authorised with power from above but act excentrically and as private persons unto whom the Declaration grants the King to be superior As the Army having received Commission from the two Houses of Parliament afterward turned their Arms against them which they could not do by their Commission as also a great fautor of their proceedings since then spake in my hearing God thereby perhaps representing to the Houses by the Army their own failings toward their Superior And the Armies reasoning was on the like principles viz. That they were entrusted with power for the Kingdoms preservation and that the Parliament degenerating they must not see the Kingdom perish Object 3 Neither may it be received that if the Parliament may take account of what is done by his Majesty in his inferiour Courts Ibid. much more of what is done by him without the authority of any Court For to speak properly the Parliament takes account not of the Kings actions or authority in his Courts but of his Officers and of their administration of that authority and this also by the Kings consent established by Law whereby they are enabled so to do Or to speak yet more properly The Parliament that is the King Lords and Commons for the Parliament is not without the King as being the Head of it but without and in opposition unto him and the Laws they do not take such cognizance Again for that saying That they might much more take account of the Kings actions that are done without the authority of any Court meaning the great administration of Justice and the raising of Arms Seeing no Court is superior to its Author the King therefore no Court can give authority to him but he to them nor can they call him to account for then they were his superiors and had the Regal Power and himself should be no King as is expresly affirm'd in Mr. St. John's speech against Ship-mony of which afterward Humbly represent to him they may his miscarriages and punish his Ministers so it may be done without sedition and assuming the Sword which is inseparable from the Supreme Power Lastly How can this be assented unto that because when the Title is dubious Ibid. pag. ult he is
to be accepted for King whom the two Houses declare to be so by the Statute of 11 H. 7. that therefore much more they may judge in the great question what is the best service of the King and Kingdom Whence also it will follow that they have the power of declaring Law in all cases How I say can this be received namely to argue from a power in doubtful cases to a power in cases that are clear in Law and reason or sense Secondly when there is no King actually their power may be more as the wife that hath no husband Thirdly The Declaration of Parliament doth not give the King his title or authority but onely declares recognizeth and acknowledges that he had it before As for those assertions in that Declaration Ibid. viz. That the Soveraign Power resides in the King and both Houses of Parliament That the two Houses are judges superior to all others That the Kings negative voice doth not imply a liberty to deny c. because no Law is produced and that they oppose such as are known as also the practise of Parliament in this Nation conscience is to seek for a foundation of assent unto them It is delivered as Law that the King is the * Mr. Pym's speech at the attainder of the Earl of Straffâ—rd p. 10. Father the Husband of the Common-wealth he is the Head they are the body * Mr. St. Johns speech at the same Attaind p. m. 7. That the Laws are the Kings Laws he is the fountain from whence in their several channels they are derived to the subject * The case of Ship-mony a speech in Parliament Nov. 3. 1640. pag. 12 13. Note That he is the soul of the Law in whose power it is ALONE to execute Law and yet not be constrained thereunto That the Sacred PERSON of the King is INVIOLABLE and subject to no force or compulsion of any other and free from any coercive or vindicative power That this freedom is unsepar ble from the Person of the King because no force can be used but by Superiors or Equals and he that hath Superiors or Equals is no KING Again first The Judges in Calv. case recited by D. Austin Allegiance not impeached cap. 1. That allegiance of the subject is due to the King by the Law of Nature Secondly That the Law of Nature was before any Judicial or Municipal Law as being written from the beginning in mans heart Thirdly That the Law of Nature is immutable Fourthly That this immutable Law of Nature Bractoâ— is a part of the Law of England That Rex in regno parem habere non debet cum par in parem non habeat potestatem multo fortiùs non habeat superiorem The King in his Kingdom ought to have no equal because one equal cannot have power over another much less should he have any superior Object And this is not to be taken with that exposition as above Remonstr Nov. 2. 1642. Serg. Bradshaw at the sentencing hâ—s late Majesty vâ—z That he is major singulis minor universis Greater then any one but less then all For both the Statute is express That this Realm of England hath been accepted for an Empire governed by one supream Head unto whom a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People Answ of the Spirituality and Temporality 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. 4. Declarat of Parliament Proposition in Parliament Apr. 25. 4 Car. propos 5. Rushworth Collect. p. 553. are bound next unto God in a natural obedience As also it is acknowledged in full Parliament First in general by the House of Lords As touching his Majesties Royal Prerogative intrinsecal to his Soveraignty and betrusted him withall from God Ad communem totius populi salutem non ad destructionem That his Majesty would resolve not to use or divert the same to the prejudice of any of his loyal people in the property of their goods or liberty of their persons is prayed by the Lords And in particular by the Commons Most dread Soveraign We your dutiful Commons now assembled in Parliament we think it is a meet and most necessary duty being called by your Majesty to consult and advise of the great and urgent affairs of this Church and Common-wealth Commons Remonstrance against the Duke 4 Car. Anno 1628. Rush Collect. pag. 631. Note finding them at this time in apparent danger of ruine and destruction faithfully and dutifully to inform your Majesty thereof and with bleeding hearts and bended knees to crave your speedy redress therein as to your wisdom unto which we most humbly SUBMIT our selves and our desires shall seem most convenient So then first the Kings prerogative is intrinsecal unto his Soveraignty and betrusted to him by God say the House of Lords And they most humbly submit themselves and their desires to the wisdâ—m of the King say the House of Commons even then when both Church and Common-wealth were in apparent danger of ruine and destruction And to return again unto the judgment of the Sages of the Law the former Author saith That the King is the most excellent * Bract. l. 1. c. 8. Majestas Intemerata pag. 38. Bract. l. 2. de Acquir rer domin c. 24. Stamf. r. 7. 11. Majestas Intemerata p. 32. part of the Common-wealth next unto â—od Again Dominus Rex habet ordinariam jurisdictionem dignitatem potestatem super omnes qui in regno suo sunt Our Lord the King saith the same * Bracton cited by Stamford lib. 2. cap. 2. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant sect 7. pag. 27. Bracton hath ordinary jurisdiction dignity and power over all which are in his Kingdom And ea quae jurisdictionis sunt pacis ad nullum pertinent nisi ad Coronam dignitatem regiam nec à Coronâ separari possunt And that therefore those things which are annexed to justice and peace belong to none but the Crown and dignity Royal neither can they be separated from the Crown We have heard the testimony of Lawyers yea and of the Law it self the dialect also and speech of Parliament and the judgment of those who have not by the way Dr. Bilson of Subj Rebel Part. 3. ed. Lond. 1586. p. 277. but ex professo handled this argument with the full witness of one of which number and that an eminent one I shall conclude this particular who speaking of the German Wars and of their Laws and ours saith Their States be free and may resist any wrong by the Laws of the Empire The German Emperor is elected and his power abated by the liberties and prerogatives of his Princes The Queen of England inheriteth and hath ONE and the same right over ALL her subjects be they NOBLES or others Now all the fore-mentioned allegations concerning the Person Power and Prerogative of the King and the subjection of all persons and our allegiance
due by nature to him being uttered as Law and in Parliament and cited by those that in the late contest appeared against him are authentick And the the things being so as they came farther into my knowledge and consideration the same sense of the Laws and my allegiance as that before of Religion did concuss and shake me from the one and setle me on the other side And this to the first Motive 2. The Integrity of the persons and their ability To the second the integrity and ability of many of the persons inviting to this contest might be very great yet all of them were not for it as shall be seen anon Besides Answ it is the doctrine of our Church that a Council may Artic. 21. Paphnut Socrates H. lib. 1. cap. 8. 3. Authority of the two Houses and have erred even in things pertaining to God And in the first and great Council of the Primitive Church in a very material point they all erred but one and suffered themselves by him to be corrected To the third the Authority of the two Houses I did not then so throughly consider though I had some doubts as was noted above that they were the Child the King Answ 1 the Parent that they were the Spouse the King the Husband 1. Their Relation that they were the Body the King the Head as we heard above out of Mr. Pym. Now these relations doubtless could not regularly act without much less in opposition to the chief relatum unless in cases of infancy alienation of mind voluntary absence abdication of the Government 2. Their Style and such like of which more anon Besides we heard even now themselves in Parliament style themselves His Majesties most humble and loyal subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament in that Declaration wherein they did not onely pare the nails but even also pierce the quick 3. Their Title and Power whereon founded and in what consisting Moreover what power and authority they have it must be by Law Power publick and authoritative I suppose consists especially in three points first in making Laws secondly in declaring Law lastly in executing Law Touching the first Although the King being the fountain of Law it must primarily flow from him though into his Courts yet it is condescended unto and a share is granted them in making Laws and protecting Liberties Kings answer to the 19 propâ—sit 1642. pag. 12. what that is his late Majesty you will say hath fully opened In this Kingdom saith he the Laws are joyntly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the People all having free votes and particular privileges The Government according to those Laws is trusted to the King 1 power of Treaties of war and peace 1. Kings prerogative 2 of making Peers 3 of choosing Officers and Counsellors for State 4 Judges for Law 5 Commanders for Forts and Castles 6 giving Commissions for raising men to make war abroad or to prevent or provide against invasions or insurrections at home 7 benefit of confiscations 8 power of pardoning and some more of the like kind are placed in the King 2. House of Commons Next for the House of Commons he saith Again That the Prince may not make use of this high and perpetual power to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it and make use of the name of publick necessity for the gain of his private favourites and followers to the detriment of his people The House of Commons an excellent conserver of liberty but never intended for any share in government for they do not administer an Oath or the choosing of them that should govern is solely intrusted with the first Propositions concerning the levies of monies which is the sinews as well of peace as of war and the impeachment of those who for their own ends though countenanced by any surreptitiously gotten command of the King have violated that Law which he is bound when he knows it to protect and to the protection of which they were bound to advise him at least not to serve him in the contrary This for the Commons Next for the House of Lords he proceedeth And the Lords 3. House of Lords being trusted with a judicatory power are an excellent skreen and bank between the Prince and People to assist each against any encroachment of the other and by just judgment to preserve that Law which ought to be the rule of every one of the three Whence he adds Since therefore the power legally placed in both Houses is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of tyranny c. Thus far the King A share then they have in their several degrees in the Legislative power though neither supreme nor co-ordinate but subalternate and by descent from the high unto the lower 2. Declaring Law In his speech after his assent to the Petition of Right Kings Answer to the Remonstrance of the 19 of May 1642. pag. 21. Touching the next the power of declaring Law though the King do avow That the power of declaring Law be not in either or both Houses of Parliament without his consent and that the Judges are the interpreters of Law under himself Yet he saith We deny not but that they the Lords and Commons in Parliament may have a power to declare in a particular doubtful case regularly brought before them what Law is but to make a general declaration whereby the known rule of the Law may be crossed or altered they have no power nor can exercise any without bringing the life and liberty of the subject to a lawless and arbitrary subjection Lastly as to the execution of Law or judging by it This is not in any other 3. Execution of Laws but either in the House of Peers in Parliament with the Kings consent who must sign all their capital sentences or in the Judges and other Officers by Commission from the King in whose name they all proceed So then the power of government original and final and of execution of the Laws is in the King so far as is made known by the constant practice of the Nation A power therefore of resistance publickly and by Arms how should they have in opposition to the King who have no power of judging or execution of the Law but by authority from him and his consent formally expressed 4. Their silence in point of particular Law Lastly There was though spoken of and they urged to produce it never any Law shewn nor the Charter or Custom or Act named that did either formally or virtually imply a power of Government and much less of Arms without and in opposition to the King which might settle and satisfie the conscience The Barons Wars For some presidents in tumultuous times of some great men will not be a fit example for a Parliament And some very few sentences of one or two Lawyers
they were the judgment of the Kingdom He replyed Shew me such a body of people in the Nation as the Army is that have not forfeited their liberties and so implying that they might assume unto themselves the judgment of the Kingdom though in that case the Kingdom it self could not judge as was shewed above out of Mr. St. Johns speech because the Royal Person is exempt from vindicative justice So here in this speech all Government being as he said dissolved the Army were a considerable part of the Nation Nay by what follows that there was left nothing to keep things in order but the sword he might have said as before That they were the onely judgment of the Nation But this by the way though not out of it Again in the former speech The Judges saith he thinking pag. 21. that there was a dissolution of the Government did declare one to another Note The Judges that they could not administer justice to the satisfaction of their consciences untill they had received Commissions from me pag. 33. The Parliam And as touching the Parliament and the Militia the great Helena of our Trojan War The Militia whether to be in Parliament whether it should remain in the King or the Parliament have power of it he saith Whether the Parliament have not liberty to alter the form of Government to Aristocracy to Democracy to Anarchy to any thing if this THE MILITIA be fully in them Note yea unto all CONFVSION and that without remedy Lastly The Kings Negative voice pag. 34. as touching the Supreme Magistrate whose Person then he had usurped he saith I shall be willing to be bound more then I am in any thing that I may be CONVINCED of may be for the good of the people which point was like the Armour of Hector betwixt Ajax and Vlysses at the beginning of the War Corollaries from the former speech Now from these expressions we may observe 1. That the ends of the War Religion and Law were not attained but perverted 2. That the government of the Nation was dissolved in their judgment and not setled 3. Note That we were under an absolute arbitrary power 4. That in his judgment the Parliament ought not to have the Militia in them 5. And lastly That the Supreme Magistrate must be convinced in his own judgment before he yield to alter what by right he is possessed of in reference unto all which the War was undertaken But to close this point 4. Testimony of the Parl. grounds of the war declar Aug. 3. 1642. of the grounds of the war and to leave it with some further authentick demonstration and evidence The two Houses of Parliament in their Declaration setting forth the grounds of their takiâ—g up Arms published August 3. 1642. do represent onely three sorts of them viz. 1. either some former miscarriages of the Kings Government or 2. some preparations on his part to War with the incidents thereunto or lastly his refusal to grant their petitions especially that of July 16. 1642. containing their desire of the Militia the leaving Delinquents to their tryal the Kings return and concurrence with the Houses Together with the result of all these the danger to the Kingdom in Laws Liberty and Religion Now for the first of these the King had not onely acknowledged some of them as the dissolution of the Parliament before of the unhappy dissolution of the last Former errors in Government saith the King by the uninformation and advice of some persons looked upon now under another character Where they should remember that some miscarriages in government is incident unto all Princes yea all Governors whereof Dioclesian maketh a very serious complaint Vopiscus in vitâ Aurelian cit à Bucholc Chronol ad Anx. d. 304. Nihil est inquit difficilius quà m benè imperare Nam quatuor vel quinque viri se colligunt atque unum consilium c piunt ad Imperatorem decipiendum dicunt quod probandum sit Imperator qui domi clausus est vera non novit Cogitur hoc tantum scire quod illi loquuntur Facit judices quos fieri non oportebat amovet à Republicâ quos retinere debebat Quid multa Bonus cautus optimus venditur imperator There is nothing more difficult saith he than to rule well Four or five men associate themselves and take counsel together to delude the King they advise what is to be done A Note for Princes The Prince who is shut up at home knows nothing of the certainty of things but is constrained to know onely that which they acquaint him with He makes hereupon those Judges whom he ought not and removes those from government that he should not To be short a good provident and excellent Prince is bought and sold Thus he And the Parliament themselves were not a little abused by their informers Again the King acknowledges his failing in coming in person to the house of Commons to seize the five Members Kings answer to the Declation of May 19. 1642. p. 10. Edit Cambr. and saith As if by that single casual mistake of ours in form onely we had forfeited all duty credit and allegiance from our people We must without endeavouring to excuse that which in truth was an error our going to the House of Commons But besides these acknowledgments the King made real both amends and security for the future not onely by solemn promise but by passing such Acts of Parliament that did not onely remove the former grievances but also secure the subject for the time to come as we saw above both by the acknowledgment of the Commons in the Remonstrance of the state of the Kingdom among other things these The Monopolies are all supprest That which is more beneficial than all this is pag. 22 23 24. that the root of those evils is taken away which was the arbitrary power pretended to be in his Majesty of taxing the subject or charging their estates without consent in Parliament which is now declared to be against Law by the judgment of both Houses and likewise by an Act of Parliament now the Kings consent was there The evil Counsellors so quelled the Star-chamber the High-commission the Coâ—rts of the President and Council in the North are all taken away The immoderate power of the Council-Table is ordered and restrained we may well hope that no such things will appear in future times but onely stories Note to give us and our posterity more occasion to praise God for his Majesties goodness and the faithful endeavours of this Parliament The Canons and power of Canon-making are blasted by the vote of both Houses the exorbitant power of Bishops and their Courts are much abated the Authors or many Innovations in Doctrine and Ceremonies terrified the Forrests are by a good Law reduced to their right bounds the oppressions of the Stannary Courts the extortions of
Majesties last Message concerning the Militia p. 10. upon any pretence whatsoever without our consent saith he to raise any part of the Militia of this Kingdom Nor hath the like been ever commanded by either or both Houses since the first foundation of the Laws of this Land And though he produce * Proclamation of Jun. 18. 1642. Acts of Parliament for his power as 7 Edw. 1. and divers others together with the known practise of the Nation SECT VI. No means of Preservation SIxthly they object If no resistance be permitted to a State Senate or inferior Magistracy then is there no means left of preservation oftentimes which is against the Law of Nature when force is offered for that teaches and allows vim vi repellere to resist force by force But this rule is applicable to particular Answ 1 persons and so indeed admitted by these Authors and to private men self-preservation from violence is as much granted by the Law of nature to them of right as to a State Senate or Inferior Magistrates And what a gap is this to all disorder if the bellua multorum capitum should find this to be its strength 2. Again Id possumus quod jure possumus if God and Answ 2 the Laws deny us help Naz. Orat. 1. we have onely Nazianzen's way of victory left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. I have one medicine against all maladies one way to obtain victory viz. to die for Christ Duâ—lies of the profess of Aberdeen to the Br. Answ dupl 2. n. 12. Matth. 26. which he spake when in the time of Julian's persecution the Christians were more in number and stronger of hand than the Heathens Our Saviour could have prayed for twelve Legions of Angels but he had no means to save himself from ruine Neither had the ten Tribes when Jeroboam and others oppressed them for the means of resistance which they used proved at all no remedy nor had the Kingdom of Juda 2 King 16. when mancipated and made subject by Ahaz unto the King of Assyria which it seems God owned for afterward when his Successor and the posterity of that generation rebelled under Hezekiah 2 King 18. they smarted for it and confess'd it though afterward upon a barbarous demand they had a just cause of defence against him All conveniences have their inconveniencies In a free Monarchy there is more safety but there is danger of some oppressions Matth. 19. If the case be so with the husband and wife Object it is not good to marry and better in a free state Resp First capiat qui capere potest those who are free may do so but we are obliged even by natural bâ—rth-right to this subjection 24 H. 8. c. 12. as the Act of Parliament saith and to the Laws of a free Monarchy But secondly Hom. Iâ— B. Arist Eth. l. 8. c. 12. Plat. de Regno Plutarch de unius in Rep. Domin Tom. 2. I say with Homer Aristotle Plato Plutarch and other Antients and Modern yea and with God himself who never govern'd his people any other way not by Aristocracy or a popular State but by some One either temporary as the Judges were or permanent who according to the Laws exercised sole government even Samuel himself that 't is both the greatest safety as well as the greatest Honor not onely to a Church but also to a Common-wealth Isa 49. that Kings should be its nursing fathers and Queens its nursing mothers Quod enim praestabilius est Plin. Panegyr Trajan dâ—ct à principio aut pulchrius munus deorum quà m castus sanctus diis simillimus princeps For what saith mine author can be a more profitable or honourable gift from heaven than a moderate religious and God-like Prince c. But of this else-where But to be sure Note after God did establish a setled government among his people it was that of a Monarchy and that a free one too as * Ut humana gubernatio divinae quà m simillima sit Ficin Arg. in Plat. de Regno 3. coming nearest to the image of his own government Lastly It is very rare if at all truly to be exemplified except perhaps in Caligula or Nero that a Prince will endeavour the ruine of the Common-wealth of the Government indeed he may but not of the Common-wealth for then over what shall he reign and whom shall he govern King John King John would have subjected the Kingdom to the Pope as Ahaz did his unto the King of Assyria but both of them thought they did it to preserve 2 King 16. not onely their own interest but also their Kingdoms which they conceived would be in peril to be ruined else This for their sixth mistake SECT VII This will tempt Princes to become Tyrants I Come now to the last viz. That if Kings do know their subjects are so principled as not to dare in conscience to resist no nor the State or Parliament it will open a wide gap to Tyranny and all oppression But first it is certain that God set up this Government Answ 1 as best among his own people to whom he gave no power of resistance and the Princes knew the people so to be principled surely the Loâ—d foresaw a greater mischief in any other government than this hazard Again The Answ 2 Roman Emperors did know that the Christians were principled not to resist both by the Scriptures Justin Mart. Apol. 2. Tertul. Apologetic and their profession and practise insomuch that Julian jeers them for it and says they must turn the other ear Yet Christ who gave this precept and the Apostles who also exemplified it did foresee what ill use might be made of it but not so bad as of the contrary viz. the permission of resistance Thirdly Some Princes that knew their absoluteness and professed it in reference to accomptableness Answ 3 unto their subjects yet have professed and generally practised the obligation of themselves unto the the Laws King James for example Law of Free Monarchies Edit Lond. 1616. pag. 200 201. Their obedience the subjects I say saith he ought to be to him their lawful King as to Gods Lieutenant in earth acknowledging him a Judge set by God over them having power to judge them but to be judged onely by God whom to onely he must give count of his judgment following and obeying his lawful commands eschewing and flying his fury in his unlawful without resistance but by sobs and tears to God c. But yet in the same work he saith Law of Free Monâ—rch Albeit I have at length proved that the King is above the Law as both the Author and giver of strength thereunto yet a good King will not onely delight to rule his subjects by the Law but even will conform himself in his own actions thereunto c. So this Prince And why should we think that the Author of such power putting
House of Peers carried for them by far the major part of Lords Yet after five repulses contrary to all order and custom it was by tumultuary instigation obtruded again and by a few carried when most of the Peers were forced to absent themselves In like manner was the Bill against root and branch brought on by tumultuary clamours and schismatical terrors Bill against Episcopacy which could never pass till both Houses were sufficiently thinned and over-awed To which partiality while in all reason justice and religion my conscience forbids me by consenting to make up their Votes to Acts of Parliament I must now be urged with an Army and constrained either to hazard my own A cause of the War defence of Episcopacy and my Kingdoms ruine by my defence or prostrate my conscience to the blind obedience of those men whose zealous superstition thinks or pretends they cannot do God and the Church a greater service than utterly to destroy that Primitive Apostolical and antiently Vniversal government of the Church by Bishops And the King hath the like complaint * Kings declaration to all his loving subjects Aug. 12. 1642. p. 8. print Cambr. else-where So that we see what was the mind and affection the scope and intent of the King and the two Houses as then when that Act passed touching Episcopacy Whence it will follow that as they had no intention nor ever consented to the Bill for it to destroy the office so neither did the Commons think that it was so by that Act of taking away their votes or by recalling of the former clause of 1 Eliz. 1. touching Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for then they would not have prepared another Act for it which never passed the Houses whilst full nor the Kings assent afterward and so is no Law It remaineth therefore that the intention of the Parliament in the repealing of that clause was onely in reference unto the High-commission Court or other excentrical from the legal jurisdiction of Bishops and raised onely by the Kings prerogative yet of use whilst established but removed not for its unprofitableness as to prevent some greater inconvenience It was their jurisdiction in those cases and upon such special commission from the King that there ceased not their ordinary legal and per se Episcopal power of government in this Church * By Act of this present Parliament for restoring Episcopal jurisdiction As hath been of late more authentically evidenced Answ 4 even before this was printed As for the Ordinance that especially at that time as it could at no time cannot countervene a setled Law Neither have the Houses power to declare any thing against Law as we heard above Lord Cant. speech ubi suprà For close therefore I repeat that suit of his and do humbly in the Churches name desire of his Majesty that it may be resolved not onely by all the Reverend Judges of England A supplication to his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament but by his Majejesty and both Houses of Parliament and then published by them that the Doctrine and Articles of Religion the Liturgy and Worship the Discipline and Government are not against or besides the Laws of this Realm That so the Church-Governors may go on cheerfully in their duty and the peoples minds be quieted by this assurance that neither the Laws nor their Liberties are infringed as Subjects thereby SECT VII Of the Obligation of the League and Covenant AGain it is objected that there is an engagement for the Reformation of the Doctrine Worship Assemblies Discipline and Government in the solemn League and Covenant therefore they are not to be adhered unto Subsect 1. That the Covenant obligeth not OMitting the elaborate and excellent pains of the University of Oxford in this argument Reasons of the University of Oxford concerning the Covenant 1647. Duplies of the professors of Aberdeen to the Brethr. concerning the Covenant 1638. Dr. Lesly Bish of Down in his Visitation speech Lond. 1638. 1. Argument Because it is opposite to after other Oaths c. Gal. 3.14 18. as also that of the Professors of Aberdeen in Scotland And of the Bishop of Down in Ireland the testimony of the three Kingdoms against it I shall propound only four Arguments to evince first the nullity of its obligation and then from thence collect what it binds yet unto The Arguments touching the former are First from the nature and order of this Oath The second from the power imposing of it The third from the matter of the oath it self The last from the scope and end of its framing and imposing First from the nature and order of this Oath When there are two oaths touching the same things and they contradictory one to another if the former be lawful and obliging the latter cannot be so too but void and null ipso facto Hence it is that our Apostle proveth the invalidity of the Ceremonial Law and Covenant being different from and in some sort opposite to the Covenant of Grace because it was made four hundred years after and so could not make the other void So this Oath and Covenant whereof we now speak being contradictory as shall be seen and is evident of it self to former lawful Oaths and Engagements confirmed by the Laws of the Kingdome as the Oath of Allegiance Supremacy Canonical Obedience Subscriptions to the three Articles and Protestations cannot make those former of none effect and is therefore void being taken as it was unlawful to take it unless the Obligation of the former Oaths and Engagements had been by the same or superiour power relaxed As was done by Hermannus Archbishop of Cullen to his subjects Sleid. Com. l. 18 Ad Ann. 1547. when he was no longer able to protect them Which was not our case Our former Oaths and Engagements were agreeable to Law and Equity both in their matter and authority injoyning them This contradictory to them and by an inferiour power yea by such a power as had not authority to do it which brings me to the second Argument 2. Arg. Because it was in posed by unsufficient power in opposition to the lawful authority namely taken from the power or rather the impotency of the imposers as to this act It is proved above that in the Government the King is Supreme by the Laws But if he were but equal yet in a coordinate power if when one desires to do his duty and is well able thereunto the other shall exclude him and act in opposition not only to him but also to the Laws established by all and impose upon the Subjects who are not obliged but as it proceeds from all to submit and to accept of such impositions if voluntarily is a threefold iniquity and injustice First Unto the person excluded against his will and right Secondly Against the liberty of the Subject who is not liable to injunctions proceeding from some but all Thirdly Against the priviledge
that power into executâ—on Now in the former sense neither the Scripture so far as I understand nor the Church of England hath asserted such power in any Ecclesiastical persons since the Apostles who onely under Christ had a power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and autocratical Or thirdly For an eminent degree of power in Government so as that some acts thereof do solely belong unto him to perform regularly and in common order Now in this sense omitting the name as Zanchy said above and keeping our eye upon the thing it self seeing both the Scripture and the Church of England as also the practice of the whole Church through the world formerly and the most learned men of the reformed Churches of late all which have been evidenced above have constituted an order or degree of persons who of right had and ought to have the Regiment and Government over other Ministers as is plain not onely by the Apostles but also by the Evangelists Timothy and Titus as also by the perpetual necessity of the Church I must needs refer unto that fore-quoted sentence of Cyprian to this purpose and add here another of like effect out of him Haec sunt enim initia haereticorum ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum malè cogitantium Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 1. ut sibi placeant ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant Sic de Ecclesiâ receditur sic altare prophanum foris collocatur sic contra pacem Christi ordinationem atque unitatem Dei rebellatur These are saith hee the beginnings of Hereticks the rise and struglings of ill minded Schismaticks to please themselves and with proud stomach to despise the Bishop for so this word must here be meant thence men depart from the Church thence the prophane altar of separation is placed elsewhere thence against the peace of Christ and against the Ordinance and unity appointed by God rebellion is raised Fourthly Sole Jurisdiction may be taken for exercising those Acts that of right belong to him to do wholly of his own head without ingagement to consult and advise with any or else for the sole power of acting but upon ingagement of taking with him the Judgement and opinion though not the governing power of others also Hence the Apostle in the former sense admonisheth that the Bishop as well as any other Minister and Elder Tit. 1.7 must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that in the Government of the Church goeth upon his own head And in the latter sense is it that Cyprian than whom no man was more for the priviledge Episcopal and for entire obedience thereunto yet saith Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 10 Ad id vero quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri solus rescribere nil potui cum a primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere Unto that saith hee that my fellow Presbyters wrote unto mee I can alone return no answer for I determined from my first entrance into my office privately and of my own head without your counsel that are the Ministers and without the consent of the people to do nothing For the true understanding of which sentence and other like as also for a resolution of the question it self a few things must be severally and distinctly noted First That hee doth not in this overthrow what several times hee said before L. 1. Ep. 3. l. 3. Ep. 1. touching the obedience due from the whole Church to the Bishop but onely signifies that hee thinks it his duty to advise with them as theirs to be obedient unto him Secondly That this course of use then is not so necessary now when as all the motions and actings of the Bishop are laid forth and determined and hee obliged to operate and govern onely by them by the Laws and Canons which was not so fully done in that Fathers time Thirdly That this order is not observed therefore by those who are most Antiepiscopal not by the Brethren or Presbyters neither here nor beyond the Seas who do not call the people to all consultations but onely Presbyters either sacred or civil Lastly That this practice of Cyprian is ad amussim and exactly performed by the Bishops of England For The Bishops in the Church of England do nothing but by the advise of their Brethren and of the people First seeing they arrogate no power but what the Scripture the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land do allow and secondly that by these all whatsoever materially they do is already prescribed to them And in the third place those powers in Scripture Canons of the Church and Laws of the Nation are approved and confirmed both by their Brethren the Ministery in Convocation and by the people in the Parliament by their delegates it follows truly and really that the Bishops in England act nothing but in effect according to that Fathers example by the counsel of the Ministry and consent of the people Thus much for their assertion Brethrens proof As to their proof It is from Antiquity from the book of Ordination from the Common-prayer-book and from the Law First For Antiquity P. 47. they say in Cyprians time there were in Rome a number of the Clergy Answ who acted with the Bishop By this argument wee may infer strange consequences For the Parliament acts with the King So Acts run the Kings most excellent Majesty with the advice of the Lords and Commons c. And the Counsel acts with the King for that is common in proclamations The King by the advice of the Privy Counsel The question is not with whom the Bishops act as who hath the primary Power The Justices on the Bench act with the Judge but can they declare Law give the charge and pronounce sentence Wee heard above what Cyprians judgement was of the power of the Bishop what also out of tenderness and indulgence and to avoid offence and for better light not for more jurisdiction hee condescended unto also Next Proof 2 for that out of the book of Ordination that because it is asked the Minister to bee ordained whether hee will obey his Ordinary and other chief Ministers c. therefore there are other Ministers that have the power of jurisdiction As if this did not refer unto the Archbishop Answ or other officers of the Bishops To which because they cannot answer they object a place out of the Liturgy which shall bee spoken to in its time P. 48. The other place in the book of Ordination That because it is asked the Priest to be ordained if hee will administer the Doctrine Object and Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same therefore they say it was the intention of the Church to admit all Presbyters to have a share in Ecclesiastical jurisdiction That is It was the intention of the Church Answ to
admit all those to govern whom in that very question and the answer to it they did intend to oblige to subjection and obedience So gross is the Brethrens conscience to dare to utter and their confidence to think that so palpable a Calumny would pass undiscerned yea so ridiculous their hopes as to fancy it would bee beleeved To the third viz. that out of the Liturgy Proof 3 Because it is said in the Rubrick before the Communion Liberty given to the Minister by the Liturgy touching Communicants that the Minister is authorized to restrain notorious offenders from the Sacrament till they have openly declared themselves to have repented The Brethren query What is this but as much and as high jurisdiction as any Bishop can use in that particular Answ But first how shall wee make a coat for the Moon sometime they struggle as even lately if not at present for more power about the Sacrament and when my self mentioned this Rubrick unto one Mr. J. Cas that is no Cypher among them hee said it was not sufficient Again if the Brethren are by Law already instated in as much jurisdiction as any Bishop can use about the Sacrament and that is the greatest point why rest they not in it why blaspheme they the Common-prayer-book wherein it is contained why do they so wrestle imponere pelio ossam And make the Church and State as blocks to be For steps to mount unto their Prelacy But thirdly There are some Acts common in all governments and some proper A petty Constable may charge any man upon a warrant to assist him as well as the Sheriff of the County upon a writ Some kinde of share in government and exercise of Discipline was never denyed to a Minister as a Minister no more than a share with the Bishop in Preaching of the Word But Jurisdiction is a word of a louder sound than Discipline and the Government of the Church than some kinde of restraining a particular communicant Although those Acts belong to Government and are exercised by private Ministers yet they are about lesser things And also it is by concession and delegation not to bee challenged I think of right otherwise than as the officer of the Church appointed in her name to do that which of himself and as a private Minister hee could not do For then there must bee not as the Brethren say if the Bishops have sole Jurisdiction so many Popes that is six and twenty but sixty times six and twenty Popes in England For every Minister might then exclude whom hee pleased from the Communion and exercise an absolute tyranny upon the people And so much of their third proof Their last is from Law Proof 4 which because I do not understand it much that it belongs unto the Judges to determine Answ That the Bishops have appealed thereunto that my self have said above something to that point That * Vid. Tract of the R. Bp. Linc. now published of the Legality of the Bishops Courts c. Wherein the Kings Proclam and Judges sentence are recited it is declared already by the sentence of all the Judges Enrolled in the Courts of Record and by his late Majesties Proclamation and that it is like shortly to be further determined I supersede from further answering although I could Onely I may not pass the great inconsideration of the Brethren with so much virulency resisting the useful restitution of the Bishops into Parliament which is the interest of Christ himself of the Ministry and of the Kingdome First Though we are blessed be God all Christians yet our masters cause will probably bee minded a little more intently by those whom hee hath commissioned for that purpose the Ministry the honour and flower whereof are the Prelacy Again other persons have a vote in Parliament more immediately by their proxyes Why England should observe Episcopacy the Clergy none but in the Bishops Lastly The publick interest to bee concerned may well bee thought from not onely that engagement of thankfulness that lyes upon it unto Prelacy under whose Government and by whose Influence and through the effusion of the blood of whose members Religion hath been restored nor onely in regard they were by the Antient Laws even the first members next the head for the form was The Kings Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Nor onely in respect perhaps of some higher ingagements But from our experience the Mistress of fools For first neither King Lords nor Commons continued in power long after the Bishops ejectment And next hitherto wee have had no face of a Church no certainty of Doctrine no observation of Worship no exercise of Government to speak of but all things have gone to Babylonian confusion and antique Chaos Discite justitiam moniti The Phrygians will not learn till lasht they be If that amend us not then worse are wee I shall for close touching the Civil honour annexed unto Episcopacy in this Nation Zanch. confess cap. 25. Aph. 21. subjoyn the conclusion and judgement of the learned Zanchy and that in the confession of his Faith The conclusion is Episcoporum qui principes sunt politicam authoritatem non negari That the Civil Authority of Bishops which are also Magistrates or Princes is not denyed The explication follows Interim non diffitemur Episcopos qui simul etiam principes sunt praeter autoritatem Ecclesiasticam sua etiam habere jura politica Secularesque potestates quemadmodum reliqui habent principes jus imperandi secularia jus gladii nonnullos jus elegendi confirmandique Reges Imperatores aliaque politica constituendi administrandi subditosque sibi populos ad obedientiam sibi praestandam cogendi c. That besides their Ecclesiastical Authority they have also Civil Rights and SECULAR Powers and may constrain obedience unto such their powers c. which hee contradicts not in the observations Neither doth hee contradict it in his explication of that Aphorism And that place Mat. 20.25 It shall not bee so among you is understood by some to concern all Christians saith hee neither doth hee refute it SECT VI. The close of the Church-Controversie HAving thus far passed through all the five heads of motives unto Separation viz. The Doctrine the Worship the Assemblies the Discipline and the Government with replies unto them and having also vindicated them according to my weak arm by the sword of the spirit against the opposers of them I come now to close this whole dissertation His present Majesty hath indulged to the Brethren and their adherents very much in all the Premises May it prove successeful But his Grandfather King James having tasted of this Solunne geuse and wilde fowl whilst in Scotland and being pressed at his first coming as His Majesty now to the like here hee utters his judgement upon observation of Gods presence with this Church and Nation in these words We have seen the Kingdome under that form of Religion
resentment of the premises and which hath wrought this repentance may never be repented of nor that there ever be cause that I retract these retractations Amen Yea there may be those who having lost me may by some artifice effect that I shall lose those whom they think I now intend to win that so being by both deserted I might be ruined But God who sees their plots and my plainness in this affair will I hope disappoint them But if he shall for his glory and my further mortification permit them I hope my suffering shall be like that of Mephibosheth for even David may be abused by a treacherous Ziba for my Loyalty 2 Sam. 19.27 1 King 2. not like that of Shimei for my Apostacy And that I shall never prove either * Qui Sacr. libros tradebancâ— ethnicis Traditor or Proditor false to this Church or faithless to my Country Quia qui in pace militibus suis futuram praenunciat pugnâ—m dabit militantibus in congressione victâ—riam Because he that hath warned his Souldiers of the approaching Battel Cypr. Epist 2. l. 1. will also in the conflict assist to victory And I may give them this taste of my spirit and his grace That whereas upon his Majesties return by prayer I was often importuned to ask and assured to have I wilingâ—y let slip the season that I might evidence I did not follow Christ for the Lâ—eaves nor the King for a Living As also that I might by the publishing this being not onely my retractation but confession also of my faith clearly be known and so no error personae or ignorantia facti be complained of afterward Besides Providence hath so disposed in outward matters that I may in the state I am perhaps not uncomfortably subsist without much addition Sect. 6. Proof that the Author went no further Now for close and confirmation that my lapse was not so exorbitant through the mercy of God as to my principles in either of the former causes I shall subjoyn a passage touching each out of those my actings which were most eminent in these particulars and first for the War Serm. on Judg 5.23 Jun 19 1642. at Trin. Ch. in Camb. Prov. 19. In that Discourse wherein I gave Answer in the University unto Dr. Feams Book at its first appearance there are these words Object 3. But the King forbids this help viz. by the War and commands the contrary Now where the word of a King is there is power and his wrath is as the roaring of a Lion Eccles 8. Ibid. And I counsel thee obey the Kings commandment and that because of the Oath of God vers 4. Rom. 13. And who shall say to the King What dost thou And He that resists resists the Ordinance of God c. Answ We are not to take notice of the Kings commands as they look upon the publick but by his Laws which are his deliberate will and by those whom the Law hath appointed interpreters of it And then indeed when a King comes in his Laws he is more than a man for he is the Minister of God and whosoever resists resists the Ordinance of God and he that resists shall receive to himself damnation Object 4. But the King saith He proceeded according to Law who shall judge Resp The same body rightly gathered that made the Law i. e. the Common-wealth can best judge of its own meaning And seeing Law is not declared by the King but in his Courts and the higher Court being that of Parliament we are to rest in their declaration unless we see manifestly to the contrary By which passage it doth appear that there was this especially that did misguide me viz. The misapplication of some true principles First That the Law of Nature allowing self-preservation to a Nation as well as a Man it might be endeavoured in case of necessity as to particular Laws illegally Which is untrue Rom. 3. for We must not do evil that good may come thereof Secondly That the King being always to be obey'd in his Laws declared in his Courts and the Parliament being the highest Court therefore what the two H. H. did declare to be Law was so wherein there was a doubble mistake 1. That the two Houses were the Parliament in exclusion of and opposition to the King that I say not a lesser part for number of Lords and Commons though enough in formality of Law 2. That it was Law which they declared to be so See the Declaration of 2 H. H. Novemb 2. 1642. in answer to that of the Kings May 26. pag. 22. though no Law was shewed but a sentence out of Bracton who wrote in Hen. 3. in the time of the Barons Wars and who in another place hath the clean contrary as shall appear and it may be a sentence or two out of some other private Lawyer against the constant sentence of Lawyers and the known practice of the Law and Parliaments This for the War that I might shew that Law the Authority of Parliament mistaken and no private headiness did transport me Next for Independency In the Tract I published on that Argument Vindiciae Catholicae cap. 1. p. 3. there is this passage Now the scope of this Treatise is not to unfasten the ground of all Church-combination and to lay a foundation for absolute Independency The conveniency and sometime the necessity of Classes and Synods for direction and determination and that by Divine Authority is freely acknowledged though no with power properly Juridical yea I add that Episcopacy it self was and might be maintained as also Presbytery if confined to a particular Church and not subjected to Superior Ecclesiastical power which was the most antient way of it might both consist together in a particular one Again The violation of Parochial limits oft-times manifestly prejudicial to edification yet am not I for the drawing of any godly able pag. 69. and faithful Ministers people from him who is for the substance of Reformation though with many defects in lesser things Again But this is not their my own and some others opinion pag. 79. that it is essentially requisite to the being of a visible Church that it meet in one place they hold it de benè esse for conveniency not absolutely necessary From which passages it is evident first That not such an Independency as some practised was pleaded for but such as might agree not with Presbytery onely but with Episcopacy and not onely with a Parochial Church or the Church of a City but such as might agree with a Nation also As indeed the Church of England and other National Churches are independent as to right of Jurisdiction from all other Churches There being no such thing in re as an universal Visible governing Church as I have I think evinced in the Treatise above mentioned but every expression in that passage I own not But to conclude I repeat that of Bucer
eyes look right on to the true scope And turn not to the right hand or to the left of unlawful means If thine eye be single thy whole body shall be full of light Matth. 6.22 if thine eye and aim be evil thy whole body of thy actions will be full of darkness and in darkness men do not walk even said our Saviour 8. Cause Negligence in Religious duties Jam. 4. 8. In the next place there was no doubt either neglect of or some other defect in prayer and religious duties For though the thing were not omitted yet it seems there was an asking and not receiving which could not have been for he is faithful who had promised but that there was an asking amiss Heb. 10. Now the promise cannot fail Tâ—t 1. Jam. 1. because God cannot lie and the promise is If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth it liberally It hath even by the light of nature been discovered that great miscarriages in judgment and practise could not happen but as a punishment for some neglect of God as well as a sin against him When Alexander the Great had in a drunken fit slain Clytus a man both of valor Curtius lib. 8. paulo ab initio and merit towards the King after that he had spent all night in lamenting and repenting Scrutatumque num ira deorum ad tantum nefas actus esset subiit anniversarium sacrificium Libero patri non esse redditum st to tempore itaque inter vinum epulas caede commissa iram Dei fuisse manifestam Upon search it was found that the sacrifice to Bacchus was not performed in its season and therefore in his very benefits wine for so they reckoned the table was made a snare and in drinking and feasting slaughter being committed the anger of god was evident Thus those Heathens Matth. 6. Surely lead us not into temptation as it is a necessary so it should be a daily prayer and that with earnestness 9. Add to this some failing or other 9. Cause Fail in practise either in spirit and sincerity or in practice and walking For Good and upright is the Lord therefore he will teach sinners in the way but so that we be tractable Psal 25.8 9 10. for the meek he will guide in judgment and the meek will he teach his way that is the plain-hearted and those that walk with a right foot and make streight steps unto their feet Heb. 12. And all the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto them that keep his Covenant Psal 25. and his testimonies to do them And what man is he that feareth the Lord him shall he teach the way that he shall choose As on the contrary when we know God Rom. 1.28 and glorifie him not as God he often delivers us to an erring and unjudicious spirit 2 Thess 2. And the not receiving the truth in the love of it introduceth frequently strong delusions The close shall be St. Austins Diriget mites In Psal 24. diriges nec perturbabit in judicio eos qui sequuntur voluntatem ejus nec ei resistendo praepenunt suam That is He shall direct the meek nor shall he disturb them in their judgment which follow his will and do not by resisting prefer their own The last of those general causes which I shall name 10. Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my back-sliding was Being too busie without my sphere 1 Thes 4.11 and in the things did not belong unto me A practice consequent unto the former negligence as is implied by the Apostle whilst he saith Do your own business and work with your hands the thing that is good Psal 131.1 It was one thing that preserved David from sedition that he exercised not himself in things too high for him and above his place but refrained his soul as a weaned child 2 King 11. Not but that Jehoiada the High-prieâ—â— may according to his office and power given him deal in the greatest affairs of a kingdom Yea and not onely Zadoc and Abiather the chief but even also Ahimaaz and Jonathan the inferior Priests when regularly may put their hand to save the Throne as well as the Altar But the case with me was different I need not explain how That Prophesie Take unto thee the instruments of a foolish shepherd Zech. 11.15 c. was applied by one late in power unto the Ministers dealing in affairs of State Lieutenant General Cromwels Letter to the Speaker out of Scotland Sept. 4. 1650. when yet himself and party played their first and best game by their hands in so medling He saith Such means will not be effectual for the setting up the Kingdom of Christ and neglect or not trust to the word of God the sword of the Spirit which alone is powerful and able for the setting up that Kingdom and when trusted to will be found effectually able to that end and will also do it Thus he Oh that so much had been said by him at the beginning of the English as it was at the beginning of the Scotish War But then it would have spoil'd the sport 2 Pet. 1.12 and it seems there is a present truth as some apply those words of Peter not capable of any other moments of time past or to come But to return Johannes Funccius Johan Funccius that notable and good Chronologer a Divine also Chaplain and Chancellor unto the Duke of Borussia having as it seems counsell'd some act that was disgusted vehemently by the State Bucholcer Chronol ad Ann. 1566. they rested not till they had his head that contriv'd it who as he went to execution gave forth this Distich Disce meo exemplo mandato munere fungi Et fuge ceu pestem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which I have sometime thus rendred Learn thou by mine example to apply Thy self to thine own studies and do fly As from the plague that folly mine of late Divines too medling in affairs of State Somewhat like was that of Justus Jonas Justus Jonas idem ad Ann. 1567. the year following which he gave forth as he went to the same calamity Quid juvat innumeros scire evolvere casus Si facienda fugis si fugienda facis What doth it boot all cases for to know If duty thou omit and sin thou do But he was of another Trade to wit a Lawyer I conclude this with the Apostles warning 1 Thess 4. that we study to be quiet and to do our own business 1 Pet. 4. lest we suffer as evil doers and busie-bodies in other mens affairs The Causes general are ended CHAP. VI. Particular Causes with their Confutation And first of the War SECT I. Cause General and Privative viz. Resisting of the Spirit of God AS touching particular ones namely those which induced me unto the civil Controversie and those which lead me to
Object whereof one contradicts himself is not a sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a firm footing to stand upon to shake not the earth onely but heaven also Bracton writing in Henry the third his time fol. 34. A. when the Barâ—ns had raised a Militia against the King saith indeed Rex habet superiorem Deum scilicet item legem per quà m factus est Rex item curiam suam viz. Comites Barones c. That the King hath a Superior namely God also the Law whereby he was made King also his Court to wit the Earls and Barons The like sentence verbatim almost is cited out of * lib. 1. c. 17. de justitiariis substituendis Declar. L. L. Com. Nov. 2. 1642. pag. 22. Fleta that the King had in populâ— regendo superiores legem per quam f ctus est curiam suam viz. Comites Barones c. But the former place in Bracton and so in Fleta is not meant of the Court of Parliament for there 's no mention of the Commons but it follows in the same place debent ei fraenum imponere they ought to bridle him Dr. Fearns's Conscience satisfied sect 4. pag. 17. 1248. It is likely he spake this in favour of the Militia raised against Henry the third for then he wrote and might call that Assembly of Earls and Barons then combined against the King Curiam the higher Court or Counsel But he contradicts this else-where not onely in that sentence Rex in regno parem habere non debet cum par in parem non habeat potestatem multò fortiùs non habeat superiorem That the King in his Kingdom ought to have no equal because one equal can have no power over another much less should he have any superior But also by other sentences quoted out of him above Somewhat perhaps like Cicero sometime with Pompey sometime for Cesar as not a few have been in our time Another also is cited who saith 2. Fortescue fol. 25. â— By the fuller answer to Dr. Fearn pag. 3. Ad hanc potestatem a pâ—pulo effluxam ipse habet quo non licet ei potestate aliâ populo suo dominari That the King by having this power flowing from the people is obliged so that it is not lawful for him to rule over them by any other authority Answ 1 But this assertion being back'd with no antient record or custom nor with any judged case or Act of Parliament yea contrary to the known process and practise of the Law and Acts of Parliament and general sentences of Lawyers cannot satisfie especially if we consider that if such power had flowen from the people yet as the King observes it doth not follow that it must therefore return unto them 2. Answer to the Remonstr of May 26. 1642. pag. 10. at least when and in what manner they will As in the case of the power of the Husband which first did flow unto him from the Wife but may not be resumed without breach of wedlock 3. 24 H. 8. c. 12. and that also adjudged lawfully The Law is otherwise which teacheth us That this Realm of England hath been accepted for an Empire governed by one supream Head unto whom a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people of the Spiritualty and Temporalty are bound to bear next unto God a natural obedience And that by the Law of nature and of the Land we owe Allegiance as we saw above Now this is not answered Reply to Dr. Ferm's answer sect 3. pag. 18. by saying ' By the preamble of the Statute it appears so to be made to prevent appeals to Rome and that by the supreme Head is meant such a one as is able to do all needful acts of justice which the King in his natural capacity cannot do and therefore must be understood in his politick capacity which takes in Law and Parliament For the whole body politick whether Parliament or People are governed and made subâ—ect to this Supreme Head and do owe unto him natural obedience And accordingly in His not in the Houses of Parliament's name though sitting do all judgments and executions of Law proceed The authority then of the two Houses of Parliament is the authority of the Body not of the Head by which even it also must be governed and against which it may not oppose it self 1 Tim. 2. For as he said I permit not a woman to usurp authority over the man but to live in subjection holds betwixt the political Spouse and Husband also I have done with the third 4. Case of Necessity To the fourth Motive the case of Necessity We must here note Thesin Hypothesin the general and the particular state of the Question 1. In Thesi and in general 'T is true Pleaders for Regal power do acknowledge that there may indeed fall out some cases wherein such designments may be warrantable As first Abbot de Anti-Ch cap. 7. n. 5. 6. in general when per patrias leges licere judicarunt Hîc verò politica res agitur Quid principi juris in subditos per leges cujusque reipublicae fundatrices permissum sit c. When they might judge that it was lawful by the Laws of their Country Now here the Question is civil and political namely What power is given to the Prince over his subjects by the fundamental Laws of each Common-wealth c. saith the Bishop of Salisbury Here Law is made the bottom in general but that Law must be produced that may be known In particular two or three cases are alleadg'd wherein onely it is found allowable Non alias igitur populo in eum potestas est Gull Barcla contr Monarchom lib. 3. prope sin quà m si id committat propter quod ipso jure Rex esse desinat Tunc enim quia se ipse principatu exuit atque in privatis constituit liber hoc modo populus superior efficitur reverso ad illum scilicet jure illo quod ante regem inauguratum in interregno habuit duo tantum commissa invenio duos inquam casus Horum unus est si regnum Rempublicam evertere conetur hoc est Aurel. Victor de Caesarib Sueton. cap. 49. cap. 30. si id ei propositum eaque intentio fuerit ut regnum disperdat quemadmodum de Nerone fertur de Caligula Talia cum Rex aliquis meditatur molitur serio omnem regnandi curam animum illico abjicit ac proinde imperium in subditos amittit ut * l. 1. ult D. pro. derelict dominus servi pro derelicto habiti dominium Alter casus est si Rex in alicujus clientelam se contulerit ac regnum quòd liberum à majoribus populo traditum accepit alienae ditioni mancipaverit c. And instanceth in Baliol King of Scots that subjected his Crown and Kingdom to Edward the first of England then
adds Ejurationem spontalem excipio de qua nulla inter mortales dubitatio which I need not English Bilson of Subj Rebel part 3. edit Lond. 1586. pag. 276 280. because for substance the same is delivered before him by our own Bishop of Winchester I must confess saith he that except the Laws of those Realms do permit the people to stand on their right if the Prince would offer that wrong I dare not allow their arms Cases may fall out even in Christian Kingdoms where the people may plead their right against the Prince and not be charged with rebellion Phil. As when for example Theop. If the Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a forreign Realm or change the form of the Common-wealth from Empery to Tyranny or neglect the Laws established by common consent of Prince and People to execute his own pleasure In these and other cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons joyn together to defend their antient and accustomed Liberty Regiment and Laws they may not well be counted Rebels I never denyed that the people might preserve the foundation But part 3. pag. 144. he saith It is the Popes Divinity that Princes have their power from the people which he saith they have from God freedom and form of their Common-wealth which they fore-prised when they first consented to have a King I never said That Kingdoms and Common-wealths might not proportion their States as they thought best by their publick Laws which afterward the Princes themselves may not violate In Kingdoms where Princes bear rule by the sword Princes will we do not mean the Princes private will against his Laws but his Precept derived from his Laws and agreeing with his Laws which though it be wicked yet may not be resisted of any subject with armed violence Mary when Princes offer their subjects not justice but force and despise all Laws to practise their lusts Not every nor any private man may take the sword to redress the Prince But if the LAWS of the land appoint the nobles as next to the King to assert him in doing right and with-hold him from doing wrong Note If the Laws appoint THEN be they licensed by mans LAW and so not prohibited by Gods to interpose themselves for safeguard of equity and innocency and by all lawful and needful means to procure the Prince to be reformed but in no case deprived Note Not disinherit where the Scepter is inherited But he explains himself further in the very next page viz. That he meant still according unto Law The rest of the Nobles saith he that did assist them the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde against the King of France if it were the Kings act that did oppress them and not the Guises Note except the LAWS of the land do permit them means to save the State from open tyranny I wiâ—l not excuse And * part 3. pag. 144. elsewhere I will not saith he examine the Popes Divinity Zachary in his answer to the German Legates Aventin lib. p. 299. wherein he saith the people create their King and the people may when the cause so requireth forsake their King 't is you see the Popes Doctrine I will not saith he examine the Popes Divinity in that he saith Princes have their powers of the people which the Scripture saith they have of God And before part 2. p. m. 328. This is the Supremacy which we attribute to Princes that all men within their territories should obey their Laws or abide their pleasure and that no man on earth hath authority to take their Swords from them by Judicial sentence or Martial violence Howsoever as I said ☜ those things before may be so in Thesi and the matter absolutely considered yet being excited by the fruits to view all the roots again I cannot satisfie my conscience that in Hypothesi and in particular hîc and nunc Note Mr. Pyms speech at the charge of the Earl of Strasford pag. m. 5. Protection and Alleg. 1. Parliament Testimony Remonstr of the state of the Kingdom Novemb. 15. 1641. pag. 26. 1. Bills pâ—ss'd by the King the case was such with us at the beginning of the war And if there had been any urgency to any of those cases yet Mr. Pym whom all men know was no passionate Royallist saith If you take away the protection of the King the vigour and cheerfulness of Allegiance will be taken away though the OBLIGATION remain Protection then and Allegiance are not such correlatives as that they do se mutuò ponere tollere as some would have But to return That the case was not so with us and that this may appear to have been no groundless conceit of my own I produce the two Houses of Lords and Commons We acknowledge say they with much thankfulness that his Majesty hath passed more good Bills to the advantage of the subjects than have been in MANY AGES This for the matter of concessions pag. 23. 2. Security to the Subject Next for the Security hear them again The discontinuance of Parliaments is prevented by a Bill for Trìiennial Parliaments and the abrupt dissolution of this Parliament by another Bill by which it is provided it shall not be dissolved or adjourn without the consent of both Houses Which two Laws well considered may be thought more advantagious than ALL the former because they SECURE a full operation of the present remedy and afford a PERPETVAL spring of remedies for the future Thus the Parliament Sir Benjamin Rudyard his testimony Now secondly That these considerations did then woâ—k strongly upon the hearts of some of their own Members against engaging in the War may be seen by a speech printed of Sr. Benjamin Rudyards In hâ—s Epâ—stâ—e Dedicatâ—ry to him of one of his Trâ—ctates among the rest of Mr. Rous's works to whose worth and piety Mr. Francis Rous a member also gives upon his own long and intimate knowledge a very high elogy He in that speech in the House of Commons July the 9. Anno 1642. page 2. saith Mr. Speaker I am touched I am pierced with an apprehension of the honor of the House and success of Parliament The best way to give a stop to these desperate immenent mischiefs Sir B njamin Rudyard his speech in Parliament is to make a fair way for the KING 's REâ—VRN hither it will likewise give best satisfaction to the people and will be our best justification And again page 3. Note If any man could have credibly told us 1 that within three years you shall have a Parliament 2 that Ship-mony shall be taken away by an Act of Parliament 1. Acts passed the reasons and grounds of it so rooted out as that neither it nor any thing like it can ever grow up again 3 That Monopolies 4 the High-commission Court 5 the Star-chamber 6 the Bishops Votes shall be taken
ten Tribes may infer that though their Princes were both Vsurpers and Tyrants ruling by will and not by Law yet it was not lawful for their subjects to resist them Which I extend not further here than to shew their first mistake viz. That Law may be not the municipal Laws of any particular place but the Supreme Law of God touching the subjection and non-resistance of subjects toward their Princes So in the Roman Emperors whose will was Law for they permitted what they would onely to be in force and over-awed the Senate whom they were obliged to act by and for form-sake did and yet even to Nero one of the worst of them Rom. 13. the Apostle enjoyns absolute subjection to all inferiors And this Supreme Law of subjects not-resistance is signified by the Author of all government in his own word by rule and by example By rule Prov 24.21 Fear God and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change Where the word of a King is Eccles 8.2 there is power and who may say What dost thou Prov. 8. By me Kings reign c. And Eccles 8.4 I counsel thee to keep the Kings commandment and that because of the Oath of God These in the Old In the New Testament Matth. 22.21 Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars says our Saviour And Let every soul be subject he that resists Rom. 13. resists the Ordinance of God says the Apostle And Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2.13 whether to the King as supreme c. saith the Apostle Peter Tit. 3.1 And Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers c. 2. By Examples of all we read of that were godly in the Old Testament And in the New of Christ our Lord who though free yet lest he should offend Matth. 17.27 paid where none was due Of the Apostles and of all the primitive Christians as we saw above This therefore is their first mistake not minding a more superior Law of subjection then that of particular Nations SEECT 2. Tyranny THeir second is about the nature of Tyranny They say it is not Gods Ordinance and therefore not ' commanded to be obeyed by the Apostle Rom. 13. nor by reason because there is no rational tye by Law they are a terror to the good and tend to the subversion and overthrow of Religion Laws and Liberty But first they should remember that although a moral evil in any kind be not Gods Ordinance yet the application of it may and often is Gods Ordinance As the setting of Satan to exercise his malice upon men and upon his own elect sometimes for their trial and humiliation as he did upon Job and the setting up a King in his wrath Job 1. as we saw above and the setting of Pharaoh over the Israelites to whom he gave no power of resistance though they were not properly subjects Secondly though Tyranny be not Gods Ordinance yet the Subjection to it is his Ordinance Was not the invasion of Cesar and reign of Caligula Nero and others a Tyranny and yet the Apostle saith Obedience to it was Gods Ordinance and for their good Thirdly Though Tyranny be not Gods Ordinance yet Government is though tyrannically exercised which good there is almost in all Tyrannies Yea and as was said before Government Tyrannical is Gods Ordinance by way of punishment and animadversion he being Gods Minister to execute wrath even Gods wrath Rom. 13. not onely upon them that do but those that have done evil as also for the tryal of the faith and patience of his Saints for well-doing That the Trial of their faith 1 Pet. 1. which is much more precious than of gold may be found glorious This was the saying of Tamerlane Tamerlane that most horrid Tyrant but yet a truth Interrogatus aliquando ab hâ—mine Genuensi cur tanta crudelitate uteretur Commotus ac veluti furens d storta facie ac spirantibus ignem oculis Aeneas Silv. in descript Asiae Refer Bucholcer Chronol An. 1398. respondit Tu me hominem esse arbitraris falleris Ira Dei ego sum orbis vastitas Who being asked by a friend why he would be so cruel He being moved with the question and in a rage his countenance distorted and hâ—s eyes flashing fire answered Dost thou think me a man thou art deceived I am the wrath of God and the vastation and destruction of the world Tyranny therefore in this sense explain'd is oftentimes Gods Ordinance This is their second error SECT 3. Ground of Non-resistance THe third fundamental one is their mistake of the ground of Non-resistance or patience which they make to be onely lawful power and legal commands taking still lawful and legal in their former sense also according to particular and municipal Laws But this as it is a dangerous so it is a false position For the true ground of Non-resistance of subjects is first the the nature of order and secondly the prohibition of Gods Ordinance First Order requires that each keep his place unless extraordinarily called by the Author of order which is God himself as Ehud Barak Jahel and others were Judg. 3. chap. 4. in which case they were not subjects as neither were the Israelites thieves Exod. 12. when they borrowed the goods of the Egyptians and restored them not nor invaders of other mens inheritances in seizing upon the Land of Canaan Josh 4. because in these cases they had the order of the God of order Neither had Abraham been guilty if he had slain his son as he was not guilty in intending it for the same reason but these are not for imitation Now then order natural is Rom. 13. That every soul be subject and do not resist the higher powers that is those that are higher than he in his own rank and place for that tends to the reproach of the God of order and to the confusion of the whole body if the members will not be ruled by the head whilst a head As when an Army will not be commanded by their superior Officers or the inferior Orbs oppose themselves to the motion of the higher ones The second ground of non-resistance in subjects is Gods Ordinance who hath so enjoyned that every soul should be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. so long as they are higher and in possession of power by right either from man or God by special dispensation those that by such dispensation are under them are to be subject So the Apostle Peter 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether to the King as Supreme c. And Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and Powers Tit. 3.1 And this not onely to the good and gentle or to those that command just things and maintain Religion Laws and Liberties
lost the Revenues of a good part of a Bishoprick as 't is said which he had purchased And it may be others of these Brethren are ejected as they had ejected others For these times are like those Ruffin Hist eccl l. 1. c. 21. Ea tempestate foeda facies ecclesiae admodum turpis erat non enim sicut prius ab externis sed à propriis vastabatur Fugabat alius alius fugabatur uterque de ecclesia erat praevaricatio erat lapsus ruina multorum Similis poena sed impar victoria similiter cruciabantur sed non similiter gloriabantur quia dolebat ecclesia etiam illius casum qui impellebat ad lapsum At that time the face of the Church was foul and uncomely indeed for not now as formerly the Church was destroyed by enemies but by her own One is driven the other drives him away and both of them of the Church Offences and falls and ruines there were of many All were like sufferers but not all like conquerors All were tortured alike but all could not glory alike for the Church did lament even his fall that forced another to miscarrry saith the Historian But to leave the men and to come unto the matter 3. Their matter The premises are not established they say because there is Addition Detraction and Alterations made in them since the Originals and first establishment For Answer Object 1 Addit Substract Alterat Answ we may note here a twofold distinction 1. Of persons private or publick 2. Of things lighter or more material to apply these If the Alterations Additions or Detractions alledged be done by private hands and in things of lesser moment Misprisions in lesser things by private hands the main continuing unviolate It would be better thought on whether such a misprision be it casu or consilio unwittingly or willingly ought to invalid a publick act For then perhaps neither the Brethren have an authentick Bible nor any Lawyer a true Statute-Book because there are many faults do happen by the pen and by the press which may have happened in the things we speak of But secondly if such alterations In more material ones and by publick persons c. be made by publick persons or in things material it must be considered what powers the Laws do give unto them in these affairs now it is certain and the Brethren acknowledge it that until 17 Carol. 11. The King had freedome by Law to appoint under his Broad Seal Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical Reasons for Reform p. 51. to amend whatsoever might be reformable in the Church And in the Act for uniformity of Common-Prayer Act for uniformity of Com. Prayer at the end of it it is granted unto the Queen that if there shall happen any irreverence in the service of God by the mis-using the orders appointed in the Common-Prayer-Book she may by her Commissioners or by the advice of the Metropolitan ordain further rites or ceremonies for the advancement of the glory of God c. Several Acts in K. Hen. 8. Edw. 6. Q Eliz particulaâ—ly that of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Necessit of Reform p. 50. Now by this and other particular Acts that restored all Ecclesiastical power from the Pope unto the Crown And particularly by the Act of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. wherein having first united and annexed all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom they are the words of the Brethren it addeth what power shall be given by commission under the Great Seal to exercise the same in this following clause viz. And that your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings or Queens of this Realm shall have full power and authority by vertue of this Act by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England to assign name and authorise when and as often as your Highness your Heirs and Successors shall think meet and convenient and for such and so long time as shall please your Highness your Heirs or Successors such person or persons being natural born Subjects to your Highness your Heirs or Successors as your Majesty your Heirs or Successors shall think meet to exercise and use occupy and execute under your Highness your Heirs and Successors all manner of jurisdictions priviledges and preheminencies in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within these your Realms of England and Ireland or any other your Highness Dominions and Countries And to visit reform redress order correct and amend all such errors heresies schismes abuses offences contempts and enormities whatsoever which by any manner spiritual or ecclesiastical power authority or jurisdiction can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almighty God the increase of vertue and the conservation of peace and unity of this Realm Now howsoever the Brethren would make this Act void after the Act of 17 Car. 1. of which anon yet the things we speak of being transacted before remain in force by vertue of that Act. And certain it is that not only the Kings themselves but the Parliaments also the Judges the Ministry have always thought that by the King some alterations might be made by vertue of these Acts without violation of Law provided nothing were done contrary to any thing in the Book contained Preface to the Com. Prayeâ— Book especially when the King shall be supplicated by his people thereunto Hence the King in his Proclamation for the Authorizing of the Book of Common-Prayer by occasion of the Conference at Hampton Court which having reflected on saith Kings Proclamat for establishing the Book of Com. Prayer And for that purpose namely to satisfie the scruples of some tender consciences gave forth Our Commission under Our Great Seal of England to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and others according to the form which the LAWS of this Realm in like case prescribe to be used to make the said EXPLANATION c. And it is also certain that the same not only Kings successively but also Parliaments and Judges with all the other Magistracy have taken all the premises viz. The Doctrine or Articles of Religion the Worship or Common-Prayer-Book The Discipline and Government to be established by Law Or else how will the Brethren or how can any other free the Kings from Arbitrary Government the Parliaments from betraying the publick liberties the Judges from perjury and perverting Law and other Magistrates from oppressing of the people if men have been punished for disobedience to these if not established by Law But surely we may more safely confide in the judgment of so many Acts of Parliament and Laws of so many Princes By divers Ministers of sundry Counties so in the title K. Ja. Instructions to Preachers 1622. Artic. 4. Parliaments Judges Magistrates then in the conjectures of certain Country or County Ministers what is Law The rather because this being a Prerogative Ecclesiastical
them in the very Text of the Liturgy it self 2. Detractions from the Liturgy The second variation of the present book from that of Queen Elizabeth are detractions or takings away But God wot they are scarce a number but two and the present Book innocent of them being both made in that of Queen Elizabeth The one is a Rubrick mark nothing of the substance and Text but a Rubrick onely after the Communion containing an explication in what sense kneeling is enjoyned at the Communion Kneeling at the Communion explain'd And the Brethren say 't is an excellent and solid one and so it is but will they then now kneel First negatively it saith That the kneeling is not to the Bread and Wine Reas for Reform Ed. 2. pag. 3. of the inserted sheet for they remain Bread and Wine still Secondly Nor to any real and essential Presence there being of Christs natural flesh and blood for they are in heaven and not here But secondly and positively this gesture of kneeling is for signification of the thankful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ given unto the worthy Receiver and to avoid prophaneness Now I suppose this Rubrick might be omitted in the Liturgy as being rather a Canon than a Rubrick These serving chiefly for direction how the worship is to be performed Not so properly for explication though some of the Rubricks also do explain But none of them the chief Ceremonies as the Surpliss or the Cross in Baptism and therefore the exposition of these being omitted the other might be thought fit also to be left out which would else have occasioned the addition of the explication of them also and of others to the occasioning of disputes rather than devotion it being not so needful to explain there the Orthodox doctrine in this point being laid down in the Articles and in the Homilies Artic. 28. Homil. of the receiving the Sacrament Can. 30. Can. 18. The explanation of Rites being thought fit for the Canons as in ours the explication of the Cross in Baptism and of bowing at the Name of Jesus But secondly this appears that this Rubrick doth seem not to be appointed by Parliament For if you observe the first Edition of the Common-prayer-book of 5 6 Edw. 6. which is done in very good paper and print the next being in worse as is usual in second Editions of books you shall see room enough vacant in the left page to have received that Rubrick but that is left bare and the Rubrick is printed in a leaf by it self and pasted on Observed as we were viewing by my worthy friend M. Tho. Smith keeper of the publick Library at Cambr. which is further cleared by the Errata in the first edition the second having none In that first edition the Rubrick is printed after all the Rubricks in the other it is in order at n. 3. in another between n and o. which shews that it came after the book was printed off and so not in that passed by the Act. Now then not being established by the Act as it seems the Parliament of 1 Eliz. knew they might omit it and yet not be guilty of detractions from the Book A prayer omitted The next omission is a prayer to be used in times of dearth and famine But seeng it contâ—ins no other matter for doctrine but what is in the prayer yet standing for that occasion 2 King 7. The former draws an argument to prevail with God from the miracle wrought by Elisha in the famine of Samaria And the latter yet standing from the general course of Gods providence and from his goodness which surely are more immediate grounds of faith It is not at all material especially seeing the omission might be from the Press and not from the Prelates Now these two are the onely detractions of the book from that of King Edward but neither of them chargeable upon the present but on the Book of Queen Elizabeth which this follows It appears from the premises that we have all the Liturgy that was established Text Substance and Circumstance as in Queen Elizabeth's time and that Book of hers all that the other had except these immaterial omissions of one Rubrick not establish'd and of one Prayer another more pertinent still remaining two for the same thing in this case and place being not thought so necessary Though all now in the Liturgy be not by that act established which leads me to the last head of Exceptions against the present Book viz. the additions 3. Additions to the Liturgy The Additions For answer in the general I refer unto what was said above Secondly in particular These additions are not annexed as part of the Book that the Act established But either as explanations of it which as we heard above the King hath power to do As are the Questions and Answers added to the Catechism Conf. Hamp Court p. 43. at the suit of the Non-conformists at the Conference at Hampton-Court Or they are certain necessary Prayers for the Kings relations which must be variable according to times and the state of the Royal Family and so not to be established necessarily by Parliament but put into this Common-prayer-book because of daily use with it yet not made parts of it and therefore not altering what was established by the Act. No more then the printing of the Kings Proclamation for uniformity before it is part of the Book or then divers godly prayers at the end devised by some good men But to come to the particulars 1. Prayers The Prayers and the Questions in the Catechism both which the Brethren acknowledge to be useful though with some particular exceptions against a question or two The Prayers added to the Book of King Edward are one for the Queen or King another for the Bishops a third for Queen Anne and the Royal Progeny which the Brethren acknowledge to be useful and necessary They acknowledge also pag. 28. pag. 30. that in the Catechism somewhat of that kind to be useful and necessary though not that model To collect then and conclude It appears that we have the Book now as established in Queen Elizabeths time without alteration 1 Except some odd days set down under other names 2 Also perhaps some few Chapters altered in the Kalender 3 Two words chang'd in the old Translation 4 And three or four Rubricks or directions explained And all these except the first names of days at the request of the Non-conformists the Brethrens Predecessors in these exceptions And no detraction of any Rubrick or Prayer or Exhortation or line or word in the text of the Book or otherwise but of a Rubrick about kneeling that seems not to be established by Parliament and of one Prayer against famine not of any consequence with the addition of some useful prayers and some Questions and Answers necessary for the enlarging and explication of the Catechism but not as part of the Book
of that body and government which is that every member and state of it is to act together with the rest For the person now excluded may perhaps afterward by power or policy get the power to him and then exercise that arbitrary power on the other and the people without the tother Now apply this If the two Houses supposing them to be such have power to impose Oaths under penalties upon the people then hath the King and Lords without the Commons and the King and Commons without the Lords By which it appeareth that voluntary taking of such an Oath doth betray the Prerogative of the King the priviledge of Parliam and the liberty of the people Seeing two powers if coordinate cannot countervene what is done and established for Law by all much less where one is Supreme to the other two So that the former Oaths and Protestations engaging for the maintenance of the Kings Prerogative the priviledges of Parliam and the liberties of the Subject makes this Oath and Covenant come clearly within the Verge of Perjury so far as I can understand as well as Treachery to all the three premised interests Yea and is expresly against the great Charter which provides 9 H. 3. Magna Charta Jud. Jenk Vindic. pag. 6. Aquin. 2.2 Q. 104. Art 6. ad tertium that no Act of Parliament binds the Subjects of this Land without the assent of the King either for person lands goods or fame To conclude this argument from the power imposing it Principes si non habent justum Principatum sed usurpatum vel si injusta praecipiant non tenentur eis subdita obedire nisi fortè per accidens propter vitandum scandalum vel periculum Governours if they have not a lawful power but an usurped one or if they command unrighteous things the people are not bound unto obedience unless perhaps by accident for the avoiding of scandal or of danger saith Aquinas The former part of which cases hath been evidenced here the latter shall be proved in the next Thirdly 3. Arg. Prouâ— the matter of the Covenant 1. Doubtful From the matter of this Oath and Covenant And first the doubtfulness of it not to insist upon that clause of swearing to preserve the Religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government whereas very few do understand what these are in Scotland and so swear to they know not what For it may be there are errors in their Doctrine Superstition in their Worship defect or tyranny in their Government for ought many know which if so they sweâ—l here to preserve them so it be against the common enemy The same might be said for the priviledge of the Parliam both theirs and ours and liberties of the Kingdoms Secondly the equivocation of it For this I shall insist only on that clause in the same first Article According to the Word of God and example of the best Reformed Churches For it intends either that Scotlands Reform is according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches or is it self such an example But Englands not 2. Equivocation Now to colour this it equivocally put in that clause as representing that they meant only according to the Word of God For proof of this When the Covenant was first published and began to be pressed my self having with many others doubt that the intention was to oblige us to the Discipline and Government of Scotland I addressed my self to two persons most eminent in their several relations Mr. Th. G. Mr. Al. Henders and as I thought best able to resolve me The former acknowledged that his own scruples were the same with mine but that he had given himself up unto the Protestant Religion and thereupon had taken it The other told me that they did not particularly engage unto any Discipline or Government but according to the Word of God as it was in the Covenant with this gilding the pill went down But soon after the Scotish Government c. was pressed by vertue of the Covenant which made me then or since reflect on that of the Apostle whatsoever is not of faith Rom. 14. ult that is of a mans own perswasion some way is sin According to that of one of the Rabbins Although thou hast six hundred advisers Apud Drusium in Proverb Rabb yet neglect not the counsel of thine own soul And that of our late Soveraign to His Majesty that now is Never saith he repose so much upon any mans single counsel Icon Basilic M. dit 27. fidelity and discretion in managing affairs of the first magnitude that is matters of Religion and Justice as to create in your self or others a diffidence of your own judgment which is likely to be alwaies more constant and impartial to the interest of Your Crown and Kingdoms than any mans And a grave Divine Dr. Sibbs Souls Conflâ—ct cap. 17. pag. edit 1. 366. and good Casuist of our own hath in giving direction for light in difficult cases this expression Where we have cause to think that we have used better means in the search of grounds and are more free from partial affections than others there we may use our own advice more safely otherwise what we do by consent from others is more secure c. Not amiss therefore did he complain that Sym. Grynaeus Ep. ded ante novum orbem Basil 1555. plerique mortales animi sui naturam ingenium parvipendentes c. est enim sapientis solius Spiritum Dei in se invenisse Most men are ignorant of and do undervalue their own endowments and judgments because it is the part only of a wise man to find the mind of the Spirit of God which is in him and what he prompts us to 3. Injuriousness to the Church of England A third evil in the matter of the Covenant is its injuriousness unto the Church of England and that in three respects First in regard of its honour It being not only the Mistress Kingdom to that of Scotland this being a feudatory of it and the Kings of England having a just title thereunto as amongst others Nic. Nich. Bodrugan alias Adams of the King of Engl. title to the Crown of Scotland Lond. 1546. Though denyed by Will. Barclay Contr. Monarcbomach Bodrugan proves unto Edward the sixt But also is the elder sister and perhaps in some sort a mother to it in Christ As having been in the Faith before it And not only receiving it first but sealing it with ten bloods of its Martyrs to one in Scotland so far as I have learned But now as it seems being old must step as the younger sister or daughter shall please to lead it Secondly it eminently injureth the Ch. of England in respect of truth of Doctrine Worship Government and Discipline insinuating plainly that it is rotten in the head and foundation of Doctrine in the heart and life
of Worship in the nerves and sinews of Discipline and in the bones and strength of Government which no true Son of the Church of England can without indignation reflect on Thirdly it striketh at the very beeing and safety of it For first this will both nourish and breed Papists and Separatists when they shall consider that by this Oath we have acknowledged that there is no one part Isa 1. wholly sound in this Church but that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot there are wounds sores and putrifying corruptions And being the expressions are indefinite they cannot tell what in any part is sound nor know what to cleave unto and so are prepared for apostacy from it 4. Schismaticall illegal oppressive to to the Government of the Church or confirmed therein 4. This Covenant sweareth a Schisme and is an unjust Oath as it is injurious and oppressive to the Government of this Church and the express Law whereby it is established to wit Episcopacy not to insist on the ranking of it with Popery and Superstition The Church of England is founded in Prelacy saith the Luws Of which before And the King in his Oath swears to defend the Rights of this Church Yea this order is by the Laws in force before 17 Car. 11. the very next the King himself in Parliam for so the style runneth the Lords Spiritual and Temporall The right of Episcopacy out of Scripture Antiquity and the late Reformers hath been shewed before and out of the Law of England also Now to swear against a main point of the Law of the Land wherein we have the suffrage of the whole Church and against that order of men both under which Bishops as Cranmer and others special instruments of the Reformation and by influence whereof we first received the Gospel and several whereof sealed it in opposition to Popery and Superstition with their blood Five Bishops being burned viz. Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Cant. Ridley Bishop of London Hooper and Latimer Bishops of Gloucester and Wortester and Ferrar Bishop of St. Davids is such a piece of unchristianity injustice and ingratitude yea and perjury also in those that have subscribed the three Articles and taken the Oath of Canonical obedience that I should wish mine eyes a fountain of tears to bewail it and my quill the pen of a more ready Writer to describe it Pudet haec opprobria nobis c. What shame is it that this should spoken be And nothing to be said to th' contray 5. It is of most dangerous insinuation 5. Of most dangerous insinuation against the dignity person and authority of the King in respect of the Kings Authority Dignity and Person First To his Dignity in putting him after the Parliaments and Kingdoms and yet put the Parliaments before the Kingdoms as if he were inferiour unto both whereas by our Oath of Supremacy we do acknowledge him to be over all persons within these his Realms and Dominions Supreme Governour And have in that and in the Oath of Allegiance and in the Protestation sworn and engaged to maintain his honour and priviledges Secondly It insinuates most imminent danger unto the Kings Person and Authority whilest it engageth to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms Openly implying that both the one and the other may be deserted in case he do not or seems to some not to defend true Religion and the Liberties Thirdly And for his Authority we swear obedience thereunto in the former Oaths indefinitely without such limitations as these are whence these appears to be no less then a treasonable limitation 6. It swears to betray and oppress contrary to Law 6. Is oppressive of the K. faithful subjects and true members of the Church 7. It bettaies the Liberty of the Subject in setting up an Arbitrary power against Law the Kings faithful Subjects and the true sons of the Church because they would keep faith with the one and unity with the other Artic. 4. under the names of Malignants and Hinderers of Reformation 7. It owneth the Houses of Parliament in opposition to the King to be the Supreme Judicatories and acknowledgeth a power in them of punishment to life and estate which is a betraying the Subjects Liberty as also that they may punish as they judge convenient or a Committee from them What is this but to pluck up Magna Charta by the roots which gives this priviledge that no free-born English man shall be punishable in life liberty or estate but by a Jury of his equals c. So that this is an erecting of an Arbitrary Government and destructive to the Fundamental Laws of the Land The same error is committed in the fift Article against those that should any way oppose this kind of union between the two Nations 8. In the sixt and last Article 8. Obliges to a blind a betting of all attempts in the pursuance of it 9. Engages against Repentance it obliges to defend all those that enter into this Covenant in the pursuance thereof which what it infers cannot be foreseen nor how far that clause may be extended 9. It engageth against Repentance which in an Oath of that nature and newness ought not to have been done but that juvat impiis as well as miseris socios habuisse It pleaseth them that have the plague to see That others as themselves infected bee 10. 10. Hypocritical blasphemous towards God scandalous and dangerous to other Churches and Nations Prov. 24. Eccles 10. Matth. 22. Prov. 13. 1 Pet. 2. Lastly In the Epilogue and close of it It is Horridly Hypocritical Blasphemous towards God Scandalous and Dangerous to other Churches and Nations First It is Horridly Hypocritical in acknowledging that we profess before God and the world our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our sins and the sins of these Kingdoms against God and Christ his Son c. And yet at the same time swear to dishonour both and transgress the Gospel which commands obedience of Subjects to their Princes especially in doubtful cases the King holding forth not force but law as well as they and as I am perswaded with better evidence Ezek. 20.27 Secondly It is most blasphemous and a high temptation of Almighty God to pray most humbly unto him to strengthen us by his holy Spirit to live and dye in opposition to the just Laws of the Land in sedition against our natural Prince in schism against the Church and in oppression and violence against our innocent brethren Thirdly It is Scandalous to other Nations and Churches whereby through us the name of God as called upon and professed by the Reformed was blasphemed even among the very Turks Ezek. 36.20 yea our Nation the members of it in peril wheresoever they came as Merchants and Travellers know Lastly Dangerous unto the same Churches First
the sap and spirit of the body and Vine unto us First one recent Calvine namely who defining Baptism Instit l. 4. c. 15. § 1. saith Baptismus signum est initiationis quo in ecclesiae cooptamur societatem ut Christo insiti inter filios Dei censeamur Baptism is the sign of our entrance vvhereby vve are received into the society of the Church that being grafted into Christ we might be accounted among the children of God And elsevvhere Salutis symbolum ac pignus dedit Deus in Baptismo In Tit. 3.5 nos in suam Ecclesiam cooptans inferens in corpus filii sui Quare Baptismus congruenter verè savacrum regenerationis dicitur And that therefore Bapt. is properly and truly called the laver of Regeneration Thus he Now although he make the first particular benefit in Baptism to be remission of sins and afterward the grace of the holy Ghost Jnst l. 4. c. 15. §. 5. Yet seeing he makes our new birth to be effected in Baptism and that it is properly therefore truly called the Laver of Regeneration and that therein we are first ingraffed into Christs Body and made the children of God it follows thence that we receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration Aug. contra Jnlion l. 2. c. 3. The other is Antient to wit Austin who doth in terminis express the same which the Church hath done in that Prayer Lex quippe ista peccati quae in membris est corporis mortis hujus remissa est regeneratione spiritali manet in carne mortali Remissa scilicet quia reatus solutus est in Sacramento quo renascuntur sideles For this law of sin saith he which is in the members of this body of death both is remitted by spiritual regeneration and also remains in the flesh that is mortal It is remitted because the guilt of it is discharged in the Sacrament whereby the faithfull are regenerated And afterward Cap. 8. Justificatio porro in hac vitâ nobis secundum tria ista confertur Priùs lavacro regenerationis quo remittuntur cuncta peccata deinde congressione cum vitiis à quorum reatis absoluti sumus tertio dum nostra exauditur oratio qua dicimus dimitte nobis debita nostrae Justification how conferr'd Our justification in this life saith he is conferred upon us by these three things First by the laver of Regeneration whereby are all our sins forgiven Next by our conflicting with sins he takes the word Justification here largely as comprehending the work of Grace also from the guilt of which we are absolved Thirdly When our Prayer is heard wherein we ask ' Forgive us our debts c. The Church therefore in that Prayer hath spoken both according unto truth and to Antiquity I dismiss that point Come we to the next which is their Exception against the Catechism touching the Sacraments Except 11 which was contrary say they to the Statute of 1 Eliz. 2. added in King James time Page 30. Touching Additions hath been answered above But further that act did not prohibite the King from adding any thing for explanation which another Act as we saw gives power to do so it be not contrary to any thing in the Book established But this might perhaps be a caution to his present Majesty The Brethren caution the King lest his indulgence in remitting of that Law by his late Gracious Declaration be as well interpreted a violation of it for there is no act for that whereas for his Grandfathers explaining there was one Next in this Paragraph is an Exception against the Answer to the Question in the Catechism Except touching the Sacrament How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church Answ Two onely as generally necessary to salvation For it may say they without racking be interpreted as a tacite admission of more as Marriage holy Orders Answ c. The Apostle giving rules of speech unto Titus Tit. 2.8 warns him that it be sound and such as cannot be condemned by the contrary part This rule therefore was here observed by the Composers of this Answer For they knew that the word Sacrament in a large sense was applicable to many sacred things not onely instituted in Scripture but also in the practice of the Church Accordingly Austin in one of the places above cited saith Noveris diem natalem domini Januar. Epist 119 cap 1. non in Sacramento celebrari Agimus pascha ad Sacramenti significationem Thou must know that the day of Christs birth is not celebrated as a Sacrament But we celebrate Easter under a sacramental signification Where he takes the word Sacrament to signifie the mystical things wrought and pointed at in Christs resurrection Therefore to avoid contention with froward spirits the expression in the Catechism is so uttered that there is no occasion given and yet the Doctrine secured forasmuch as all Sacraments properly so called are generally necessary to salvation Their next Exception is That whereas in the same Catechism it is demanded why children are baptized when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform the Conditions required in Baptism viz. Repentance and Faith It is answered Yes they do perform them by their Sureties who promise and vow them both in their names which when they come to age themselves are bound to perform This the Brethren say is a meer tale Except 2 We must not be offended Jer. 13. if the Leopard cannot change his spots nor the Brethren their Black-more language They add for proof That it was never read nor heard of in Scripture that one man either repented or believed in the room and name of another whereby that other did receive all or any of the spiritual benefits exhibited and sealed in either of the Sacraments And 't is not a vowing by one that another shall repent and believe when he is not at present able to do either that can truly be said to be a performing of them Thus the Brethren Wherein there is a double mistake first of the meaning of the Answer in the Catechism and then in Answ 1 the matter of their Reply Touching the first The distinction in the Catechism viz. that there is an outward and visible sign which comprehends both the Element and the Form and Action of baptizing and an inward and spiritual Grace Or there is Sacramentum as the Schools speak the outward and visible part and there is res Sacrâ—menti that which is inward and spiritual this helps us to an Answer for accordingly it may be said of Repentance and Faith required to this Sacrament There is the inward Repentance and Faith or the res ipsa and there is the outward repentance and Faith that is the profession of them Now as to the partaking of the inward grace viz. Christ and his benefits there is required the inward graces of repentance and faith so for the outward part of it the visible