robbed the King of his Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs and traiterously placed it in some Lords Temporal and Commons Is the metamorphosing of our venerable Church-Liturgy into a thing called a Directory the extirpating of our Church-government by Archbishops Bishops Deans c. the casting off of the Rites and Ceremonies establisht by Law and fancying them unlawful is this I say the life and power of that Doctrine before mentioned Is Covenanting and combining against the loyal Asserters of the Kings Supremacy and our Liturgy of our Prelacy and Ceremonies as Incendiaries Malignants and evil Instruments the life and power of that Doctrine Durst this J. C. have canted at this rate unless he had before-hand braz'd his Forehead with Impudence For what besides was it that made him talk thus and further to say and testifie that Let but the Free use of the Holy Bible be permitted to the common people and this Presbyterian Generation of men will spring up afresh by the immortal seed of the word Let him prove if he can that they will spring up any otherwise than Independents Anabaptists and Quakers do viz. by a misunderstanding of some places in the holy Bible and perverting them to unholy practises which 't is no great wonder if unlearned and unstable persons such as too many of the common people are be guilty of Grotius in his notes on Cassander's consultation would have the reading of the Scripture permitted to all men but Hauriant says he quantum necesse actutum est minimè verò de locis omnibus jus sibi sumant interpretandi sed consulant eruditos He would not have them assume to themselves a right of Interpreting all places of Scripture but to advise with learned men and ask their judgment Which counsel as Rivet approved of in his Animadversions p. 203. so it behooves common people to follow lest otherwise that permission occasion their destruction 2 Pet. 3. 16. He goes on For that pure spiritual and heavenly Doctrine pressing internal renovation or the new birth and the way of holy singularity and circumspection and being written with such Authority and majesty must needs beget though not in the most yet in many a disposition and practice in some sort thereunto conformable Which words by the way unless understood cum grano salis will smell of Socinianism but come out of the clouds O thou Presbyterian and tell us whether thou thinkest this to be pure spiritual heavenly Doctrine Let every soul be subject to the higher powers Whosoever resisteth the power resists the Ordinance of God And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation Be subject not for wrath only but for Conscience sake Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou Mark them which cause divisions among you contrary to the Doctrine which you have been taught and avoid them The works of the Flesh are manifest which are these Hatred variance emulation wrath strife seditions heresies envyings Murders They that do these thing shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Put them in mind that they be subject to Principalities and Powers that they obey Magistrates be ready to every good work that they speak evil of no man that they be no brawlers fighters but gentle soft shewing all meekness to all men Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves Where envying and strife is there is confusion and every evil work Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether unto the King as Supreme or to Governours as to those that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers Honour all men Love the brotherhood Fear God Honour the King Servants be subject to your Masters with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward Let none of you suffer as a murderer or as a Thief or an evil-doer or as a busie-body in other mens matters c. What thinkest thou J. C. Do these and the like Scriptures press any point of internal renovation and the new birth and the power of Christianity or no Is the Presbyterian party perswaded of the heavenliness and spirituality of this Doctrine or do they account it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to love their enemies to bless such as curse them to do good to those that hate them to pray for such as despitefully use them and persecute them Hath their practice manifested that they esteem this imitation of the divine goodness a piece of holy singularity Hath their way here in England been none other than the life and power of that part of the Law of Christ Have they accounted it a part of holy circumspection to redeem time in evil days to purchase to themselves a longer time to do good in by all just complyances by honest actions by a fair civil carriage a peaceable conversation by bending in all those flexures of fortune and condition which they cannot help See Dr. Taylor 's Sermon on Mat. 10. 16. Or have they acted as if they believed these other passages of Scripture to be divinely inspired If any man will come after me let him deny himself and take up his Cross and follow me Except you be converted and become as little children in all humility and subjection ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Take my yoke upon you Learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart If when you do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently this is acceptable with God Christ hath suffered for us leaving us an example that we should follow his steps who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he threatned not In the last days perilous times shall come for men shall be lovers of themselves covetous boasters proud cursed speakers false accusers intemperate fierce despisers of them that are good traytors heady high-minded having a Form of Godliness but denying the power thereof from such turn away We beseech you brethren that you study to be quiet and to meddle with your own business If any man love life and would see good days let him refrain his Tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no guile let him seek peace and ensue it Follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall ever see the Lord. The fruit of the spirit is love peace long-suffering meekness gentleness Now speak out man is this pure spiritual heavenly Doctrine or no Is the practising of it a duty incumbent upon all that would testifie themselves internally renewed or is it not Is the contrary neglect an argument of an unregenerate person were these things written by the Pen-men of Scripture with such Authority and Majesty as to beget in Presbyterians a disposition and practice in any tolerable measure thereunto conformable If this Author has the confidence to answer in favour of Presbyterians let him evince or at least endeavour to evince that their Covenanting to overthrow
can do nothing but manifest their Grievances and petition for relief By the way I must tell him that I have read in a Speech of King James's to both Houses March 21. 1609. these words I would wish you of the lower House especially to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of Grievances 1. That you do not meddle with the main points of Government That is my Craft Tractent fabrilia fabri To meddle with that were to lessen me I must not be taught my office 2. Nor with such ancient Rights of mine as I have received from my Predecessors possessing them more Majorum For that were to judge me unworthy of that which my Predecessors had and left me 3. I pray you beware to exhibit for Grievance any thing that is established by a settled Law for to be grieved with the Law is to be grieved with the King who is sworn to be the Patron and maintainer thereof In general beware that your Grievances savour not of particular mens thoughts but of the general Griefs rising out of the minds of the people and not out of the humour of the Propounder If these Cautions had been carefully observed by the thing called the Long-Parliament it had not been it self the greatest grievance the Subject ever felt 2. I have read says he that by the Constitution it hath part in the Soveraignty and so it hath part in the Legislative power and in the final Judgment I question whether he hath read this thus expressed in any Book but his own I rather think it a mistake and that he had read somewhere that the Parliament hath part in the Legislative power and so it hath part in the Soveraignty there being a Treatise extant wherein the Parliament's part in the Soveraignty is inferred from its part in the Legislative power but none that I know of wherein its part in the Legislative power is argued from its part in the Soveraignty Now says he when as a part of the Legislative power resides in the two Houses as also a power to redress Grievances and to call into Question all Ministers of State and Justice and all Subjects of whatsoever degrees in case of Delinquency it might be thought that a part of the Supreme power doth reside in them though they have not the Honorary Title To which I answer 1. 'T is denyed that either or both Houses have any power of themselves to redress the Grievances of the Kingdom or to call into question any Delinquents I have read in his Majesties forementioned Declaration that the House of Commons hath never assumed or in the least degree pretended to a power of Judicature having no more Authority to administer an Oath the only way to discover and find out Facts to than to cut off the Heads of any Subjects And in Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 116. That a Court must be either by the Kings Patent or Statute-Law or Common-Law which is common and constant usage The House of Commons hath neither Patent Statute-Law nor Common-Law enabling them to be a Court or to give an Oath p. 27. and 140 141. or to examine a man p. 65. as also that both the Houses can make no Court without the King p. 148. 122. that the two Houses by the Law of this Land have no colour of power either to make or pardon Delinquents the King contradicting p. 24. and 119. and that though it belong to the Lords to reform erroneous Judgments given in other Courts for that all the Judges of the Land the Kings Council and the twelve Masters of the Chancery assist there by whose advice erroneous Judgments are redressed yet when the writ of error is brought to reverse any Judgment there is first a Petition to the King for the allowance thereof p. 55. 106. I have read also in the Hist of Independ p. 1. p. 61 62. That the House of Peers is no Court of Judicature without the Kings special Authority granted to them either by his Writ or his Commission and therefore in the trial of the Earl of Strafford and in all other trials upon Life and Death in the Lord's House the King grants his Commission to a Lord high Steward to sit as Judge and the rest of the Lords are but in the name of Jurors and says J. Jenkins p. 103. When the Lords had condemn'd to death by an Ordinance Sir Simon de Beriford a free Commoner of England they afterwards better considered the matter and that they might be acquitted of the sentence became suiters to the King that what they had so done might not in future time be drawn into President because that which they had done was against Law and the Judge gives this reason against taking away mens lives by Ordinances because an Ordinance binds not at all but pro tempore as the two Houses then affirmed and a mans life cannot be tri'd by that which is not binding and to continue for all times for a life lost cannot be restored From which premises I conclude that neither one nor both Houses though legally summoned and elected have power to redress publick Grievances or try Delinquents without the King's consent And as for that part of the Legislative power which is said to reside in them and from whence their part in the Supremacy is thought fit to be concluded 1. The two Houses even when full and free have so constantly acknowledged themselves in Statutes and Acts of Parliament most loyal faithful and obedient subjects to the King their Soveraign Lord that from this alone 't is manifest enough they did not deem themselves to have any such part in the Legislative power as might entitle them to a part in the Soveraignty 2. I have read in the Rebels Plea examined p. 12. these words Neither is it true that the Legislative power is partly in them the two Houses they are I grant to consent to the making new and abolishing old Laws but that is no cogent proof of the partition of the Supreme and Legislative power for which p. 14. he quotes these words of Grotius c. 3. de jure Belli sect 18. who says Multum falluntur qui existimant cum Reges acta quaedam sua nolunt esse rata nisi à Senatu probentur partitionem fieri potestatis They are much deceived who think that the Supreme power is divided if Kings will not account some of their Acts valid without the approbation of the Senate I have read also in the Book called The Kings Supremacy asserted by Mr. Sheringham p. 96 97. That the concurrence of one or both the other Estates with the Monarch in the making and promulgation of Laws is no good colour or pretence much less a sufficient ground for such a coordination and mixture as is pressed Although their assents be free and not depending upon the will of the Monarch yet that makes them not coordinate with him in the Rights of Soveraignty It 's the common Assertion
of Canonists Civilians Schoolmen nor is it to my knowledge contradicted by any that the Legislative power is delegable that such a concurrence is no Argument of supremacy or of such a mixture as some would infer out of it Some call it therefore apparens mixtura because it seems to destroy a simple Form of Government and to make a mixture in the power it self but doth not though otherwise they acknowledge it to be such a mixture as doth remit the simplicity thereof Grotius affirms to this purpose de Imperio summ potest circa sacra c. 8. N. 11. Illam legislationem quae alii quà m summae potestati competit nihil imminuere de jure summae porestatis He speaks this of Laws made by general Conventions whose concurrence he saith doth not in the least manner diminish the Rights of Majesty Such a mixture of the three Estates hath been in other Monarchies which all men acknowledge to have been absolute in respect of power as in the Persian which appears from Dan. 6 7 8 9. and the Roman Empire And not only whole representative Bodies but divers particular free Cities have the same priviledge yet have not supreme Authority As for the enacting Authority attributed in latter times to the Lords and Commons in the beginning of some Acts he affirms p. 101. That 't is only a power of assenting for it hath been resolved by the Judges that this clause Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and the Authority of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament is no more in substance and effect than that which was used anciently The King with the assent of the Lords and Commons establisheth the words assenteth and enacteth being equivalent in this case and p. 45. he tells us that though the two Houses have Authority granted them by the King to assent or dissent yet the Legislative power belongs to the King alone by the Common Law the Authority that animates a Bill agreed upon by the two Houses and makes it differ from a dead letter being in the King who is the life and soul of the Law which was resolved also by divers Earls and Barons and by all the Justices in the time of Edw. 3. For one Hardlow and his Wife having a controversie with the King and desiring to have it decided in Parliament a reference being made to divers Earls and Barons and to all the Justices to consider of the business it was resolved that the two Houses were not coordinate with the King in the legislative power but that the King alone made Laws by the assent of the two Houses that he had none equal or coordinate with him in his Realm and that he could not be judged by the Lords and Commons From all which it appears 1. That that part which the two Houses have by Law in the Legislative power is not a sufficient medium to perswade us that they have a part in the supremacy and 2. That they have no share at all in any power which may properly be called Legislative I mean in that sence in which the words Legislative power are now adays commonly taken viz. for a power of making Laws For among the Romans Legem ferre was no more than Legem ad populum in concionem quasi in medium afferre proponere and Legislation was no more than Legis Rogatio à populo the proposing the matter of a Law to the Roman Citizens and asking their assent in order to its establishment I conclude therefore that the supremacy is wholly in the King notwithstanding this insinuation to the contrary For the proof whereof if this Author stand in need of more Arguments I refer him to the Rebels Plea examined p. 11 12. to Dr. Pierce's Impartial Enquiry into the Nature of sin Appendix p. 210 211 c. To Mr. Sheringham's Remonstrance of the King 's Right or the King's supremacy asserted To Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 7 8 9. Indeed this consideration alone is sufficient to evince it that by the Oath administred to all that sit in the lower House the King is acknowledged the only Supreme Governor in all Causes then in Parliament-Causes says J. Jenkins Lex Terrae p. 127. over all Persons then over the two Houses ibid. which Oath every Member of the House of Commons is enjoyned by Law to take or else he hath no Voice in that House 5 Eliz. c. 1. Lex Terrae p. 67. Therefore the King is by Law the only supreme Governor and consequently it may not be thought that a part of the Supreme Power doth reside in the two Houses Our Author goes on And this part of the Supreme Power is capable indeed of doing wrong but how it might be capable of Rebellion is more difficult to conceive 1. Here he confidently takes it for granted that the two Houses are part of the Supreme Power whereas in the precedent words he spake more modestly and told us only it might be thought that a part of the Supreme Power did reside in them not peremptorily inferring that it doth reside in them And indeed he could not rationally have so concluded unless he had produced more cogent Arguments to make good that conclusion 2. Whereas he acknowledges the two Houses capable of doing wrong and tells us only that 't is difficult to conceive how they may be guilty of Rebellion 1. Notwithstanding this Apology the Presbyterians that acted in and by Authority derived from the two Houses may have been guilty of Rebellion since the difficulty of conceiving how they might be thus guilty will not evince their innocence 2. I demand of him whether 1. they are capable of doing such wrong to the King as the Law makes Treason and Rebellion whether 2. if they do such wrong it be not easie to conceive that they are guilty of Rebellion and Treason The Law of the Land 25 Edw. 3. ch 2. makes it treason to levy war against our Lord the King in his Realm or to be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving to them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere and also to counterfeit the Kings Great or Privy Seal or Money The resolutions of all the Judges of England upon the said Statute have been that to seize upon the Kings Ports Forts Magazines for War is high Treason Lex Terrae p. 77. as likewise to levy War either to alter the Religion or any Law establisht p. 22. 40. or to remove the Kings Counsellors p. 22. Yea these things were acknowledged to be Treason not only by Sir Edw. Cooke in his Institutes printed by an Order of both Houses dated May 12. 1641. but also by Mr. Solicitor S. John and Mr. Pym in their speeches touching the Earl of Strafford Where as J. Jenkins quotes them Lex Terrae p. 187 188. they likewise affirm it Treason to usurp the Royal power to raise rumors and give out words to alienate the peoples affections from the King to subvert the
those of presbyterians because their Kingdom and Tyranny lasted much longer than that of Presbytery 3. I gather that Prelatists had more reason to oppose Presbytery than sectarian Anarchy because if this Author be in this particular a tell-troth presbytery was like to produce a more firm and rooted Schism against the Bishops and a more formidable because more durable rebellion against the King than sectarian Anarchy 4. I conclude that therefore we have great reason to bless God that the Fanaticks routed the Presbyterians and put a period to the dominion of Presbytery since if it had once been setled in good earnest it would either have kept out his Majesty much longer than sectarian Anarchy did or else have introduced him upon such uncivil insolent and imperious terms as the Scotch Presbytery brought him into that Nation and would in probability have forced him to rest content with an Isle-of-Wight-titular-Kingship But 5. I gather that Reason of State forbids the protecting and encouraging of Presbyterians since they are not fit to overturn only and pull down but also to build up a stable and uniform Tower of Babel in defiance to the Laws of God and the King such an one as 't will concern Heaven it self to take cognizance of and to secure its own Soveraignty and Supremacy by exerting its wisdom power and goodness in defeating their Counsels controlling and confounding their ambitious designs It follows This Party doth not run so fast but they know where to stop they are a number of men so fixt and constant as none more and a Prince or State shall know where to find them Whereas 1. The Presbyterian Lords and Commons declared April 9. 1642. that they intended to take away nothing in the Government and Liturgie of the Church but what shall be evil and justly offensive or at least unnecessary and burthensom and yet afterwards they wholly extirpated the Government of our Church and abolisht its Liturgy things burdensom it seems to them at last though not justly offensive and yet these men are so fixt and constant as none more 2. His late Majesty in his Declaration occasioned by the Presbyterian Ordinance for assessing the Twentieth part of mens Estates hath left on record some notable examples of that Parties fixedness and consistency with themselves We have not says the King lately heard of the old Fundamental Laws which used to warrant the Innovations This Ordinance needs a refuge even below those Foundations They will say they cannot manage their undertakings without such extraordinary ways we think so too but that proves only that they have undertaken somewhat which they ought not to undertake not that it 's lawful for them to do any thing that is convenient for those ends We remembred them long ago and we cannot do it too often of that excellent speech of Mr. Pym's The Law is that which puts a difference between good and evil between just and unjust if you take away the Law all things will fall into a confusion every man will become a Law to himself which in the depraved condition of humane Nature must needs produce many great enormities Lust will become a Law and Envy will become a Law Covetousness and Ambition will become Laws and what Dictates what Decisions such Laws will produce may easily be discerned It may indeed says his Majesty by the sad instances over the whole Kingdom But will posterity believe that in the same Parliament this Doctrine was avow'd with that Acclamation and these Instances after produced that in the same Parliament such care was taken that no man should be committed in what case soever without the cause of his Imprisonment expressed and that all men should be immediately bailed in all cases bailable and during the same Parliament that Alderman Pennington or indeed any body else but the sworn Ministers of Justice should imprison whom they would and for what they would and for as long time as they would That the King should be reproach'd for breach of Priviledge for accusing of Sir John Hotham of High Treason when with force of Arms he kept him out of Hull and despised him to his Face because in no case a Member of either House might be committed or accused without leave of that House of which he is a Member and yet that during the same Parliament the same Alderman should commit the Earl of Middlesex a Peer of the Realm the Lord Buckhurst a Member of the House of Commons to the Counter without reprehension That to be a Traitor which is defin'd and every man understands should be no crime and to be call'd Malignant which no body knows the meaning of should be ground enough for close Imprisonment That a Law should be made that whosoever should presume to take Tonnage and Poundage without an Act of Parliament should incur the penalty of a Praemunire and in the same Parliament that the same Imposition should be laid upon our Subjects and taken by an Order of both Houses without and against our Consent Lastly That in the same Parliament a Law should be made to declare the proceedings and judgment upon Ship-money to be illegal and void and during that Parliament that an Order of both Houses shall upon pretence of Necessity enable four men to take away from all their Neighbours the Twentieth part of their Estates according to their discretion Thus his Majesty And yet these are the men whom a Prince or State shall know where to find I might instance in more particulars of the same or worse complexion as to Lay-Presbyterians but I must not pass over in silence some of the Presbyterian Ministers of London to whom Price in his Clerico-Class p. 53. speaks thus If doubts arise concerning resisting Kings and Rulers especially in case of Oaths Vows or Covenants touching preservation of the person of the King as there did from the Solemn League and Covenant then you are ready to give satisfaction and to tell the people that that clause in the Covenant is to be understood not simply but relatively that is is not a single but a complex engagement not an absolute but a conditional clause with many such distinctions It is for the Kings person in the preservation of our Religion and Liberties and though the King should be destroyed by you you have notwithstanding kept your Covenant But p. 54. when the War is ended the Enemy vanquish'd the Liberties of the people recovered c. if they bring not the spoil of their victories and lay them down at your Feet and if they that sit at the stern do not lay aside all other business and do nothing else but build your Palaces then p. 55. you temper your Sermons and turn your Tongues your Lines your Language for the Royal Interest and p. 27. fly to that part and Article of the Covenant engaging for the preservation and defence of the King's Majesties person and Authority and p. 35. plead it against the Parliament and Army for
Nobility Gentry and Commonalty and when they had got the power in their hands O what grateful and ingenuous returns they made them for that benignity and favour They ruin'd the Bishops not sparing even those most heartily Protestant Bishops who had been so benign and favourable to them they raised a War against the King plundered sequestred murthered those that adhered to him and by degrees extorted from himself such grand diminutions of his Royal Prerogative as that they left him little more than the Title of a King And are such men as these such true English Protestants so good Christians as that they ought in justice and reason of State to be still treated benignly and favourably Nay rather should not King Nobles and Commons p. 40. 50. remember their darling Protestantism I mean that good English Protestantism contained in the 39. Articles by Law establisht in the Church of England that true mean between Fanatick and Jesuitical Protestantism Should not I say King Nobles and Commons remember this their darling and in reason of State abandon that sort of persons who have contributed so much to the destruction of it Let them not sleep securely while the seeds-men of the envious one sow the Tares of Division in our Field not only to weaken and hinder but to choak and eat out our English Protestant Faith Order and Government And let our gracious Soveraign still shew himself gracious where his undeserved clemency is like to produce happy permanent effects but on the other side let the mischiefs that befel his Royal Father through the stubborn Insolency of ingrateful and disloyal Presbyterians make him wary in time and circumspectly provident for his own and the Kingdoms safety lest himself also know and feel by sad experience what it is to protect and encourage presbyterians P. 41. 51. The Author takes upon him to vindicate Presbyterians from the many Calumnies with which he tells us they are loaded The first that he mentions is their plucking from the Civil Magistrate his power in Causes Ecclesiastical and erecting Imperium in Imperio Which says he is a groundless and gross mistake and to prove it so he urges the declared judgment of the Highest of that way according to their own words which are these To the Political Magistrate is allowed a Diatactick ordering regulating power about Ecclesiastical affairs in a Political way so that he reforms the Church when corrupted in Divine Worship Discipline or Government But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may assume to themselves the power of judging whether there are such corruptions or no and whether the Civil Magistrate reforms those corruptions in a warrantable manner or no and consequently of checking him in both respects if he chance to judge otherwise than they do witness the next He convenes and convocates Synods and Councils made up of Ecclesiastical Persons to advise and conclude determinatively according to the word of God how the Church is to be reformed and refined from corruption how to be guided and governed when reformed But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may challenge to themselves a power of convening without yea against the Civil Magistrate's command and here they actually challenge the power of conclusively determining how the Church is to be reformed and governed He ratifies and establishes within his Dominions the just and necessary Decrees of the Church in Synods and Councils by his Civil Sanction But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may claim the power of determining whether its own Decrees be just and necessary or no and of puting them in execution though the Civil Magistrate deny to ratify them by his Civil Sanction He judges and determines definitively with ae consequent and political judgment or judgment of Discretion concerning things judged and determined antecedently by the Church in reference to his own Act. But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may take upon them to controul the King as well as private persons if his difinitive Judgment of discretion which they allow to every private person p. 20. 30. in reference to his own act should chance to contradict their antecedent determinations He takes care politically that even matters and Ordinances merely and formally Ecclesiastical be duly managed by Ecclesiastical Persons orderly called thereunto But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may imagine that in case the King refuse to take this Political care themselves may appoint Ecclesiastical Persons to manage them and that their so doing is an orderly call to those Persons to act accordingly He hath a compulsive punitive or corrective power formally Political in matters of Religion in reference to all sorts of Persons and things under his Jurisdiction But notwithstanding this there may be Imperium in Imperio For holy Kirk may deny her self to be in matters of Religion under his Jurisdiction He may Politically compel the outward man of all Persons Church-Officers or others under his Dominion unto External performance of their respective duties and offices in matters of Religion punishing them if either they neglect to do their duty at all or do it corruptly But notwithstanding this also there may be Imperium in Imperio For the Kirk may fancy themselves the only or chief Judges of what are the duties and offices belonging to such and such Persons and whether they neglect or corruptly perform them So that if Presbyterians grant no more power to belong to the King of England in Ecclesiastical matters they deny his Supremacy and consequently erect Imperium in Imperio How they who give up themselves to the sole direction and Authority of the holy Scriptures p. 24. 34. can in reason acknowledge a spiritual power over the Conscience as intrinsecally belonging to the Church I leave him to inform us who would have us believe p. 43. 53 that Presbyterians do not claim for the Convocation or any other Ecclesiastical Convention an Independency on Parliaments That they do not claim it for a Convocation of Bishops and Episcopal men I am apt enough to believe But I cannot entertain any reasonable hope that they who have Covenanted so deeply in the behalf of the Scotch Discipline and Form of Government as to swear an endeavour of reforming things in England according to the example of the Kirk of Scotland as one of the best reformed Churches will acknowledge the ratification of the decrees of all Ecclesiastical conventions to depend on Parliaments For if Bishop Bramhall deceive us not Fair Warning p. 9. 'T is a Scotch maxime that Parliamentary ratifications can no way alter Church-Canons concerning the worship of God for Ecclesiastical Discipline ought to be exercised whether it be ratified by the Civil Magistrate or not The want of a Civil Sanction to the Church is but like lucrum cessans not damnum emergens as it adds nothing
to it so it takes nothing away from it If there be any clashing of Jurisdictions or defect in this kind they lay the fault at the Magistrates door accounting it a great sin or wickedness for the Magistrate to hinder the exercise or execution of Ecclesiastical Discipline But we say they do give Christian Magistrates a Political power to convocate Synods to preside in Synods to ratify the Acts of Synods to reform the Church we make him the keeper of both Tables Take nothing says the discerning Bishop and hold it fust Here are good words but they signify nothing for they teach that this power of the Christian Magistrate is not privative and destructive to the power of the Church but cumulative and only auxiliary or assisting Which very Doctrine is taught by the highest of the Presbyterian way here in England in their Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici where their concessions just now mentioned by this Author are to be found but p. 77. with this restriction All the former power say they that is granted or may be granted circa sacra to the Magistrate is only cumulative not privative he may help her in Reformation not hinder her in reforming her self convening Synods her self as in Act. 15. otherwise her condition were better without than with a Magistrate The Christian Magistrate much less ought to prejudice her herein otherwise her state were worse under the Christian than under the Pagan Magistrate Thus the Presbyterian Authors or Author of that Book Besides the power as the Bishop goes on which they abusively call authoritative but is indeed ministerial of executing their Decrees and contributing to their settlement they ascribe to the Magistrate concerning the Acts of Synods that which every private man hath a judgment of discretion but they retain to themselves the judgment of Jurisdiction and if he judge not as they would have him but suspend out of conscience the influence of his Political power where they would have him exercise it they will either teach him another part of Popery that is an implicit Faith or he may perchance feel the weight of their Church-censures and find quickly what manner of men they be as our late gracious King Charles and before him his Father his Grandmother and his great-Grandmother did all to their cost See more p. 11 12. Mr. Parker in his discourse concerning Puritans printed 1641 though he talk sometimes extravagantly enough in their favour yet now and then he has his Lucida intervalla wherein he speaks more agreeably to Truth and Reason Having mentioned some Tenents concerning Spiritual and Temporal Jurisdiction maintained by that great Arch-Prelate Mr. Calvin p. 28. according to the Popish Grounds p. 29. he tells us that that method of Mr. Calvin ' s is the way to crect Regnum in Regno and to maintain such concurrent Jurisdictions as cannot possibly stand together p. 31. for all being subject to sin and offence as well the Spiritual as Temporal either the one or other must go unquestioned and this may produce division or else both and that will cause most certain confâ—â—sion Both sides here seem says he sâ—rangely puzzled of which assertion he subjoyns not so much as a seeming reason as to the Episcopal side but proceeds thus The rigidest of the Episcopal Faction allow Princes a coercive power over Priests and Prelates where they perform not what their duty is in their Functions or Jurisdictions and this power requires an higher power of summoning arraigning and legally trying them and yet the moderatest of the Presbyterian Faction would have Princes questionable tryable and punishable by the Spiritualty Which sufficiently implyes that he thought not any Episcopal men guilty of that crime From which premisses I conclude that notwithstanding any thing produc'd here by this Author to the contrary this first charge against Presbyterians is a true accusation not a calumny He proceeds to a second and tells us p. 43. 53. There goes a voice that Presbyterians are Antimonarchical as if 't were vox praeterea nihil But are their Principles inconsistent with Monarchy or any impeachment to the same These are contained in the character above written But what if that Character of them be traiterously partial and in reference to the Question here treated of ridiculously impertinent and abominably deceitful whereof if this Author or any of his Brethren desire farther proof I may chance to satisfy their desires before I conclude these Animadversions In the mean time let 's listen to his fine Apologies Peradventure says he p. 44. 54. the exact Presbytery that is the parity of degree and Authority in all Ministers is that against which this charge is directed Judge then whether that forementioned character where that which is exact Presbytery is altogether concealed be an exact description of Presbytery Although this parity is not insisted on Was it not insisted on at the Isle of Wight Treaty or urged to the breach of peace He did but think p. 20. that most Presbyterians here in England allowed in order to peace Episcopum Praesidem but here he 's more peremptory and withal it seems so scandalously ignorant as to believe that Tumults Riots Covenanting and fighting in the behalf of Scotch-Presbytery is no breach of peace Neither is it essential to Presbytery whence I gather that exact Presbytery is not essential to Presbytery but was it not essential to the Presbytery contended for at the Isle of Wight was it not essential to that Form of Government which they had before Covenanted to introduce Yet what reason can be rendred why this may not comport with Kingly Government A. Even the self-same reason which some of his own party have as I take it made use of to prove that Episcopacy cannot comport with Kingly Government viz. that it pretends as some men discourse of it to be Jure Divino which since presbyterian parity also pretends to 't is upon that score inconsistent with Monarchical Government as much as Episcopacy the argument is as good against both Forms as against either But 2. Since this Author is guilty either of such gross ignorance or such Treasonable dishonesty as to make us believe either that there is or that he knows not any ground of this Accusation but what is fetcht from the presbyterian parity I shall for his and other such mens better information take the pains to transcribe part of the Answer to a Letter written at Oxford and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof Examine says the Answerer p. 15. the Presbyterian principles and you will clearly find Kings and they cannot stand together for either you consider that new Government in the Scottish sence which allows no appeal to any other power and then it 's plain that where men admit this they admit of a Supremacy which doth not reside in the King and by consequence of two several supremacies within the bounds of the self-same Kingdom which can
of the Scotch Discipline and Government which so manifestly erects Imperium in Imperio may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent in Scotland 2. Why they who swear to endeavour to bring the Churches of God in England Scotland and Ireland to Uniformity in Discipline and Church-Government and consequently to endeavour the Introduction of that Scotch Form of Church-Government into England may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy in England also and render it too impotent by setting up there also Imperium in Imperio 3. Why they who swear the extirpation of Prelacy that is Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops c. may not justly be look'd upon as men that would enervate the power of that Monarchy which esteems that Form of Church-Government as a very considerable support and strengthening to it Witness the Aphorism of that wise Monarch King James No Bishop no King the truth whereof King Charles found by sad experience * Dum Episcoporum Jurisdictionem invadunt Anarchae caveant Principes Scitè admodum monet Poeta Tunc tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet ubi enim Episcoporum ditio expugnanda obsidetur ibidem proximè imo potissimè in Regum Principatus irruptio tentabitur S. Clara Apolog. Episc p. 20. 4. Why they who when they had power in their hands constrained our former Soveraign to grant such Propositions as left him only a titular Kingship may not justly be look'd upon as persons that would whensoever 't is in their power again enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent When he hath given a satisfactory answer to these Queries I may possibly trouble him with some more of the like import for I believe there are so many grounds of making this objection that in probability the only reason why this Author could find no other rise of it than what he mentions was because he would not seek it That which he is pleased to mention as the rise is That the Presbyterians were not willing 1. To come under any Yoke but that of the Laws of the Realm Or 2. To pay arbitrary Taxes levied without consent of Parliament To the 1. hoping that whatsoever this Authors words imply to the contrary they were willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of God also at least such of them as they thought would not lie too heavy upon their Necks I answer 1. If they had been willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of the Realm they would long ago have ceased to be Presbyterians that is shakers off of the yoke of Prelacy and Ceremonies establisht by those Laws 2. If they had been unwilling to come under any other yoke they would not have come under the yoke of the Covenant since it was not injoyned by any Law of the Realm 3. They have not shewed themselves willing to come under the yoke of the Oath of Supremacy imposed by Law since they have been far from a practical acknowledgment that the King of England is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and all other his Dominions and Countries in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes and that the reforming ordering corrrecting of them is by a Statute 1. Eliz. for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm but on the contrary themselves usurpt the power of reforming ordering correcting them without yea against his consent and in so doing they enervated our Monarchy and rendred it too impotent in a chief part of its Prerogative nay too many of them are so far from acknowledging the Kings Supremacy in their actions that they refrain even from a verbal acknowledgment of it in their prayers for when they pray for the King they make a halt at the end of those words Defender of the Faith as if the confessing him Supreme Head in all Ecclesiastical causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons were either Error Heresie or a piece of Treason To the 2. I answer by demanding 1. Whether there be not as much if not more Law for the Kings imposing Taxes in some cases without the consent of Lords Temporal and Commons than there is for their imposing them without the Kings consent 2. Whether the King and his Privy Council are not more competent Judges of the exigency of times and cases in reference to such impositions than Presbyterian subjects 3. Whether any Law of the Land forbids the payment of Taxes imposed by the King without consent of the three Estates viz. Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons 4. Whether it does not equally forbid the payment of Taxes imposed by the three Estates and much more by two only without the King 5. Whether Presbyterians were not willing enough to pay arbitrary Taxes to the Presbyterian Lords Temporal and Commons though levied without the Kings consent and therefore without consent of Parliament and consequently whether that be not false which this Author tells us that they were not willing to pay Taxes levied without consent of Parliament 6. Whether in so doing they did not abundantly manifest that 't was not the arbitrariness of the Taxes but either their being imposed by the King or else their being imposed to such ends as did not serve the Presbyterian Interest that was the main reason of their quarrelling with and contending against those Imposition 'T is therefore too evident that the Presbyterians had a design to enervate our English Monarchy since though they refused not to pay arbitrary Taxes to some Lords Temporal and Commons levied without the Kings consent and on purpose to carry on a War against him yet they were unwilling to pay arbitrary Taxes to the King though levied for the defence of his person and Authority because levied without consent of Parliament Upon which pretence also their great Advocate Mr. Prynne would fain have perswaded them to deny the payment of the Assessments imposed by those powers that routed the Presbyterian Lords and Commons That Author in his Reasons why he would not pay Taxes viz. to the Independent Lords and Commons tells us p. 1. That by the Fundamental Laws and known Statutes of this Realm no Tax Tallage Aid Imposition Contribution Loan or Assessment whatsoever may or ought to be imposed or levied on the Free-men and people of this Realm of England but by the will and common assent of the Earls Barons Knights Burgesses Commons and whole Realm in a free and full Parliament by Act of Parliament all Taxes not so imposed and levied though for the common defence and profit of the Realm being unjust oppressive c. This is sound Doctrine it seems when Independents domineer but in the time of the Presbyterian Tyranny Taxes might be imposed and levied by some Lords Temporal and Commons only without Act of Parliament and yet not be accounted either unjust or oppressive or inconsistent with the Liberty of the Subject The reason was because Presbyterian ambition was cherish'd and
Book is scarce exceeded by Knot 's Volume against Chillingworth In it several hypothetical majors are to be met with but the minors are either not mentioned or else presumed to be true without any attempt made to prove them so Now Zachary Crofton tells us in his Berith Anti-Baal p. 62. that Ifs are no proofs or demonstrations What good duty justice morality or religion may not be ruined if a mans fancied If be reason enough against it This way of disputing as apparently Jesuitical irrational Machiavellian barbarous The Rector of Bramshot thus proceeds with reverence to soveraign Majesty I crave leave to speak this word of truth and soberness Parturiunt Montes one would think some very sage and important Oracle should forthwith drop from the Pen of this Reverend Dictator In a knowing age quoth he flattery doth not really exalt or secure the Royal Prerogative Quid nascitur Such a Triobolary Truth as I believe there 's scarce any Presbyterian so simple as to be ignorant of it But there 's something suggested in it that I am afraid will one day be found a notorious and fatal falshood viz. that this hath been a knowing Age as to those parties who have opposed and sought against the Royal interest whereas I doubt 't is far easier to prove that in that respect it hath been either the most ignorant I mean of most grand concerning Truths or the most maliciously wicked profligated and debauched Age that ever Protestant England knew The Authority of Parliaments being depressed and undervalued is the more searched into and urged By Parliaments here 't is evident enough he means the two Houses in contradistinction yea opposition to the King But says Lex Terrae p. 80. The Lords and Commons make no more a Parliament by the Law of the Land than a Body without a Head makes a man for a Parliament is a body composed of a King their head Lords and Commons the members all three together make one body and that is the Parliament and none other The two Houses are not the Parliament but only parts thereof and by the abuse and misunderstanding of this word Parliament they have miserably deceived the people And his late Majesty in answer to their Declaration of May 19. 1642. and to that part of it wherein they complain that the Heads of the Malignant party have with much Art and Industry advised him to suffer divers unjust scandals and imputations upon the Parliament to be published in his Name has these words If we were guilty of that aspersion we must not only be active in raising the scandal but passive in the mischief begotten by that scandal We being an essential part of the Parliament And we hope the just defence of our self and our Authority and the necessary Vindication of our innocence and justice from the imputation laid on us by a major part then present of either or both Houses shall no more be called a scandal upon the Parliament than the opinion of such a part be reputed an Act of Parliament And we hope our good Subjects will not be long misled by that common expression in all the Declarations wherein they usurp the word Parliament and apply it to countenance any resolution or Vote some few have a mind to make by calling it the resolution of Parliament which can never be without our consent p. 5. Neither can the vote of either or both Houses make a greater alteration in the Laws of this Kingdom either by commanding or inhibiting any thing besides the known Rule of the Law than our single direction or mandate can do to which we do not ascribe the Authority And now let this Author search his Law-Books with the exactest diligence and skill he can and then let him tell us by what Law the two Houses abstracted from the King have any Parliamentary Authority Indeed his own following words do clearly enough imply that they have no such Authority For p. 51. 61. he is so inconsiderately bold as to assert that Concerning the utmost bounds and limits of Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary power the Law in deep wisdom chooses to keep silence for it always supposes union not division between King and Parliament Whence all that I shall conclude is that the power of a Parliament truly so called viz. King Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons is not limited by Law and thence I gather either that some Acts of Parliament are no Laws or that that part of some Acts wherein 't is declared that any following statutes contrariant to such and such preceding statutes shall be utterly void is vain and ridiculous But 2. That the two Houses when they usurped the power of a Parliament as well as the name and acted in opposition to the King had no Law on their side to justifie their actings For if the Law always supposes union between King and Parliament it speaks nothing of the Rights and Priviledges of the two Houses in case of their division from and opposition to the King And 3. That the Kings power and prerogative is absolute and notwithstanding all Law of this Nation infinite for if the Law be silent and that in deep wisdom too as to the utmost bounds of the Royal Prerogative it hath very wisely lest it unbounded which latter conclusions and the first also are so prejudicial to the Presbyterian Interest and Party that I doubt they will conclude him either the veryest Fool if indeed he knew not that the Kings Prerogative was bounded by Law or the most Malignant Flatterer that this knowing Age hath brought forth His next Argument to evince Presbyterian Loyalty is that The subversion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom could never be effected till those Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian were many of them imprisoned others forcibly secluded by the violence of the Army and the rest thereupon withdrew from the House of Commons An assertion so notoriously false that it puts me in mind of the proverb in the late War that some men would not swear but they would lye basely The truth is the subversion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom both in Church and State was the great work of the Long-Parliament which they effected in the Church by overthrowing the Hierarchy and that Prelacy in which the Holy Church of England was founded Stat. of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. recited 25 Edw. 3. in the State by passing and pressing upon the King that Bill against the Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament who were in all Parliaments either personally or by Proxy since we had any who were once of the States of Parliament and in the Act of Parliament 8 Eliz. c. 1. acknowledged one of the greatest States of this Realm all whose Liberties and Priviledges and consequently that of sitting in Parliament to which they ought to be summoned ex debito Justitiae Cookes Institut 4. c. 9. are confirmed to them by Magna Charta which was it self ratified by 32 Acts
Divine Law and moreover that by an Oath imposed by a Lawful Magistrate that which before was free and indifferent is made necessary to the takers p. 65. S. 19. and that the obligation of an Oath thus imposed results from Divine Institution p. 62. S. 11. from God's Law p. 64. Sect. 13. By which Concessions they do not only condemn all those Nonconformists who refused compliance with Episcopal Impositions because forsooth their Christian Liberty in things left indifferent by God ought not to be prejudiced and restrained by man but also they overthrow 1. that principle That nothing is a duty especially in Gods worship which is not commanded by God and 2. that principle that no part of worship is lawful which is not commanded of God and yet both these principles are owned by Presbyterians if this Author deceive us not p. 88. 98. where he tells us they hold that Scripture only is the Rule of instituted worship wherein both addition and diminution is alike forbidden and p. 84 85. that whatsoever instituted worship is not ordained of God is unlawful whence it sollows that men ought not to swear or Covenant for or against any thing that 's left indifferent in the Divine Law not for any thing which God's word commands not nor against any thing which it does not forbid For so to do is to worship God by taking such an Oath and entring into such a Covenant as is not ordained by him but is only of humane Institution and determination Now the Solemn League and Covenant was not either instituted or imposed by God in his Law either of Nature or Scripture even by their own confession who on Saturday Aug. 5. 1648. affirmed in the House of Commons that the Covenant it self was not jure Divino though the keeping of it being taken was Hist of Independ 1 Part p. 125 126. but only by men and 't is acknowledged by those pleaders to have been a Vow only freely and voluntarily entred into and not by vertue of any Divine command in the first takers and imposers and therefore since 't is owned also as a sacred religious Act of worship 't was in them and others not only a piece of Schism against the Church of England and of Sedition against the King and Laws of England but also a solemn piece of superstition will-worship as that signifies in their own dialect a worshipping God in such a manner as himself hath not prescribed in his Word and therefore on the score of Presbyterian principles an Act of high and hainous disobedience to the Law of God and therefore their taking an Oath thus imposed was to violate their principles for the advancement of their Interest and yet these are the men that are so fixt and constant as none more Besides this Author tells us p. 85. that Presbyterians hold that that Ceremony which is instituted by men not by God which is of mystical signification and though it may naturally yet does not actually signifie without humane institution and is by men appropriate to Divine worship is upon that account a part of Divine worship and p. 88. 98. they hold that all such sacred Ceremonies not commanded by God are neither good nor lawful But say I this was the very case in the taking of the Covenant for the Ceremony with which the Covenanters did take it viz. lifting up the hand was appropriate to that Oath which they deemed a piece of religious worship It did not actually signifie that the Takers did swear either by Divine or Natural but by Humane Institution and that novel too the usual Ceremony of taking an Oath in this Nation before being tactis sacrosanctis Christi Evangeliis laying the hand upon and afterwards kissing the holy Evangels to which indeed that Covenant was so contrary that 't is no wonder the Covenant was so contrary that 't is no wonder the Ceremony was altered and exchanged for that of lifting up the hand which is not of Divine Institution or prescribed by God the Father in the Old Testament and much less by God the Son in the New whom yet Presbyterians hold to be the only Master of ordaining Ceremonies for the Christian Worship and some of them it seems are yet to learn that any examples oblige them but those of Christ and his Apostles and consequently no Old Testament examples Discourse of Liturgies p. 60. And that that Ceremony was of mystical signification I prove by that medium which this Author himself makes use of p. 87. 97. to prove the Cross in Baptism such a Ceremony viz. It is used as a sealing sign of our obligation to Christ and therefore it 's in that respect Sacramental so say I was the lifting up of the hand in the swearing the Covenant used as a sealing sign of the Covenanters obligation to God and Christ Although indeed and in truth by that Covenant sealed with that Ceremony they dedicated themselves to the disservice of him that died on the Cross to a real and practical defiance of Christ the King of his Church and his Vicegerent in this Nation King Charles Thus a Ceremony of humane Presbyterian institution for the ratification of a seditious Covenant ordained and imposed against Law by an illegal power for the satisfying of the Scotch appetite and promoting the Presbyterian Interest is a Camel easily and greedily swallowed by the capacious throat of a Presbyterian Covenanter who yet at the same time can either blindly or perversly strain at the Gnat of a Ceremony instituted by lawful Authority establisht and enjoyned by the Laws of the Land and Constitutions of the Church If I had some Books about me fit for such a purpose I believe I could add some sheets of pertinent instances to Bishop Bancroft's Collection in that 26. ch of his Survey of Presbyterian Levity in opinion and inconsistency with themselves and with others of their own Faction when self-interest prompted them to such variations I shall at this time mention only one proof more 'T is a repeated principle of the Covenanters in their Plea and their discourse of Liturgies that neither the Parliament nor any power under Heaven can discharge them from the obligation of an Oath This is good Doctrine it seems when applied to the Covenant and understood in a sence advantageous to Presbytery but when the Question was about the obligation of the Oath of Allegiance wherein they swore that they would defend his Majesty his Heirs and Successors to the uttermost of their power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which should be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any Sentence or Declaration of the Pope or otherwise and that they are in conscience resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve them of that Oath or any part of it I say when this was the Question then Presbyterian practises manisested that they accounted the contrary good Doctrine viz. that
places and callings the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government Now the Scotch Author or Ladensium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Postscript against Lysimachus Nicanor tells us p. 35. that Episcopacy is no way so opposite to the Discipline of any reformed Church as to that Discipline which many Assemblies and Parliaments have settled in Scotland and therefore he concludes thus p. 36. 37. we cannot dissemble any longer our hearty wishes that England would after the example of all the reformed Churches ridd themselves at last of their Bishops trouble as they did of old without any repentance to this day of their Abbots and Monks This says he we conceive would much increase the joy and prosperity of all the three Dominions Accordingly those Covenanters sware also to endeavour the reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches Now all the reformed Churches as the same Author affirms p. 35. cast out at first and to this day have carefully holden at the door even that kind of Episcopacy which their chief Divines seem'd not much to oppose Suitable whereunto is that which Presbyterians sware in the second Article of the Covenant viz. to endeavour the extirpation of Church-Government by Bishops as well as by Archbishops Chancellors Commissaries c. With what face therefore can this Author presume to tell us p. 19. 29. that the Form of Ecclesiastical Government by Parochial and Classical Presbyteries Provincial and National Assemblies is remote enough from the main cause of Presbytery especially since he affirms p. 24. 34. that one of his Majesties Kingdoms Scotland is Presbyterian by which sure he means not moderately Episcopal for p. 59. 69. that he may prove the Presbyterian Form of Government a. Fence against Heresies and Errors he instances in the Form of Ecclesiastical Policy and method of Discipline in the Church of Scotland which as there described is no otherwise than by Parochial and Classical Presbyteries Provincial and National Assemblies Now how injurious the Scotch Discipline which English Presbyterians have thus covenanted to introduce is to the civil magistrate how oppressive to the subject and pernicious to both Bishop Bramhall since Primate of Ireland hath abundantly manifested in his Fair warning for England to take heed of the Scotch Discipline or as 't is lately Printed of the Presbyterian Government In which treatise he endeavours to prove that their Discipline doth utterly overthrow the rights of Magistrates to convocate Synods to confirm their Acts to order Ecclesiastical Affairs and reform the Church within their Dominions that it robs the Magistrate of the last Appeal of his Subjects that it exempts the Ministers from due punishment that it subjects the supreme magistrate to their Censures that it robs him of his pardoning power as to some crimes of his civil power in order to Religion that it makes a monster of the Commonwealth is most prejudicial to the Parliament is oppressive to particular persons and hurtful to all orders of men that the Disciplinarians challenge this exorbitant power by Divine right The truth of these propositions he hath evinc'd out of their Books of Discipline and publick Records of their practice Since therefore the English Presbyterians have sworn to endeavour the preservation of this Discipline and Government in the Church of Scotland and to reform the Discipline and Government here in England according to the Example of the reformed Church in Scotland 't is but a piece of justice and reason that the King's Majesty should look upon them as persons owning those seditious Principles upon which such enormous Disciplinarian practices are grounded Some of which Principles are these 1. That their National Assemblies ought always to be retain'd in their own liberties of convening lawfully together p. 7. with power to the Kirk to appoint times and places 2. That they have power to abolish and abrogate all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Ecclesiastical matters that are found noysome and unprofitable and agree not with the time or are abused by the people and to make Rules and Constitutions for keeping good order in the Kirk p. 8. 3. That Ecclesiastical Discipline ought to be exercised whether it be ratified by the civil magistrate or no p. 9 12. 4. That from the Kirk there is no reclamation nor appellation to any judge Civil or Ecclesiastical within the Realm p. 13. 5. That to their Discipline all the Estates within the Realm must be subject as well Rulers as they who are ruled p. 16. 6. That the Civil Magistrate cannot pardon any crime that was made capital by the judicial Law p. 12. 7. That matters of the Pulpit ought to be exempted from the judgment and correction of Princes p. 14. In proportion to which principles the Kirk p. 5. by their own Authority decreed the abolition of Bishops requiring them to resign their offices as not having any call from Gods word under pain of Excommunication and to desist from preaching till they had a new admission from the general Assembly They resolv'd also to dispose of their possessions as the Kings Patrimony in the next Assembly When they could not prevail to have their Book of Discipline ratifyed by the Civil Authority they obtruded it on the Church themselves p. 6. ordaining that all those who had born or did then bear any office in the Church should subscribe it under pain of excommunication By their own authority also p. 7. under the specious title of Jesus Christ King of Kings and Lord of Lords the only Monarch of this Church and under pretence of his prerogative Royal they erected their own Courts and Presbyteries in the most part of Scotland long before they were legally approv'd or receiv'd In their Assembly at Edenburgh 1647. they determined that nothing should be pass'd in the next Parliament till the Church was fully restored to its Patrimony yea says the Lord Primate p. 5. they arrived to that degree of sauciness Anno 1600. and reduced the Soveraign power to such contempt that 20 Presbyters no more at the highest sometimes but 13 sometimes but 7 or 8 dar'd to hold and maintain a general Assembly as they miscalled it after it was discharged by the King against his Authority an Insolence which never any Parliament durst attempt Anno 1582. they rejected Mongomery's appeal from themselves to King James as made to an incompetent Judge and proceeded violently against him notwithstanding the Kings prohibition p. 13. They who have a mind to see more instances of the like nature may read that Book of the Archbishop Now the Question must be 1. whether those English Presbyterians who have covenanted to endeavour the Preservation of the Discipline and Government of the Church of Scotland ought not to be look'd upon as persons approving those Principles and practices upon which that
1. Their suppressing Lectures and Afternoon Sermons which is nothing to the purpose unless he had proved also that these are of Divine Institution or are necessary means of unfeigned Faith and holy Life 2. A book for sports and pastimes on Sundays enjoyn'd to be read by Ministers in their Parish Churches under penalty of deprivation What so as to exclude either Common-Prayer and preaching in the Morning or Divine Service and Catechizing in the Afternoon or so as to licence the absence of any Parishioner from that service either part of the day 3. Superstitious Innovations introduc'd Si accusâsse suffecerit quis erit innocens 4. A new Book of Canons composed and a new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy inforc'd By whom were not this Oath and those Canons composed in Convocation by our Church-Governours were they not confirmed and imposed by the Royal Assent And why I pray was the new Oath for upholding the Hierarchy establish'd by Law more superstitious than the newer Oath for destroying that Hierarchy so established Far be it from me says he p. 32. 42. to impute these things to all that were in judgment Episcopal for I am perswaded a great if not the greater part of them disallowed these Innovations These Innovations what Innovations The word must in reason refer to the particulars just now enumerated viz. The new Book of Canons the new Oath the Book for sports and pastimes on Sundays But are these men in justice and Reason of State to be protected and encouraged who dare to call new Laws either of State or Church or both occasioned by new emergencies Innovations or new practices superstitious meerly because not commanded in Gods word Now these things are so far from being a proof of the inconsistency of Prelacy with the lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel with the upholding of all Divine Institutions a laborious and efficacious Ministry c. that the contrary is evident from the instance of the Right Reverend Bishop Morton whom this very Author I believe hath scarce confidence enough to accuse as a Delinquent in those particulars since p. 67. 77. he reckons Bishop Morton in the number of those Episcopal Divines whose Doctrine is entirely embrac'd by the Presbyterians Who yet did not only approve of but had the chief hand in contriving and publishing that Declaration which allowed some Sports and Pastimes as that which was then the most probable course to stop the current of Popery and profaneness as appears from the story of that Bishop's life publish'd by Dr. Barwick p. 80 81. So 't is evident also from the Augustan Confession c. 7. De Potest Ecclesiasticâ and Mr. Calvin's Institutions that both he and the Lutheran Reformers were far enough from thinking the Lords day of Divine Institution who yet were for a lively opening of the pure Doctrine of the Gospel and a laborious efficacious ministry In some following Pages the Author pretends to manifest that the Presbyterian Interest will never be extinguished while the State of England continues Protestant For says he p. 34. 44. let but the Protestant Doctrine as 't is by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd and 't will raise up a genuine off-spring of this people whose way is no other than the life and power of that Doctrine But I as confidently affirm on the other side that if the Protestant Doctrine by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preach'd 't will raise up such a genuine off-spring of true English Protestants as shall own Prelacy and the Churches Authority in appointing Ceremonies both which are establisht by that Doctrine but rejected by Presbyterians If their way be no other than the life and power of that Doctrine they act suitably to these Principles viz. That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith Artic. 20. That whosoever through his private Judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God and be ordained and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly that others may fear to do the like as he that offends against the Common Order of the Church and hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren Every particular or National Church hath authority to ordain change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying Artic. 34. They practically own the Kings power within his Realms of England Scotland and Ireland and all other his Dominions and Countries as the highest power under God to whom all men as well inhabitants as born within the same do by Gods Laws owe most loyalty and obedience afore and above all other Potentates in Earth They act as if they believed his Majesty to have the same Authority in causes Ecclesiastical that the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church They use the Form of Gods worship in the Church of England establisht by Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments without surmising it to be either corrupt superstitious or unlawful or to contain any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures They are obedient to the Government of the Church of England by Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons and the rest that bear office in the same not fancying it to be either Antichristian or repugnant to the word of God They do not combine themselves together in a new brotherhood accounting the Christians who are conformable to the Doctrine Government Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England to be profane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Christian Profession They imagine not 1. that any of the 39. Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or 2. that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law establisht are wicked Antichristian or superstitious or such as being commanded by lawful Authority men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them or as occasion requires subscribe to them or 3. that the sign of the Cross used in Baptism is any part of the substance of that Sacrament They hold that things of themselves indifferent do in some sort alter their natures when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magistrate and may not be omitted at every mans pleasure contrary to the Law when they be commanded nor used when they are prohibited These are parts of the Doctrine establisht by Law in the Church of England as is evident from the 1 2 4 7 9 5 6 30. Canons legally framed and ratified But where are those English Presbyterians to be found whose way hath been no other than the life and power of this Doctrine Have not their practises too loudly proclaimed to the world that they have
things legally established their reproaching those that would have upheld them as Malignants Incendiaries and Evil Instruments their choosing to take up Swords into their hands rather than the Cross their being so far from submitting to the King as supreme and the Governours sent by him that they resisted and maintained a long War against both Let him I say evince that such ways as these are the life and power of that pure spiritual and heavenly Doctrine taught in Scripture and owned by all true English Protestants Nor let him be angry that I handle him in this manner and reply thus particularly to his ambiguous generalities since the question now being Whether Presbyterians are the best English Protestants and whether on that account they ought in justice or reason of State to be encouraged It concerned him if he meant to discourse pertinently and clearly to manifest that they practically own those pure spiritual and heavenly Aphorisms in particular which so much conduce to the peace of the State and the preservation of the Order and Government by Law established and that they heartily acknowledge and embrace all that English Protestant Doctrine which is subservient to that end for otherwise the encouraging yea tolerating of them will probably prove pernicious to the State To affirm that the Presbyterian Interest is one chief strength of the true Reformed Protestant Religion p. 35. 45. is much easier than to prove it Let those well known Principles says he which strike to the heart of Popery be brought forth for evidence viz. 1. The perfection of holy Scripture in opposition to unwritten Tradition 2. The Authority of Canonical Books in opposition to the encroachments of the Apocrypha 3. The distinct Knowledge of the Doctrine of Salvation according to every mans capacity in opposition to implicit Faith 4. The reasonable serving of God according to the Word in opposition to blind devotion 5. Spiritual Gospel-worship in opposition to a pompous train of Ceremonies 6. The efficacious edifying use of Religious exercises in opposition to the Popish Opus operatum or work done 7. The power of Godliness in opposition to splendid formality A. 1. I deny this Argument The Presbyterians acknowledge the Truth of these Principles therefore that Party is one chief strength of the true reformed Protestant Religion for either 1. they may own other Principles also which contradict these and consequently weaken that Religion or 2. they may own together with these such principles as are inconsistent with other parts of the Protestant Faith grounded on and actuated by those Scriptures before mentioned and with the English Protestant Doctrine by Law establisht conform to them 2. Perhaps those seven Principles as those many Presbyterians understand them who are said to account our Ceremonies unlawful are no part of the English Protestant Doctrine but supposing they are rightly understood with due limitations and explications they are not all the parts of the Protestant Doctrine nor the chief parts of it as it refers to Government and Obedience which yet should have been most of all considered in the discussion of this Question 3. Independents Anabaptists yea Socinians do as heartily embrace all those Principles as Presbyterians therefore he may as rationally conclude that those also are chief supporters of the true reformed Protestant Religion and consequently to be protected and encouraged in this Kingdom 4. Presbytery may be extinguisht and yet these seven Principles understood in sano sensu may be asserted by Prelatists and consequently the State of England may continue Protestant without Presbyterian aids That Prelatical men assert them as well as Presbyterians this Author denies not only he seems willing p. 36. 46. to have it believed that the Presbyterian Party is more rooted and grounded in those principles which for my part I am ready to believe when I see it proved But 1. This implies that Prelatists also are rooted and grounded in those Principles Whence it follows that England may keep her self pure from Romish abominations though Prelatists only be protected and encouraged by her 2. Till I see the contrary proved I believe that Prelatists are more deeply rooted and grounded than Presbyterians in those and other Protestant Principles so far as they are by Law establisht among us in which sence they sufficiently strike at the heart of Popery even by this Authors own confession p. 34. 44. where he assures us if we may rely on his bare word that Let but the Protestant Doctrine as 't is by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preached and 't will raise up a genuine off-spring of sound Protestants and therefore England may continue Protestant though Prelatists only are encouraged and Presbyterians rooted out which therefore may be done in Justice and Reason of State notwithstanding this Argument to the contrary As for his story p. 37. 47. I observe 1. that the English Roman Catholicks are called a Faction in Religion which is strange language from the pen of a Venetian Agent 2. That the Agent look'd not upon Puritans as Protestants which as this Author tells us p. 38. the Presbyterians complain of as a palpable injury and give evident proof that they of right have as much Interest in that venerable Name as English Prelatists Now really I am much of his mind in this particular if by Protestants he mean such as approve of Subjects protesting against the will the pleasure of their Soveraign and such as deny obedience to the Edicts and commands of Kings and Emperors or lawful Superiors and if Romanizing spirits call this Puritanism perhaps he well observes p. 39. 49. that the more primitive times of protestantism were more leaning to it I add than they should have been and I hope puritans have a greater portion of those venerable qualities than prelatists But if he mean by protestants such as practically own the truth of the English protestant Doctrine by Law establisht in the Church of England in which sence I suppose the Venetian Agent implicitly denied puritans to be protestants I acknowledge the name of protestant in that notion venerable since in that notion 't is a part of Christianity and shall be very glad if this Author can produce any evident proofs that the presbyterians have any right to and interest in that name which till he do he must pardon me if I suspend my assent since himself has given another character of them p. 22. and 29. 32. and 39. and if he had not their practises especially of late years too evidently prove them to be creatures hugely differing from true English protestants forasmuch as the Discipline of the Church of England excludes such Animals from its Communion Watson in his second Quodlibet and first Article proposes this Question Whether the Jesuits or Puritans be more dangerous pernicious and noisom to the Commonwealth of England Scotland or any other Realm where both or either of them live together or apart He answers thus The Jesuits
no more stand with Monarchy than it can with Monogamy to be married to two several Wives and though 't is said that this Presbyterian Government meddles only with spiritual things which concern the good of the Soul and so it cannot hurt Regal power yet this is but only said and no more for 't is well known that in ordine ad spiritualia and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this rank as they have been by the Church of Rome this Government intrudes upon what things it pleaseth and where a supremacy is once acknowledged no wise man can think that it will carry it self otherwise so that King James his maxim was undoubtedly most true No Bishop no King For that most prudent Prince did soon discern that if a power were once set up which at least in the legal execution of it did not derive it self from the King there was no doubt to be made that it would ere long destroy the very King himself Or consider the Presbyterian Government in the English sence as it 's now set up by the two Houses at Westminster which is a Government limited by an Appeal to the Parliament for either by Parliament here they mean the two Houses excluding the King and then 't is as plain as before they set up two supremacies his Majesties and their own or else by Parliament they mean the King with both Houses and then 't will follow that either there must be a perpetual Parliament which sure the King nor Kingdom can't have cause to like or else the supremacy will be for the most part in the Presbytery because whenever a Parliament sits not there will be no Judge to appeal to or if it be said the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive Appeals in such Ecclesiastical causes then either in this Committee the King hath no Negative and in that case 't is clear that the Ecclesiastical supremacy will be not at all in the King or else the King hath a Negative but yet is joyned with persons whom he himself chuseth not and so most probably will be chek'd and affronted in any sentence he intends to give and this clearly overthrows that which is already declared by Parliament to be a right in the King as inherent in his Crown that Ecclesiastical Appeals may be made to him alone in Chancery for the Statute names no other and that his Majesty alone may appoint what Commissioners he pleases for their final decision I say consider the Presbyterian Government in the English Parliament sence and in the sence of the English Assembly for the Presbyterians there are wholly for the Scottish Form as appears by their quarrels at what the Houses have already done in their Ordinances and 't will appear that their aim is not only to set up a new Government but in plain terms a new Supremacy and hence to say truth he must see very little who discerns not that though the Presbyterian party seems to strike at the Bishops yet their main aim is at the King whose supremacy they endure not as being a flower which they intend for their own Garland and so though they hypocritically cry out that they may abuse the people against the pride of the Lordly Bishops yet in the mean time the wiser sort must needs see that they intend to make themselves no less than indeed Kingly Presbyters Thus he And if this Author thinks this reasoning insufficient to prove Presbytery Antimonarchical let him tell us why In the mean time it follows p. 44. 54. Or would his sort of men Presbyterians have no King to reign over them A. None if he will not comply with their humours Doth a Republick better please them A. Not an Independent or Anabaptistical Republick but time hath been when a Presbyterian Republick some parcels of the two Houses did please them far better than an Episcopal King Did the English or Scottish Presbyters ever go about to dissolve Monarchy and to erect some other kind of Government In no wise quoth he for in the Solemn League and Covenant they bound themselves to endeavour the preservation of the Kings person and Authority and declared they had no intent to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness Of the justness of which power themselves would be judges But did not all Covenanters do so as well as Presbyterians The man sure would make us believe either that our Monarchy was not dissolved and another kind of Government exected or else that 't was done by some that were not Covenanters For why is not this Argument as good Independents Covenanted to preserve the Kings person and Authority Therefore they never went about to dissolve Monarchy This is a much better consequence Neither the English nor Scottish Presbyterians endeavoured to preserve the Kings Authority just power and greatness the Justness whereof must be judged of by Law not by the dictates of insolent minds puft up with prosperity therefore either they never bound themselves and intended to preserve it or else they practised contrary to those obligations and intentions If he has the confidence to deny the Antecedent I may chance to evince it to him before we part Indeed his next words suggest a very considerable proof of it After the violent change of Government they the Presbyterians came slowest and entred latest into those new Engagements imposed by the Vsurpt powers Which is an implicit confession 1. That those Engagements were inconsistent with fidelity to Monarchical Goyernment and the Kings Authority 2. That yet at last the Presbyterians did enter into them whence I gather 1. That whereas the third Article of the Covenant obliged them to endeavour not only sincerely but also constantly with their Estates and Lives to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Authority just power and greatness they ceased to do so at last when they entred upon those new Engagements and consequently did then break their Covenant And 2. That the Presbyterians are not such fixt and unalterable Creatures as he would needs have perswaded us p. 29. 39. they are since they did upon changes in Government vary by degrees from themselves and either deserted those principles which kept them from engaging with the foremost or else contradicted them by engaging at last though slowly And truly that they did so is tacitly acknowledged by this Author p. 45. 55. where he tells us that the generality of conscientious Presbyterians never ran with the current of those times which sadly implies either that the generality of Presbyterians were not conscientious since they generally ran with the current at last or that some conscientious Presbyterians did notwithstanding the dictates of their conscience run with the current For either he must mean that the generality of Presbyterians otherwise conscientious did in that particular by an error of Conscience run with the current but this seems not to have been this Authors meaning for then it follows by his own confession that the
danger rashly and unnecessarily at first nor afterwards by unlawful means preserved themselves from a legal Trial and the stroke of Justice for those misdemeanors But when resisting evil and those that offer it can be reconciled with not resisting it or them and with the suffering of real and much more pretended injuries When raising War against our Royal Soveraign and continuing it for several years can justly be interpreted making peace When the applying Curse ye Meroz yea curse ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof Judg. 5. 23. to those that came not forth to fight against the King and his loyal subjects can consist with blessing and praying for those that are supposed despitefully to use and persecute us when Dove-like harmlesness and Wolfish cruelty cease to be contradictories when to wrest the power of the Militia out of the Kings hands and to deny him his Negative voice is to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's when Covenanting against Prelacy and our Church-Discipline and Orders is all one with the observing and doing what our lawful Governours require when putting up our swords into their sheaths and loving doing good to and forgiving our enemies is compatible with reproaching their persons with ruining themselves and their Families with turning them out of their legal possessions with plundering their Goods sheathing swords into their bowels and spilling their innocent and loyal bloud then and not till then will Presbyterian practises be reconcileable with Christ's precepts and agreeable to that Religion which he taught the world and which as this Author well observes is not variable according to the will of man but indispensably binds every Soul and is grounded upon an unchangeable eternal Truth which if the English Independent J. Goodwin or Bucanan the Scotch Presbyterian had believed heretofore they had not made such an ugly Fanatick Apology as they did for subjects taking up Arms against and murdering their Soveraign De jure Regni P. 50 55. and if the Presbyterian professors of this Religion and of their own true knowledge and sense of the Nature of it had acted suitably to such a profession they had never thought it expedient to reduce his late Majesty to such dismal straits at the Isle of Wight where they constrained him to grant them so much liberty as miserably enfeebled the Monarchical and Legal power of the Kings of England whereby whatsoever he cants in the following lines of a King 's ruling over a free people Presbyterians have sufficiently taught us that they take more delight in making good Kings their slaves than in manifesting themselves to be good subjects To be a powerful Monarch says he p. 48. ever a free people is the freedom and glory of our Soveraign Lord above all the Potentates of the Earth The more disloyal creatures were those presbyterians who in that fatal Isle treated with such a Soveraign Lord and once powerful Monarch to such bad purposes as to despoil him of his Royal Freedom and Glory and by their imperious demands to dwindle this potent and glorious Monarchy into a slavish ignoble titular Kingship whence we may conjecture what a licentious treasonable liberty it is that such Free-born subjects breath after and how insolently they 'l again exercise it over our Soveraign Lord the King if by his Majesties connivence and indulgence they meet with the like opportune advantages of winding themselves by degrees into the like power From which premises I conclude that notwithstanding any thing produced here by this Author to the contrary this second Charge against the Presbyterians that they are Anti-Monarchical is a true accusation not a calumny The third Calumny as he calls it with which Presbyterians are loaded is the charge of Disobedience and Rebellion and this says our Author were a crying sin indeed But yet he thinks it necessary to speak something Apologetical at least to mitigate the business and remove prejudice and therefore p. 49. he tells us The Presbyterian party in England never engaged under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament A. The word engaged is of dubious signification 1. Did they never engage that is subscribe the Engagement to be faithful to the Commonwealth as establisht without King or House of Lords under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament 2. Did they never engage that is raise and foment jealousies against the King reproaches against the Bishops or preach Division Sedition and Schism instead of Union Loyalty and Obedience under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament Nay 3. Did they never engage in fighting against the King under a less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament Is he ignorant that two thirds and more of the Lords deserted that house because of those frequent Tumults which drave the King from London and that the major part of the House of Commons left that House also for the same reasons and that new men See Judge Jenkins his Lex Terrae p. 35. were chosen in their places against Law by the pretended warrant of a counterfeit Seal Is he Ignorant that his late Majesty in a Declaration 1642. occasioned by the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons for the assessing men a 20th part of their Estates hath these words Our good Subjects will no longer look upon these and the like results as upon the Counsels and Conclusions of both our houses of Parliament though all the world knows even that authority can never justify things unwarrantable by Law They well know how few of the persons trusted by them are present at their Consulations of above 500 not 80 and of the House of Peers not a fifth part that they who are present enjoy not the Priviledge and Freedome of Parliament but are besieged by an Army and awed by the same Tumults which drave us and their Fellow-members from thence to consent to what some few seditious schismatical persons among them do propose Is to fight under the banner of such a minor part of both Houses or of the superinduced major part illegally chosen to engage under no less Authority than that of both Houses of Parliament nay not only illegally but treasonably chosen for to counterfeit the great Seal and by such a Seal they were chosen is Treason by the 25 of Edw. 3. 4. Suppose they had engaged that is fought against the King under the Authority of both Houses legally called sitting in their full number and remaining free yet even then they had fought against their Soveraign upon no higher Authority than Subjects could give them which was none at all to that end for the two Houses though consisting of all three Estates Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons are no more than Subjects whatsoever this Author insinuates to the contrary in the following Lines I have read says he that the Parliament of England hath several capacities and among the rest these two 1. That it represents the people as subjects and so it
Fundamental Laws to impose unlawful Taxes or new Oaths to levy War within the Realm without authority from the King 'T is confessed also by Sir Edw. Cooke that no priviledge of Parliament holds or is grantable for Treason Felony or breach of the Peace 4. Institut 25. If not to any one Member says J. Jenkins p. 15. not to two nor to ten nor to the major part Now I suppose this Author is not either so ignorant or so perverse as to deny that the two Houses did levy War against the King that they counterfeited the Great Seal that they seized upon the Kings Ports Forts Magazines for War that they usurpt the Royal power raised rumors and gave out words to alienate the people from the King imposed a new Oath unlawful Taxes and levied War without yea against the Kings Authority From which premises I discern not any difficulty in deducing this genuine though sad and dismal consequence that those two Houses and the presbyterian party which adhered to them and gave them aid and comfort were guilty of Disobedience Treason and Rebellion If the major part of a Parliament commit Treason they must not be judges of it for no man or body can be judge in his own cause and as well as ten or any number may commit Treason the greater number may as well says J. Jenkins Lex Terrae P. 15 16. In this high and tender point it belongs not says our Author to me to determine The main reason of which scrupulosity is most probably no other than this that he 's so much a Presbyterian that either his blind and deluded understanding or rather his disloyal and rebellious heart will not suffer him to determine the Question on the Kings side For if this Rector of Bramshot be not mis-reported he was heretofore a Preacher in a two-Houses-Garrison and Chaplain to the Governor of that Garrison and at that time I presume this was not look'd upon by him as a point too high and tender But now tempora mutantur and yet not so chang'd it seems but that this Author still dares to insinuate Apologies for the former damnable Presbyterian practices of fighting against the King witness these following words p. 50. 60. And as touching the much debated point of resisting the higher Powers without passing any judgment in the great case of England I shall only make rehearsal of the words of Grotius a man of renown and known to be neither Anti-Monarchical nor Anti-Prelatical which are found in his Book de jure Belli Pacis by himself dedicated to the French King Si Rex partem habeat summi imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis justa opponi poterit quia eatenus Imperium non habet Quod locum habere censco etiamsi dictum sit belli potestatem penes Regem fore Id enim de bello externo intelligendum est cum alioqui quisquis Imperii summam partem habeat non possit non jus habere eam partem tuendi L. 1. c. 4. sect 13. which Chapter by the way is proved to be dangerously Anti-Monarchical by the Author of the Observations on the original of Government p. 34 c. but Here I demand 1. Whether this Author can reasonably be imagined to produce these words of Grotius to any other end than to justifie the War of the Presbyterian Lords and Commons against the King 2. Whether therefore his pretending not to pass any judgment in the great case of England in not sillily and yet sadly hypocritical especially considering 1 That in the precedent p. he takes it for granted that the two Houses had a part in the supreme power 2. That the same Author who insers their having such a part from their having as he fancies a part in the Legislative power quotes this very passage out of Grotius to justifie the two Houses and himself in fighting and encouraging others to fight against the King which Author yet ingenuously promises that he will offer his Head he meant I suppose his Neck to justice as a Rebel when 't is proved that the King was the highest power in the time of the divisions and that he had power to make that War which he made He here implicitly confesses says Dr. Pierce Impartial Enquiry Postscript p. 14 15. the King was once the highest power and implies he lost it by the divisions but that he never could lose it and that demonstrably he had it I have made most evident in the Appendix of this Book which concerns Mr. B. as much as Mr. H. at least as far as I have proved the supremacy of the King § 78. And that the King had power to make that War which he made in defence of pars sua viz. the ordering of the Militia his Negative voice in Parliament his right to the possession of all Castles Ports Ports Magazines within his Dominions c. is as clearly the opinion of Grotius in this passage as 't is that the two Houses in partem non suam involantes had power to make that War which they made to defend their own violation of the Kings Rights The truth is those words of Grotius are no argument of the justness of the late War on either side and therefore they are impertinently produced to such a purpose till these minors are well and soundly proved 1. That the two Houses had legally a part in the supremacy which Grotius himself denies can be concluded from that part which they had in Legislation And 2. that the King did involare in partem summi Imperii non suam invade any such prerogative or part in the supremacy for of that only Grotius speaks as did by Law belong to the two Houses For though it could be proved that the King did intrench upon some priviledge of theirs yet if that priviledge did not belong to them quatenus having a share in the Soveraignty Grotius his words though they should be granted of infallible truth will not justifie their fighting against the King upon that account But this sly discourser was perswaded it seems that when he had rehearsed this hypothetical major Si Rex partem habeat summi Imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis just a opponi poterit Every Presbyterian that understood Latin and had engaged against the King under the Authority of the two Houses would willingly take the minor for granted Sed Senatus ille qualis qualis partem habuit summi Imperii in eam partem non suam involavit Rex and thence very hastily and joyfully conclude Ergò vis à Senatu isto vel potius Senatûs quisquiliis retrimentis Regi opposita erat justa even by the verdict of Grotius that man of renown At this Presbyterian rate of disputing are Arguments hudled up in the Book called The Covenanters Plea against Absolvers the sophistry of some parts of which
of Parliament and that inviolably by the 42 of Edw. 3. enacting that if any statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none and consequently the Act of Parliament so called against that Priviledge of the Bishops was ipso facto null and void by robbing the King of his Negative voice of his power in the Militia by making Ordinances without him yea against him and so practically denying what they verbally swore that he was the only supreme Governour in all Causes and over all Persons By their electing new members warranted only by a counterfeit Seal By their taking upon them to create new Judges Justices and other Officers without the Kings consent For Laws and Liberties says J. Jenkins p. 146. have not the prevailing party in the two Houses destroyed above an hundred Acts of Parliament and in effect Magna Charta and Charta de Forestâ which are the Common Laws of the Land And p. 135. The Writ of Summons to this Parliament is the Basis and Foundation of the Parliament if the Foundation be destroyed the Parliament falls The Assembly of Parliament is for three purposes Rex est habiturus colloquium tractatum cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus super arduis negotiis concernentibus 1. Nos 2. Defensionem Regni nostri 3. Defensionem Ecclesiae Anglicanae The King says the Writ intends to confer and treat with the Prelates Earls Barons about the arduous affairs relating to 1. our Royal self 2. the defence of our Realm 3. the defence of the Church of England This Parliament says the Judge hath overthrown this Foundation in all three parts 1. Nos Our Royal self the King they have chased away and imprisoned at Holmbey they have voted no Prelates and that a number of other Lords about forty in the City must not come to the House and about forty more are out of Town the conference and treaty is made void thereby for the King cannot consult and treat there with men removed from thence 2. The defence of our Realm that is gone they have made it their Kingdom not his for they have usurp'd all his Soveraignty 3. The defence of the Church of England that is gone By the Church of England must be understood necessarily that Church that at the Teste of the Writ was Ecclesia Anglicana they have destroyed that too So now these men would be called a Parliament having quashed and made nothing of the Writ whereby they were summoned and assembled If the Writ be made void the Process must be void also The House must needs fall where the Foundation is overthrown thus he And all this was done before those Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian were many of them imprisoned and others forcibly secluded by the violence of the Army So that 't is very wonderful how this Rector of Bramshot could be either so ignorant or so impudent as to utter such an assertion especially since in his own following words which it seems he fancied to be a proof of its Truth a very considerable Argument is suggested to evince it an egregious Falshood For quoth he They had voted the Kings Concessions a ground sufficient for the Houses to proceed on to settle the Nation and were willing to cast whatsoever they contended for upon a legal security Now in that very Treaty at the Isle of Wight the Presbyterian party wrested such Concessions from the King as did in their own nature subvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom as is evident from the speech of Mr. Pryn himself concerning those Concessions 3. Edit p. 38. wherein he confesses that the Kings of England have always held two swords in their hands the sword of Mars in time of War the sword of Justice in time of Peace And p. 37. he tells us that in those Concessions the King had wholly stript himself his Heirs and Successors for ever of all that power and interest which his Predecessors always enjoyed in the Militia Forces Forts Navy Magazines p. 36. not only of England but Ireland Wales Jersey Guernsey and Barwick too so as he and they can neither raise nor arm one man nor introduce any foreign Forces into any of them by vertue of any Commission Deputation or Authority without consent of both Houses of Parliament and that he had vested the sole power and disposition of the Militia Forts and Navy of all these in both Houses in such ample manner that they should never part with it to any King of England unless they pleased themselves A security says Mr. Pryn so grand and firm that none of our Ancestors ever demanded or enjoyed the like nor any other Kingdom whatsoever since the Creation for ought that I can find and such a self-denying condescension in the King to his people in this particular as no Age can Precedent Thus the sword of Mars which themselves confess the former Kings of England always held was insolently wrested out of the late Kings hands and consequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation subverted in this particular Besides some Parliaments says he p. 40. in former times have had the nomination of the Lord Chancellor some of the Lord Treasurer some of the great Justiciary or some few Judges of England only but never any Parliament of England claim'd or enjoy'd the nomination and appointment of any the great Officers Barons Judges or Treasurers places in Ireland nor yet of the Lord Warden of the Cinque-Ports Chancellors of the Exchequer and Dutchy Secretaries of State Master of the Rolls or Barons of the Exchequer of England yet all these the King for peace-sake hath parted with to us And p. 41. we have the disposal he might have added Horresco referens of all these Officers in England and Ireland both Military and Civil of his sword of War and Peace his Justice his Conscience his Purse his Treasury his Papers his publick Records his Cabinet his Great Seal more than ever we at first expected or desired Thus horridly was the sword of Justice also wrested out of his Majesties hands and consequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation subverted in that particular likewise Another Concession was that no Peer who should be after that Treaty made by the King his Heirs and Successors should sit or vote in the Parliament of England without consent of both Houses of Parliament which says Mr. Pryn p. 43. gives such an extraordinary new power to the House of Commons as they never formerly enjoyed nor pretended to By which provision p. 44. the Commons are made not only in some sence the Judges of Peers themselves which they could not try or judge before by the express letter of Magna Charta cap. 29. and the Common Law but even their very Creators too And if the House of Commons might justly be term'd any part of the Fundamental constitution of our Nation what was this but to subvert the Fundamental Government By other Concessions the Houses were enabled p. 45.
to make an Act of Parliament for raising of moneys and ordering the Militia though the King denied his Royal Assent which power was never challenged by nor granted to both Houses in any Kings reign before and takes away the Kings Negative voice as to those particulars To pass by other instances for I am quite weary of raking in such a stinking Dunghil these are enough to manifest what kind of creatures Presbyterians were in point of loyalty when they had power in their hands to be impunè disloyal and how willing to subvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom since by vertue of these propositions which they had the imperious confidence to tender to his sacred Majesty in that deplorable condition to which they had reduced him they denuded him of his Royal power and vested themselves with all the considerable parts of Soveraignty and when they had thus subverted the Fundamental Constitution of the English Monarchy and had pass'd that Vote which this Author mentions touching the Kings Concessions and were thereupon deprived by the Army of that power of imposing on his Majesty and the Kingdom which they had so Tyrannically abused these secluded and imprisoned Members wrote a Vindication of themselves from the Aspersions cast upon them by the Army in one passage of which Vindication p. 8 9. they give us reason enough to suspect that if their own prosperity had continued they would yet more unworthily have insulted over his Majesty and have taken such a cruel advantage of those great infelicities into which themselves had cast him as to tender and extort from him some more diminutions if possible of that little power and no greatness which the former had left him for say they by this Vote viz. that the Kings Concessions were a ground sufficient for the House to proceed upon to settle the Nation the House did not determine as we conceive the having no farther Treaty with his Majesty before a concluding and declaring of peace nor were the Houses so bound up thereby that they could not propose any thing farther wherein the Kings Answers were defective or from making any new Propositions for the better healing our breaches or more safe binding up a just and righteous peace It seems then those Lords and Commons had some more such signal testimonies in pickle of their Presbyterian loyalty some more demonstrations that when they took and imposed the Covenant they had no thoughts and intentions to diminish his Majesties just power and greatness It seems they had some clearer explications in their Budget of their meaning in those words in the preface to the Covenant Having before our eyes the honour and happiness of the Kings Majesties person and his posterity which words interpreted by their actions must signifie that they had it before their eyes only as a mark to shoot at But God deliver us for the time to come from the Presbyterian reserves of such a disloyal and corrupt majority wherein they abundantly manifested how tractable Scholars they were to Scotch Teachers and how able and willing to imitate yea transcend that ungodly pattern which they had set them who when the King had before granted them more than was fit for such persons to receive had the insolent confidence to ask moreover such things as 't was not fit for the King to give And thus the English Presbyterians by enlarging their desires as Hell fill'd up the measure of that Scorch iniquity which he that runs may read in his late Majesties large Declaration of the Tumults in Scotland printed Ann. 1638. Our Author proceeds thus In those times the Presbyterian Ministers of London in their publick Vindication thus declare themselves We profess before God Angels and Men that we verily believe that that which is so much feared to be now in agitation the taking away the life of the King in this present way of Trial is not only not agreeable to the word of God the principles of the Protestant Religion never yet stain'd with the least drop of the bloud of a King or the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom but contrary to them as also to the Oath of Allegiance the Protestation of May 5. 1641. and the Solemn League and Covenant from all which or any of which Engagements we know not any Power on Earth able to absolve us or others To which I answer 1. Though the Presbyterian Ministers of London were granted not guilty of the death of the King yet they might be guilty of disobedience and rebellion against him which was the objection p. 48. 58. to which objection therefore this Apology is impertinent 2. Nor is the Apology at all satisfactory as to the taking away of the Kings life in some other way of Trial it being designed only against that present way of Trial for 't is only with that limiting specification that they vindicate themselves for they say that the taking away the Kings life in this present way of Trial is not agreeable to the word of God c. Whence all that I can conclude in reason is that they did not imagine it agreeable to the word of God or the principles of the Protestant Religion or the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom or the Oath of Allegiance Protestation Covenant to take away his life in that way of Trial viz. by that High Court of Justice set up by the Independent party but notwithstanding this they might deem it consistent with the word of God and the principles of the Protestant Religion c. to take away his life in a way of Trial appointed and modelled by the corrupt majority of the two Houses the Presbyterian Lords and Commons And if the Author of Clerico-Classicum deceive us not p. 35. of his Answer to the London-Ministers letter to the General and Council of War Jan. 18. 1648. Mr. Pryn allows of a capital proceeding against Emperors Kings and Princes in his Appendix to the fourth part of his Soveraign power of Parliaments p. 190. ad 194. It I am not deceived also a man called Mr. Christopher Love who I think deem'd himself a Minister of Jesus Christ I am sure he was a Presbyterian Minister of London did in a thing called a Sermon at Vxbridge Treaty justifie yea urge the taking away of the Kings life in as bad a way of Tryal for in that Sermon having spoken of the bloud-guiltiness of the King yea intimated unnaturalhorrible-bloud-guiltiness in him and thereby made him the troubler of England as Achan was of Israel he hath these words p. 32. 'T was the Lord that troubled Achan because he troubled Israel Oh that in this our State-Physicians would resemble God to cut off those from the Land who have distempered it melius est ut pereat unus quà m unitas Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est but yet more plain p. 37. men who lye under the guilt of much innocent blood are not meet persons to be at peace with till all the
Princes the French Calvinistical Church hath made in their Confession of Faith speaking of obedience due to the Supreme Magistrate appears at least every Sunday in all their hands in Print where they acknowledge such Obedience due to them except the Law of God and Religion be interessed on condition that Gods Soveraignty remain undiminish'd which clause says he what it means their so many and so long continued Rebellions do expound What turbulent things Scotch and English presbyterians have been those very practises of theirs which these sheets have mentioned to which many more might be added are a competent Testimony But this Quaere shall not scape so let 's view it again If Presbytery and Rebellion be connatural how comes it to pass that those States or Kingdoms where it hath been establisht or tolerated have for any time been free from broils and commotions A. 1. It may be 't was because though their minds were always enclined by their principles to rebellion yet they had not power and opportunity to act suitably to those inclinations with hopes of success 'T were a sad thing indeed if Rebels should be able at all times to put their traiterous Designs in execution 2. It suffices in reference to the grand Question now disputed if Presbyterian spirits are prone to Rebellion in case their way of Worship be not either est ablisht or tolerated For they deserve not to be so much as tolerated in any Kingdom that will when they have power rebel against Kings if they be not tolerated 3. If this Quaere implies any good proof that Presbytery and Rebellion is not connatural by which he means I suppose not usually conjoyn'd it does as strongly imply that Jesuitism and Rebellion are not connatural since those States and Kingdoms where Jesuits have been tolerated have for some time been free from broils and commotions It follows Or how comes it to pass that Presbyterians have never disclaimed or abandoned their lawful Prince As if to let pass other Instances English Presbyterians did not disclaim and abandon the late King when they denied him to be in a condition to Govern H. of Comm. Decl. 28. Nov. 1646. when they denied him the exercise of that power in the Militia which themselves acknowledged did belong unto him Veritas inconcussa p. 147. 168. When they affirmed that the Soveraign power resided in both Houses of Parliament that the King had no Negative voice that whatsoever the two Houses should Vote was not by Law to be questioned either by the King or Subjects that it belonged to them only to judge of the Law Declar. of May 26. 1642. as if likewise they did not make others to disclaim and abandon him by making them swear that they would neither directly nor indirectly adhere unto or willingly assist the King in his War and Cause But he proceeds How comes it to pass that they have never ceased to solicit and supplicate his regards and favour even when their power hath been at the highest and his sunk lowest Whereas I read in Philips his Veritas inconcussa his Book that proves K. Charles 1. no man of bloud these words p. 124. Indstead of offering any thing which was like to bring peace they the Presbyterian Lords and Commons caused men and women in the first year of their war to be killed because they did but petition them to accept of a peace And in the third and fourth year of their war plundered and robbed them that petitioned them but to hearken to it And put out of Office and made all as Delinquents in the seventh year of their war that did but petition them for a Treaty with the King and refused all the Kings many very many messages for peace not only when he was at the highest of his success in the war but when he was at the lowest and a prisoner to them and conjured them as they would answer it at the dreadful day of judgment to pity the bleeding condition of his Kingdomes and People and send propositions of peace unto him and years and half-years and more than a whole year together after the battel at Naseby insomuch as their fellow-Rebels the Scotch Commissioners did heavily complain of it were at several times trifled away and spent before any propositions could be made ready Was this perpetually to supplicate their lawful Princes regards and favour And p. 126. We are told they were so unwilling to have any peace at all as that 6 or 7 Messengers or Trumpeters could come from the King before they could be at leisure or so mannerly as to answer one of them but this or that message from the King was received and read and laid by till a week or when they would after And p. 128 129. When they did treat they desired the granting of such propositions as were purposely contrived and stood upon to hinder a peace and were not to be asked or granted by any that could but entitle themselves to the least part of reason or humanity c. And p. 68. The King complains that although he had used all ways and means to prevent the distractions and dangers of the Kingdom all his labours had been fruitless that not so much as a Treaty earnestly desired by him could be obtained though he disclaimed all his Proclamations and Declarations and the Erecting of his Standard as against his Parliament unless he should denude himself of all force to defend him from a visible strength marching against him And when the business of the Treaty 1647 as I suppose came into discourse the Assembly of Divines quickly resolved all of them but four to be against it See considerations touching the present Factions in the King's Dominions p. 6. And yet this Brazen-face would perswade us that Presbyterians never ceased to solicit and supplicate the Kings regards and favour It seems their voting 1647 that they would receive no more messages from the King and that no man should presume to bring any from him and that they would make no farther applications and addresses to him was so far from being a disclaiming and abandoning him that 't was not so much as a ceasing to supplicate his regards and favour statuimus i. e. abrogamus what shall be done unto thee O thou false Tongue and ridiculous Flatterer The other part of his Quaere is How comes it to pass that the Presbyterians suffered themselves rather to be trodden under foot than to comply with men of violence in changing the Government A. 1. 'T was because they were unable to make their parts good against those men of violence here intended Independents had cheated them out of that power which before they had 2. Themselves were the men of violence that did first of all really change the Government by acting without and fighting against the Kings Person and Authority Independents took away the name King but Presbyterians had long before destroyed the thing 3. 'T were no great wonder if Presbyterians suffered
Practice But the latter clause that they teach obedience active in all lawful things and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the higher power may justly make an impartial Reader that reflects upon their actions for several years together to wonder what this man means by the higher power by things unlawful by obedience active and passive If in the days of the Long Parliament Presbyterian Doctrines and practices in this point were suitable and correspondent the words must be thus paraphrasad Presbyterians taught obedience active in things unlawful enjoyned by the two Houses whom Mr. Herle's as 't is reported seditious invention made only co-ordinate with the King and disobedience active even to bloudy Rebellion in things lawful enjoyned by the King whom by Oath they acknowledged to be the only Supreme Governour of this Kingdom I have read in Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 23. that in 1642 Presbyterian Pulpits flamed with seditious invectives against the King and incitements to Rebellion and that the people running headlong into it had all manner of countenance and encouragement but those Ministers that preacht obedience and sought to prevent Rebellion were sure to be imprisoned and put out of their places for it Was this for Presbyterians to preach either Faith or Holiness or Obedience active to the King or were those men so good Subjects so good Christians as either actively or passively to obey his Majesty or preach such obedience when they took themselves and exhorted others to take that Solemn League and Covenant which the King in his Proclamation against it calls a Traiterous and Seditious combination against himself and the establisht Religion and Laws of the Kingdom We do therefore says his Majesty strictly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever upon their Allegiance that they presume not to take the said seditious and traiterous Covenant And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose administer or tender the said Covenant as they and every of them will answer the contrary at their utmost and extremest peril What therefore was the taking of this Covenant and tendering of it to others was it obedience either active or passive to the King No but on the contrary 't was active disobedience to his Majesties command and the taking up Arms against the King in prosecution of this Covenant thus taken and cursing those that did not was Treason and Rebellion by the Lawes of the Land and damnable resistance by the Law of Christ And these and other Presbyterian practices were such a palpable contradiction to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance that in some late reflexions on those Oaths 't is admired with what face presbyterians can now either take or urge them It 's a wonderful mystery p. 41. how it should come to pass that our English Presbyterians c. should especially now of late with so much willingness and greediness themselves swallow these Oaths and so clamorously urge them on others Is it because the Oath of Supremacy has so peculiar a conformity to their principles and that of Allegiance to their practices or that they are so ready and pressing to disclaim and condemn all that themselves have done these last twenty years And a little after Who ever heard or knew to flow from the Tongue or drop from the Pen of a Presbyterian so Christian a Position as is sincerely avouched both by English Protestants and the general body of Roman Catholicks viz. that even in case a Christian or Heathen Prince should make use of his Civil Power to persecute Truth that power ought not upon any pretences to be actively resisted by violence or force of Arms but though they cannot approve they must at least patiently suffer the effects of his mis-used Authority leaving the judgment to God only If this Rector can answer this Question in the affirmative and then prove it true of any one Covenanting Presbyterian Scotch or English within the compass of this last twenty years let him I shall be glad to see it Whether he can do so much or no I doubt as I do likewise whether that Reflecter can prove that that Position as he has worded it is owned by the general body of Roman Catholicks but that he cannot do it of Presbyterians generally or any considerable number of them I am pretty well assured if he can 't will follow that the generality of Presbyterians or a considerable number of them most wretchedly detained that Truth in unrighteousness and for several years together acted most horrid things contrary to their Light Knowledge and Conscience But 't is observable that this crafty Impostor instead of proving that Presbyterians teach obedience active in things lawful and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the King's Majesty affirms only that they teach such obedience in things enjoyned by the Higher power not telling us whether they mean the higher power de jure or de facto only nor whether their Doctrine will not comprehend the higher power de facto though themselves acknowledge it no power de jure if so be that power will in the main comply with the advancement of the Presbyterian Interest What the presbyterians meant by the higher power in the late divisions was too evident by their practises viz. that parcel minor part of the Long Parliament which favoured Presbytery which opposed the King and made War against him which elected a multitude of new Members by vertue of a counterfeit treasonable Seal Prove that the King was the Higher power in the time of the Divisions says Mr. Baxter Pref. to his Holy Commonwealth p. 23. They declared May 26. 1642. that the Soveraign power resides in both Houses of Parliament as the Author of Veritas Inconcussa quotes them p. 29. who also p. 91. informs us That the Parliament could not be called a Parliament when they had driven away the King who is the Head and Life of it nor they be said to be two Houses of Parliament when there was not at that time when they first raised a War above a third part of the House of Peers nor the half part of the House of Commons remaining in them and what those few did in their absence was either forced by a Faction of their own or a party of Seditious Londoners for indeed the War rightly considered was not betwixt the Parliament and the King but a War made by a Factious and Seditious party of the Parliament against the King and the major part of the Parliament So that a factious seditious part of a parliament was heretofore owned by Presbyterians as the Higher power Nay the chief Presbyterian Advocate was such a learned man such a good Subject and Christian he did so fear God and honour the King as to be able and willing to distinguish between the supreme Governour and the supreme Power of this Nation Sover power of Parl. p. 104. and to teach that the King was indeed the
Supreme Governour but the Parliament by which he understood those two Houses was the Supreme Power which is very strange says Judge Jenkins for who can govern without power p. 57. Whence all that I shall conclude is 1. That this part of the Authors Apology is rather an implicit confession and proof of the crime objected than an Argument of Presbyterian Innocence And 2. That it concerns his Majesty before he resolve to protect and encourage Presbyterians to catechize them very particularly and strictly touching those Loyal principles which this J. C. pretends to be embraced by them that so it may appear whether when they take the Oath of Supremacy they do it not with that Jesuitical or more than Jesuitical Equivocation just now mentioned or with such a mental reservation as will infer their approving now as well as in the late Wars of that Treasonable distinction between the King 's personal and politick capacity and that damnable and damned opinion as it seems Cook 's Reports call it B. 7. in Calvin's Case that Homage and the Oath of Allegiance was more by reason of the Kings Crown his Politick capacity than by reason of the Person of the King whence they inferred these detestable consequences 1. If the King demean not himself by reason his Leiges are bound by Oath to remove him 2. Seeing the King could not be reformed by Suit at Law that it ought to be done per aspertè by force 3. That his Leiges are bound to govern in aid of him all which were condemned by two Parliaments one in the reign of Edw. 2. and the other 1 Edw. 3. ch 1. See Sheringham's Remonstrance of the King 's right p. 75. And yet all these three damnable detestable and execrable consequences are the grounds whereupon the present time of the late Wars relies and the principles whereupon the two Houses found their cause says J. Jenkins p. 10. For ought I know Presbyterians own these principles to this day and so are prepared in mind again to teach men actively to disobey the King yea and to dethrone his Majesty by acknowledging two such Houses and obeying them as the Higher power whensoever they can by their disturbing Arts and Influences in raising and countenancing barbarous and seditious Tumults divide the King from the Houses the Loyal part of the Houses from the Disloyal and then patch them up again by Treasonable Elections and so pack together a company of men whom they will be bold enough to call a Parliament If all Presbyterians are of the same belief with Zachary Crofton in his Berith Anti-Baal they are still of opinion That the Covenant-imposing and taking Lords and Commons were a most lawful rightly called and constituted Assembly the Princes and principal Rulers of the people though themselves swear that the King is the only supreme Governour p. 7. that they were the Princes yea more the body of the people p. 30. That their Oath Covenant was the most positive authentick repeal of any Laws obliging to the contrary p. 31. 51. This says he Mr. Crofton and all rational men do believe That succeeding Parliaments are bound to repeal those Laws which establish the thing which those Lords and Commons had sworn to extirpate p. 31. That their swearing those things as the collective body of the Nation binds all posterity who shall any way succeed into that national capacity 'T is no reason of State for the King when he is able to suppress and reject them to protect and encourage any Party of men thus principl'd and dispos'd and therefore reason of State will put his Majesty upon a curious and diligent enquiry whether Presbyterians and others retain these and the like principles as that the Long Parliament is yet in being which is favour'd also p. 52. and will oblige him to deny them protection and encouragement till they renounce and abjure all such damnable and pernicious maxims In the following Lines p. 55-65 this Author would fain perswade us that Presbyterians must needs be good Subjects to a Christian King because Profaneness intemperance revellings outrages and filthy lewdness were not at any time in the memory of the present Age held under more restraint than in the late distracted times the special reason whereof was because a practical Ministry was more thick set throughout the Nation and the places where Presbyterian Ministers had the greatest influence were most reformed and civilized and the orderly walking of Religious Persons did keep others more within compass Which is no better than non causa pro causâ for 't is evident enough that that supposed effect must be attributed to Presbyterian Ordinances not Sermons and the Executors of them Presbyterian Magistrates I mean Mayors Bayliffs Justices of the peace Constables illegally chosen as the special principal cause without whose coercive power presbyterian Ministers might have preacht their hearts out before they had wrought the Reformation here talkt of especially considering 1. That himself p. 65. pleads for the annexing of some temporal damage and penalty to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction because spiritual censures and then say I much more Sermons pertaining only to the Conscience may be too little regarded And 2. That 't was easy enough for many filthy prophane intemperate persons thus to bespeak many of those practical Ministers as S. Paul did the Pharisaical Jew Behold thou art called a Presbyterian and restest in the Bible and makest thy boast of God and knowest his will and approvest the things that are excellent being instructed out of the Law and art confident that thou thy self art a guide of the Blind a light of them who are in darkness an instructer of the foolish a teacher of Babes who hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law Thou therefore who teachest another teachest thou not thy self Thou that preachest a man should not steal dost thou year after year reap the profits of that Living which by Law belongs to another who was plundered of it by illegal violence and that because he was a more loyal Subject than thy self Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou justifie and approve of the committing Sacriledge the robbing of God as well as man Thou that gloryest in the Law of the first Table at least by breaking the Law of the second Table dishonourest thou God Knowest thou not that he that said Thou shalt not commit adultery said also Honour thy Father and thy Mother Thou shalt not Kill nor Steal nor bear false witness nor covet other mens goods Thou thunderest out rebukes and threatnest damnation against us that are Adulterers Fornicators Unclean Drunkards Revellers and yet thou thy self art notoriously guilty of those other crimes which together with these are usually and equally forbidden and condemned in the same or the next verse and the doers of them sentenc'd to Hell When we lewd prophane and intemperate persons read in the Old Testament that Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft and stubbornness is as iniquity
and Idolatry And in the New Testament that covetous Persons revilers extortioners are in the number of those unrighteous men that shall not inherit the kingdom of God that they also who are guilty of idolatry witchcraft hatred variance emulation wrath strife fedition murder shall be excluded the kingdom of Heaven as well as adulterers fornicators drunkards and when 't is evident to us from your practises that you presbyterian Ministers have for many years been in a Scripture account Wizards and Idolaters because you have behaved your selves stubbornly and rebelliously against the command and Authority of God and the King contentiously wrathfully and seditiously against the inferiour Governours sent by him as the supreme that you have born false witness against those that were loyal and obedient Subjects as Traytors Incendiaries c. And then have manifested your selves so insatiably covetous of their goods and legal possessions that some of your party have enjoyed plundered goods and sequestred livings legally belonging to honest Royalists and besides all this you have prayed for the prosperity of Presbyterian Armies and encouraged them to fight against the King and cursed those that did not and the more of the Kings Friends your forces killed the more heartily you gave thanks to God and by such approving compliances are guilty of the bloud of thousands of the Kings Loyal Subjects and consequently of so many murders To kill any man in war without Authority derived from him or them that have legal power to make war being murder and that your Presbyterian Lords and Commons had no such power as to that war which they made and you abetted is evident enough from this that a Law of the Land 25 Edw. 3. c. 2. makes it Treason to levy war against the King in his Realm or to be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere Since also 't is no better than murder to kill or put those men to death whose lives as well as goods lands c. the Law hath taken special care to preserve you are by your approbation partakers of their sin who murdered such men That you approved the taking away their lives who adhered to the King in the late wars we presume you will not deny yea you covenanted to do them mischief under the Notion of Malignants Incendiaries and Evil Instruments That the Law of the Land saves them harmless is evident from 11 Henry 7. c. 1. Wherein 't is declared to be against all Laws Reason and good conscience that Subjects going with their Soveraign Lord in Wars attending upon him in his person or being in other places by his commandment within this land or without should lose or forfeit any thing for doing their duty or Service of Allegiance Wherein likewise 't was enacted that no manner of person or persons whatsoever that attend upon the King and Soveraign Lord of this Land for the time being in his person and do him true and faithful service of Allegiance in the same or be in other places by his commandment in his wars within this land or without that for the said deed and true duty of Allegiance he or or they be in no wise convict or attaint of high Treason nor of other offences for that cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any Process of Law whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit life lands tenements rents possessions hereditaments goods chattels or any other things but to be for that deed and service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or loss And if any Act or Acts or other Process of the Law hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance that then that Act or Acts or other Process of Law whatsoever they shall be stand and be utterly void Now you Presbyterian Preachers being thus guilty with what face can you reprove our prophaneness or judge us to Hell for those vices which are but motes in comparison of those beams which an ordinary sight may discern in your own eyes and tell us if you can why these practices of yours do not give us just cause to suspect that either you are very scandalously ignorant of the most material and concerning portions of holy Scripture or that you do not give any credit to them and then why do you seek to affright us from our intemperateness and lewdness with such mormo's as your selves are too sturdy to be scar'd with or else that you have some Salvoes and comfortable reserves which might keep us from despair and make us presume upon Heaven as well as your selves if you would please to acquaint us with them And therefore till your selves are more reformed and civilized and walk more orderly towards God and the King towards the Laws of Nature and Scripture and this Nation you cannot in modesty expect that your Sermons should prevail upon us to restrain our debauchery or convert us from dissoluteness and disorder And now let this Author prove if he can as strongly as he boldly affirms that the men whom he pleads for who are such bad Christians must needs be good Subjects But p. 56. The man goes on to prevaricate and abuse his Readers into a good opinion of Presbyterians Neither are they wandring starrs a people given to Change fit to overturn and pull down but not to build up they do not hang in the air but build upon a firm ground they have settled principles consistent with the Rules of Stable Policy Contrariwise Fanaticks truly and not abusively so called do build Castles in the Air and are fit Instruments to disturb and destroy and root out but never to compose and plant and settle for which cause their Kingdom could never hold long in any time or place of the World Vpon this ground Presbytery not Sectarian Anarchy hath been assaulted with greatest violence by the more observing Prelatists against this they have raised their main batteries This appeared formidable for 't is stable and uniform and like to hold if once settled in good earnest From which heap of words I gather 1. That the Presbyterian Lords and Commons were Fanaticks truly so called since they manifested themselves for several years together fit instruments to disturb and destroy and root out the Order Governours and Government establisht by Law but when they had so far disturbed things as to destroy by Force and Arms that Form of Policy in Church and State when they had done fighting against the King and had gotten him into their clutches instead of shewing their skill in composing planting and setling they employed their time in building Castles in the Air till the Independent Fanaticks out-witted them and cunningly jugled that power out of their hands which they had by force and violence wrested from the hands of his Majesty and the Laws 2. I gather that the principles of the Anarchical sectarians are more consistent with the Rules of Stable-policy than
purposing to bring the King to Trial when p. 55. nothing serves but the Army prevails the King is brought to Prelatical Presbytery shall not be suffered what pathetick cries and moans sighs and groans are heard in your Pulpits wringing your hands in bitter complaints that the Land is stained with the bloud of our Prince c. when alas the Royal party and many judicious men with them cannot believe but that the root of all this bitterness is that your Crown of Classical Jurisdiction is fallen to the ground And p. 17 18. where as you speak so much of resisting Authority and fill the ears of your Auditors from day to day with rebellizing the Army for their late proceedings against the Members mustering up the same Scriptures teaching and pressing duty to Authority which the Prelatical party did formerly urge against you as that of Solomon Fear thou the Lord and the King put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers Let every Soul be subject to the Higher powers c. Yet we heard not of these things from you when the mutinous Apprentices and others offered violence upon the Houses 1647. No noise then of such Scriptures no putting men in mind to be subject to principalities and powers as if those Scriptures were added since that time Can you presume that men are so blind dull and sottish as not to observe such partial and crafty handling of the Scriptures Word and will of God Do not these practices of yours settle and establish Atheism irreligion and profaneness among men making them to look upon Religion the Gospel the Word of God as upon a mere piece of jugling cheating and deceiving the World and should we take your counsel which you give us from the words of Solomon Meddle not with them that are given to change we should all turn Separatists from you and your ways who have been as full of changes as the Vanes of your Steeples one while stirring up the people against the King and for the Parliament writing Books answering objections and using all manner of endeavours that way that so the Bishops may be dethroned and you advanced witness many of your Sermons preach'd before the Houses and elsewhere another while stirring up the people against the Parliament and for the King lest the Independents should hinder your advance as you did of late in your prayers and preaching expressing greater malignity against the Parliament and their party and greater zeal for the King and his Interest than those very Ministers whose places you possess they being sequestred and cast out for the Tenths of that Anti-Parliamentary malignancy which you have vented Have you not been for Bishops and against Bishops for Common Prayer for Ceremonies and against them Have you not sworn and subscribed and subscribed and sworn over and over again and again conformity and subjection hereunto and yet cast away all and entred into Vows and Covenants against all p. 24. Making your vicissitudes and turnings up and down the subject matter of scorn and contempt and derision both of your persons and function and yet these are the men that a Prince or State may know where to find In the Pulpit Incendiary p. 7. I meet with this story touching one Mr. Edmond Calamy of Aldermanbury London That in the times when the Bishops did bear rule he obeyed their Laws Canons Injunctions Orders and Ceremonies we say not wearing the Surplice reading the Service-Book and Crossing in Baptism c. which many honest and Godly Ministers in those dark days did likewise perform but reading the second Service at the High Altar preaching in a Surplice and Tippet bowing at the Name of Jesus and so zealous an observer of times and seasons that being sick and weak upon Christmass Day yet with much difficulty he got into the Pulpit declaring himself there to this purpose that he thought himself bound in conscience to strive to preach on that day lest the stones in the street should rise up against him And yet upon the wonderful turn of the times Ejection of Episcopacy and advance of Presbytery did presently and without delay not only assert the same but instructed the people in Presbyterian Principles after such a rate of confidence and skill as if his Education had been some Superintendent among the Presbyterian Provinces of the Reformed Churches beyond Sea and not such a notorious conformitant unto and notable stickler for the Prelates Fooleries as the Author of that Pamphlet is pleased to speak in the County of Suffolk in the Kingdome of England The same man gives us this observation p. 7. That as the Constitution of publick Affairs varies among us so the constitutions of these mens Sermons do alter and change one while we find them all for moderation and Christian accommodation and forbearance one of another another while all for Reformation again that is Presbytery in the rigid sence thereof that is that all power may be in the Ministers hands and the Magistrates engaged to put their Orders and Edicts wills and pleasures into execution one while pleading for and pressing the setting up the Government of Christ in the hearts of men minding them to be zealous for the great things of the Gospel Faith Repentance and love among Brethren and not to contend so strenuously for the Mint and Cummin Discipline and Government c. Anotherwhile calling with might and main for Reformation Reformation putting the Crown upon the Head of Christ and the Scepter into his hand pleading for the Government of Jesus Christ that is the exalting themselves above their Brethren and yet these are the men so fixt and constant as none more The truth is these and other Testimonies which might be produced do abundantly evince that Presbyterian Principles alter according to the variation of the Presbyterian Interest And that the same Principles which men of that temper exclaim against and condemn when made use of to the prejudice of their Party or in defence of Prelatical Government have notwithstanding been approved of and reduced into practice by them when the doing so tended to the promotion and advancement of their Interest Bishop Bancroft hath long since manifested to the world by the several instances produced in his Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline c. 26. There is nothing says he more usually objected against the present State Superiority and Authority of Bishops than that of S. Peter 1. Pet. 5. Not as though you were Lords over the Clergy And Luk. 22. 26. But you shall not be so And 't will not be admitted in any wise that we should expound those places of ambitious affectation of Tyrannous practice or of the abuse of such superiority or Jurisdiction But if you will speak of the Right Authority and Jurisdiction of their Elderships the case is altered There are some as it seemeth beyond the Seas who seeing the Pride of the Consistorian Government do affirm that the Power of the Church is only Spiritual and
those two Houses who were far enough from either deserving or being capable of the Title of the Parliament of England might discharge men from the obligation of this Oath for they imposed the Negative Oath and made men swear that they would not directly or indirectly adhere to or willingly assist the King in his War against the Forces of the two Houses which Negative Oath being contrary to that of Allegiance could not with any colour of reason or conscience be imposed or taken unless the imposers and takers were perswaded of the truth of that principle viz. that the Presbyterian Lords and Commons had authority to discharge men from the obligation of that Oath and yet these are the men that are so fixt and constant as none more and so setled in their principles that a Prince or State may know where to find them words that for ought I see have no Truth in them at all unless understood in this sence that a Prince may be sure to find Presbyterians constant to their self-Interest though not to their Principles and fixt and diligent in designing methods and carrying on contrivances in opposition to legal establishments for the thrusting up Presbytery into the Throne and the forcing of Majesty and Prelacy to embrace a Dunghil It follow p. 57. 67. They do not strain so high but they consider withal what the Kingdoms of the world will bear and are willing to bring things to the capacity of Political Government I suppose the mans meaning is this That Presbyterians are somewhat cautious and circumspect for their own safety They 'l venture their Ears before they hazard their Necks and contenting themselves with deserving a Dungeon only at first will take heed of meriting the Gallows till they are able to safeguard themselves from the sword of Justice by unsheathing that of Rebellion They 'l consider whether the Kings of the world have indeed the power of their respective Nations in their hands or no and whether if they have it 't is probable they will bear the sword in vain or execute vengeance with it on them that do evil In order whereunto they 'l feel their way it may be step by step first by talking seditiously in private Conventicles then by railing and reviling Loyal subjects in the Pulpit then by slandering inferiour Governours and rendring them contemptible and odious unto the people and afterwards by raising jealousies and envious malicious passions in mens minds against the Supreme and if he let the sword of Justice rust in the scabbard till by the predominancy of a tumultuous rabble aided and abetted by some seditious malignant spirits among the Nobility and Gentry he 's disenabled from drawing it either at all or to any purpose then those pawns and Rooks will strain so high as to give checkmate to Majesty and demonstrate to the world how imprudently those Pearls of Royal patience lenity and condescension were cast before such Swine whose brutish temper inclines them to turn upon and rent their Benefactors like traiterous Judas's to reward them evil for good and hatred for their good will Mr. Martin says the Hist of Independ p. 97. was expelled the House for words spoken against the King because spoken unseasonably when the King was in good strength and the words whether true or false were in strictness of Law Treason lest the whole House might be drawn within compass of High Treason for conniving at them but afterward the King growing weaker and the Parliament stronger the House restored Mr. Martin and thought fit to set every mans Tongue at liberty It seems the Political Government was then brought to a capacity of bearing such crimes Bishop Bancroft in his Book of Dangerous Positions p. 98. tells us of a Book of Discipline subscribed to by some presbyterian Brethren in those days which they promised as God should offer opportunity and give them to discern it so expedient by humble suit to her Majestie 's honourable Council and the Parliament and by all other lawful and convenient means to further and advance so far as the Laws and peace and the present state of the Church would suffer it and not enforce to the contrary One Mr. Littleton being examined upon his Oath what the last words should mean answered That he himself Mr. Snape Mr. Proudloe and others did agree to put that Discipline in execution and practice so far as the peace and the present state of the Church would suffer and not enforce to the contrary that is till the Magistrate did enjoyn them or enforce them to leave the practice of the said Discipline Now says the Bishop what if by the secret practices to draw away the peoples hearts from the present Government of the Church they could have procured such strength and number to have followed them as that no reasonable restraint or force of the Magistrate had been able to have encountered and suppressed them I do but ask the Question says he p. 101. and I answer it thus If they had been of the same Rebellious humour with our modern Presbyterians they would when they had brought things to that pass have appeared in Arms and raised a bloudy War and by force have set up their holy Discipline and strained so high in contradiction to all legal Authority as to have subverted the constitution of our English Monarchy and turned our Government in Church and State Topsiturvy He goes on They can have no pleasure in commotions for Order and regular Unity is their Way and therefore stability of Government and publick Tranquillity is their Interest Which has something of Truth in it if understood of Presbyterians when they are got into the Saddle themselves and are well setled in an usurp'd Dominion but till then for ought I see they take as much pleasure in commotions and alteraons as Jesuits do and will disturb the publick Tranquillity and subvert all legal Order and regular Unity rather than suffer their own Interest to be rejected and depressed witness their late Wars and their Solemn League and Covenant and a series of other actions whose direct tendency was to the destruction of our English Polity both Ecclesiastical and Civil as is before manifested It 's most unreasonable says he to object that the late wild postures extravagancies and incongruities in Government were the work of Presbytery or Presbyterians his reason is because the Nation had never proof of Presbytery for 't was never settled A. If it should be granted that the Nation had never proof of Presbytery what 's this to Presbyterians whom the objection speaks of as well as Presbytery Had the Nation never any proof of such kind of Creatures nay had we not such proof of them for several years together as we have great reason to lament even to this day And I much fear that the satal Influence of those wild postures and extravagancies which Presbyterians such persons as himself described p. 20. 30. by their main and rooted Principles were
but what if they that make the objection be found to frame their Argument in reference to our modern Presbyterians in this manner Multitudes that embraced those Principles which Presbyterians owned in the days of their calamity and depression turned Sectaries and Schismaticks afterward and yet still retained those Principles and by rational deductions pleaded them in order to the justification of their Schism therefore those principles do in their own nature produce Sects and Schisms If the case be indeed thus the objection is strong and for the proof of the Argument and Antecedent I 'le undertake if this Author shall deny either or evince that the like objection may upon the like ground be urged against the English prelacy In the mean time we 'le content our selves with the affirmation of Charles the First that Presbytery was in the late times the great Master of lesser Factions in Religion The truth is says this J. C. Sectarianism both Presbyterian and Independent say I grew up in a Mystery of Iniquity good for 't was by opposing and exalting it self above all that was called God in this Nation and State-policy good again claw me and I 'le claw thee was the politick Dialect of Presbyterians at first towards Independents and it was not well discerned by the Presbyterians whom interest and reason of State perswaded to shut their eyes and wink at the Independents Anabaptists and other Sectaries till it became almost triumphant by Military successes but after that its growth did manifestly appear prejudicial to Presbyterian ambition Presbytery began to struggle with it to frown upon and oppose those whom it before countenanced and caressed and so continued until by the power of the Army it was enforced to sit down but never to comply unless 't were by taking the Engagement at last whereupon the Tongues and Pens of Sectaries were employed against none more than Presbyterians viz. because they thought the prelatists more conscientious adherers to Prelatical Principles than Presbyterians were to their dividing and dissipating maxims And I should be glad to hear of such bitter Invectives of the Papists against the Prelatists It seems the man hath neither seen nor heard of S. W's Scripts against the Right Reverend Bishop Bramhall and the Reverend Dr. Hammond or else he does not judge them bitter Invectives but it had been too palpable hypocrisie as well as a piece of high Ingratitude for Jesuits to have inveighed bitterly against our modern Presbyterians who were so zealously imployed for several years together about Jesuitical work and who had so industriously acted the Powder-Traitors part that they very effectually blew up both King and Parliament and at the Isle of Wight-Treaty were very busie in destroying Kingly power and in accomplishing the design of Campanella and other Papists viz. of changing our Monarchical Government into a Commonwealth-Form by placing all the considerable Authority and prerogative which before belonged to our Kings in some Lords Temporal and Commons And verily there 's no greater bar against Fanaticism than the right Presbyterian principles as 1. not to sever but joyn the written Word and Spirit for direction 2. The Spirit and use of Ordinances for edification 3. To erect a Stated Church-Order and Discipline 4. To allow to the Church a directive and to every Christian a discretive judgment 5. To insist only upon Divine Scripture-warrant and to wave humane Authority in matters of Religion To which I answer briefly That the four first of these as he hath worded them in very general terms are as much Prelatical as Presbyterian nay they are owned by Independents and Anabaptists as well as Presbyterians and therefore if these Sects are Fanaticks there must be some greater bar against Fanaticism than those Principles But the Fifth To insist only on Divine Scripture-warrant and to wave humane Authority in matters of Religion is so loosely and crudely delivered that 't is rather the main Original of all Fanaticism than a bar against it forasmuch as the Religion of the most sober Independents and Anabaptists as also of Enthusiasts and Quakers is founded upon this principle all of them waving humane Authority and insisting only on Scripture-dictates and that Divine warrant which thence they plead for their modes forms and opinions for their walking according to the light connate with them springing up within them or darted into them from above But of all the prejudices and scandals says this Author p. 63. 73. taken against this way Presbytery there 's none greater than this that 't is represented as Tyrannical and domineering and that those that live under it must like Issachar crouch under the burden A. It seems he thinks Tyrannical domineering over Inferiors to be a greater crime than disobedience and rebellion against Superiors or else he would have accounted their being represented as Rebels a greater prejudice against presbyterians than their being represented as domineering persons but he Apologizes for them by retorting the charge on Prelatists and telling us that Presbytery is not more severe in censuring the breach of God's Commandments than the Hierarchy in censuring the breach of their own Constitutions which passage looks as if the man had a mind to insinuate that Presbyterian severity is exercised only on the Transgressors of God's Commands and Hierarchical severity only on the offenders against Episcopal Constitutions Whether he had such an ugly meaning in those words or no I am not certain though to him that considers the egregious partiality of this discourse hitherto in favour of Presbyterians 't will be very probable he had If he had leaving him to prove the truth of them as to the Hierarchy I shall by and by make bold to disprove them as to Presbytery In the mean time we 'le pass on to the next words Or is the offence taken upon pretence that Presbyterians affect and arrogate an arbitrary power would rule by Faction and exercise a rigour to the stirring up of animosities and unquiet humours A. No the offence is not taken upon pretence as that 's contradistinct to proof but upon sufficient evidence that they are arrogant factious persons and very prone to stir up and foment unquiet humours by their disciplinarian rigour and though the Nation generally hath not through the mercy of Divine over-ruling providence experimented that discipline yet they say the Londoners had such proof of it in a little time as made them quite weary of Classical-lay-Elder-Tyranny If the goodness of an Almighty power had not prevented it we may well suppose that Presbytery would have proved as imperious and domineering here in England as Bishop Bramhall tells us it was in Scotland Towards particular persons says he Fair warning chap. 11. this Discipline is too full of rigour like Draco ' s Laws that were written in Bloud in lesser faults inflicting Church-censures upon slight grounds as for an uncomely gesture for avain word for suspicion of covetousness or pride for superfluity in raiment either for cost or
without all question are more dangerous not that their Doctrine is as yet so absurd as the Puritans in matters pertaining to Manners Government and Order of Life nor that their Intent is manifested as yet to be more malicious against both Church Commonwealth Prince and Peer than the Puritans are but because the means and their manner of proceeding is more covert more seeming substantial more formal and orderly in it self and therefore are the more dangerous because of the two they are more like to prevail by managing of whatsoever they take in hand and the rather for that their grounds are more firm their perswasions more plausible their performance more certain as having many singular fine wits among them whereas the Puritans have none but Grossum Caputs so that if matters come to hearing and handling between Jesuits and Puritans the latter are sure to be ridden like Fools and come to wrack In the second Article the same Author proposes this Question Whether the Jesuits Doctrine abstracted from matters of Faith and Religion come nearer in matters of life and manners to the Protestants or to the Puritans His Answer whereunto is That Jesuits are in this respect all wholly Puritans and therefore says he do some for distinctions-sake call the one Puritan-Papists and the other Puritan-Protestants Then he lays down a parallel between the Jesuits and the puritans in twenty five particulars Some whereof are That they agree in calling themselves the Saintlybrotherhood in scoffing scolding and ignominious disgracing speeches Puritans against the Bishops and English Clergie Jesuits against the Bishops and Prelates of Rome in refusing to have any Superiors in acknowledging no obedience due I suppose he means to any Ecclesiastical dignity though dissemblingly they will yield it The Puritans labour to pull all Bishops down and to have none but Superintendents in England and have already made havock of all such in Scotland and the Jesuits will let no Bishops be in either Realm if they can keep them from the superiority over them The Jesuits check and controul both Pope and Prince as at least their equals and the Puritans controul both Princes and Prelates as if they were their superiors c. At last he concludes that the Jesuits and Puritans do come nearest together in platforms though both opposite one to another in intention as far as may be The use that may be made of these passages is this since the Puritans of former times were if these pictures of them be rightly drawn of such an ugly complexion 't is no great wonder 1. That the hatred of Prelatical Protestants against Puritans was as that Venetian Agent observes greater than against Catholicks those Catholicks I presume he means who were of the Widdringtonian perswasion in reference to the obedience due from subjects to Kings and Princes for the Widdringtonian Catholicks were more opposite to those Jesuitical principles and practices which are so prejudicial to the Authority of Kings and Princes than such Puritans were Nor is' t a wonder 2. That the hatred of such Catholicks was greater against Puritans than against Prelatical Protestants for such Protestants differed from such Catholicks not so much about matters of Government and obedience as matters of Faith but such Puritans were opposite to them in both in a very high degree Nor 3. was it wonderful that the hatred of Puritans was greater against such Catholicks than such Protestants Because such Catholicks are more opposite to such Puritans than Prelatical Protestants are for these Protestants differ not so much from those Puritans about matters of Faith as of Order Discipline and Government but those Catholicks differ from them in both Nor is it strange 4. That both such Catholicks and such Protestants did easily combine together for the ruine and rooting out of Puritans for those Puritans entertained such principles as were inconsistent with that obedience which both such Catholicks and such Protestants Widdringtonian Catholicks and prelatical Protestants acknowledged to be due from subjects to their Soveraign upon which score also both those parties were eagerly bent against Jesuits And now much good may these notable observations out of the Venetian Agent 's story do this Author who p. 39. 49. thus argues Papists impose the name of Puritans on such as retain the old Protestant spirit of antipathy to Rome therefore in the Puritan party lies the heart and strength of averseness and enmity to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church Which is so far from being what he is pleased to term it a good Argument that 't is a mere sophism unless he can prove that Papists therefore call some men Puritans viz. merely because of their averseness to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church but that they do not call any so on that ground is evident from this that they do not call all by that Name who are resolute enemies to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church The Venetian Agent by this mans own confession p. 38. 48. called that Faction in the Church of England Puritans because being seasoned and initiated with the Doctrine of Calvin they judged the English Reformation imperfect and so refused submission to that Form of Policy endeavouring to introduce a purer and more perfect Form of their own This is Puritanism in opposition to that old Protestant spirit which animated our 39. Articles and the Canons Ecclesiastical ratified by Q. Elizabeth and K. James Besides suppose there were any Truth in this assertion that the heart and strength of averseness and enmity to the Heresies and Idolatries of the Roman Church lies in the Puritan party yet unless they are enemies also to those seditious and rebellious principles maintained by some Papists they are not true English Protestants and consequently they deserve not to be protected and encouraged by England's King If mere averseness from Popish Idolatries and Innovations were a good Argument of a good Protestant 't would prove Socinians the best in the world Those Bishops said he in the Church of England who were heartily averse from Popish Innovations were more benign and favourable to Puritans Which signifies little unless he could prove it true of all such Bishops but it may be he understands by Popish Innovations either the old Ceremonies enjoyned by Law or some new Ceremony permitted and allowed perhaps recommended by Law and it had been strange if such kind of Bishops as were heartily averse from such Ceremonies because they fancied them Popish Innovations should not favour Puritans And again If some Bishops in the Church of England were more benign and favourable to Puritans 't is no great wonder since the same Bishops were it seems counted Puritan by the adverse party Indeed both King and Bishops were more benign and favourable to many of them than they deserved which gave them leisure and opportunity to grow numerous to increase and strengthen their party till at last they were too strong both for King and Bishops for the loyal
guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Mr. Love says that Author will not say that the King was not guilty of much innocent bloud left he should contradict himself neither will he say that bloud-guiltiness can be expiated but by bloud lest he should contradict the Scriptures neither can he say but the King was cut off either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Whence I conclude that according to those Principles of Mr. Love the King 's being put to death in that way of Tryal was neither contrary to the word of God nor the Principles of the Protestant Religion c. but a work fit and expedient to be done and 't will be well for English Presbyterians if when the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open it be not revealed to the world that the main reason why they deprecated the putting the King to death in that way of Tryal was because he was not tryed and condemned by Presbyterians nor for their advantage but by those men who hated Presbytery and would not suffer it to domineer any longer For these very men could notwithstanding both the word of God and the principles of the English Protestant Religion notwithstanding the protestation and Solemn League and Covenant yea notwithstanding the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom and the Oath of Allegiance I say maugre all these obligations to the contrary if at least one of them be such an obligation these very men could join with the Presbyterian Lords and Commons in making War against the King and send an Army to shed his bloud in the high places of the Field and therefore if Presbyterians be Protestants and their Religion the Protestant Religion 't was not their Loyalty but the divine goodness and providence wonderfully interposing for the Kings safety that in so many battels kept the Protestant Religion from being stained with the bloud of a King especially as to Edge-Hill-fight if that be true which is affirmed in Fabian Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 79. that Blague a villain in the Kings Army had a great pension allowed him that he might give notice in what part of the Field the King stood that they might the better know how to shoot at him who accordingly gave notice of it and if God had not had a greater care of his Anointed than of their Rebellious pretences that Bullet from the Earl of Essex his Canon which graz'd at the King's Heels as he was Kneeling at his prayers on the side of a bank had taken away his life and the Presbyterian Religion such as it is had been stained with the bloud of a King And though the Presbyterians as the Apology for Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament tells us p. 69. would excuse themselves that they never intended the Kings destruction yet that is a frivolous and foolish excuse For as Sir Walter Rawleigh says truly Our Law doth construe all levying War without the Kings Commission and all force raised to be intended for the death and destruction of the King not attending the sequel and so 't is judged upon good reason for every unlawful and ill action is supposed to be accompanied with an ill intent The Lord Cook as the Apologizer goes on p. 70. speaking fully of all kinds and degrees of Treason 3 Institut p. 12. saith Preparation by some overt act to depose the King or take the King by force and strong hand and to imprison him until he hath yielded to certain demands is a sufficient overt Act to prove the compassing and imagination of the death of the King For this upon the matter is to make the King a Subject and to despoil him of his Kingly office of Royal Government and so it was resolved by all the Judges of England Hill 1 Jac. Regis in the case of the Lord Cobham Lord Grey and Watson and Clark Seminary Priests and so it had been resolved by the Justices Hill 43 Eliz. in the case of the Earls of Essex and Southampton who intended to go to the Court where the Queen was and to have taken her into their power and to have removed divers of her Council and for that end did assemble a multitude of people which being raised to the end aforesaid was a sufficient overt Act for compassing the death of the Queen The Presbyterians says he did offend in this kind notoriously and therefore committed Treason manifestly for they imprisoned the King in divers places and at length in a remote place in the Isle of Wight and all this done by them who were for the most part Presbyterians out of their design to compel the King to yield to their projects to overthrow the Bishops and to take their Lands and their revenues From this we may judge how agreeable Presbyterian actions were to the Constitution and Law of this Kingdom and how manifest it is that they must in Law be reckoned King-killers as well as the Army and if the Law of the Nation damn them to such a guilt and punishment on earth there is no Gospel that I know of will save them from Hell without a repentance proportionable to their Crimes which for ought I see they are hitherto so far from thinking a duty that they rather go about to justifie their former actings by returning again as far as they dare to the same follies that ushered in their former war and at first embrued the Nation in bloud Nor do I believe that they who took away the Kings life in that way of Trial acted upon any more treasonable and rebellious Principles than are owned and taught by some Presbyterian writers of the first magnitude both French Scotch and English The truth whereof I doubt will be very evident to him that can get and will peruse these Presbyterian Scripts Buchanan's de jure regni apud Scotos Knox's Appellation Vindiciae contra Tyrannos by Junius Brutus supposed to be either Beza or Hottoman David Paraeus his Commentary on Rom. 13. burnt at London and Oxford in King James his reign for its seditious Maxims Goodman an intimate Friend as 't is said of John Knox's his book of the same nature and tendency Rutherford's Lex Rex I find in Bishop Bancroft's Dangerous Positions B. 1. Ch. 2. speaking of Calvin's reforming at Geneva these words Since which time as I suppose it hath been a principle with some of the chief Ministers of Geneva but contrary to the Judgment of all other reformed Churches for ought I know which have not addicted themselves to follow Geneva that if Kings and Princes refuse to reform Religion the inferiour Magistrates or people by direction of the Ministry might lawfully and ought if need required even by force and Arms to reform it themselves And Ch. 4. This Position is quoted out of Knox that the punishment of such crimes as touch the Majesty of God doth not appertain to Kings and
chief Rulers only but also to the whole body of the people and to every member of the same as occasion vocation and ability shall serve to revenge the injury done against God That the people are bound by Oath to God to revenge to the utmost of their power the injury done against his Majesty That if Princes be Tyrants against God and his Truth their Subjects are freed from their Oath of obedience And out of Bucanan these That the people may arraign the Prince bestow the Crown at their pleasure that the Ministery may excommunicate him that an excommunicate person is not worthy to enjoy any life on earth that it were good that rewards were appointed by the people for such as should kill Tyrants And Ch. 5. To this objection God places Tyrants sometimes for the punishment of his people this answer given by the Reverend Bucanan so doth he private men sometimes to Kill them And this new Divinity says the Bishop of dealing thus with Kings and Princes is not held only by Knox and Bucanan but generally for ought I can learn by most of the Consistorians of chief name beyond the Seas who being of the Geneva humour do endeavour by most unjust and disloyal means to subject to their forged Presbyteries the Scepters and Swords of Kings and Princes as Calvin Beza Hottoman Ursin as he cometh out from Newstadt vindiciae contra Tyrannos Eusebius Philadelphus c. These also B. 2. Ch. 1. I find out of Goodman Evil Princes ought by the Law of God to be deposed and inferiour Magistrates ought chiefly to do it It is lawful to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants when Magistrates cease to do their duties in thus deposing or killing Princes the people are as it were without officers and then God gives the sword into their hands and he himself is become immediately their Head for to the multitude a portion of the Sword of Justice is committed And out of him and a Book of Obedience these If neither the inferiour Magistrates nor the greatest part of the people will do their Offices in punishing deposing or killing of Princes then the Minister must excommunicate such a King any Minister may do it against the greatest Prince God will send to the rest of the people who are willing to do their duty but not able some Moses or Othoniel by the word of God a private man having some special inward motion may kill a Tyrant Or otherwise a private man may do so if he be commanded or permitted by the Commonwealth Now if some inferiour Magistrate a handful of the people yea one man may kill a Tyrant an evil Prince one that refuses to reform Religion this implyes that the same person or persons may be a Judge or Judges whether such or such a King be a Tyrant an evil Prince a refuser to reform and consequently one that deserves death or no. Upon such wicked principles as these dictated and taught by Presbyterian Oracles in conjunction with this minor that the late King was a person so criminal as to deserve death which they that ordered his Trial took upon them to be Judges of as they might well by these now mentioned principles horrid Regicide was pathetically recommended to his Auditors at Vxbridge-Treaty by Mr. Christopher Love a Presbyterian Minister of London and long after that perpetrated by Order of a part of the people some Commons and the High Court of Justice who adjudged the King to be thus criminous and apologiz'd for by John Price Citizen of London in his Clerico-Classicum as an Act agreeable enough to the declared judgment of many protestant he means Presbyterian Divines in testimony whereof he quotes several passages out of Presbyterian Authors p. 32. to 35. which pamphlet if the Title-page deceive us not may serve as a brief answer to that Vindication of the London Ministers here spoken of And indeed 't is a discourse so abounding with strong and rational Arguments ad homines that I doubt 't is beyond the skill of a Presbyterian to give a solid and satisfactory reply to it From all which it follows that either the presbyterian Ministers of London must damn the now mentioned Principles and Tenents of those their presbyterian Ancestors and their own opinions also at the Vxbridge-Treaty if they were the same with Mr. Love's one of their Tribe or else they must justifie this inference That the taking away the life of the King in that then present way of Trial was rather a duty than a crime Which though it be a wretched and Traiterous conclusion yet is very regularly deducible from those principles And I appeal to any intelligent and ingenuous persons and desire them to tell me whether the murderers of the late King did infer that bloudy Corollary from any more treasonable and rebellious Theorems and Consectaries than these which I have now produced and whether Independents did not in justifying that horrid Fact write exactly after those Copies which Presbyterians both ancient and modern had set them And hence I think I may reasonably affirm that those principles of the Protestant Religion which are contrary to King-killing are no otherwise owned by such Presbyterians as I have now spoken of than as most Presbyterians say that Papists own some Articles of our Faith viz. damnably because they hold together with them other principles which consequentially overthrow those Articles And therefore 't was but a vanity in the London Ministers to vindicate themselves by speaking of those principles as opposite to that way of Trial a greater folly was it to produce the solemn League and Covenant which in the third Article talks so loosely and crudely of defending the Kings person and Authority that Presbyterians might without offering any violence to the words plunder him of all his Authority and both they and the Independents take away his life notwithstanding that Article whensoever they should think fit to determine that the true Religion and Libertie of the Kingdoms could not be defended and preserved unless the Kings person and Authority were destroyed But in the fourth Article there 's as clear and smooth a way opened to the commission of that heinous sin as the most forward Actors in it needed to desire for there the Covenanters are bound with all faithfulness to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be Incendiaries Malignants evil Instruments that they may be brought to publick Trial and receive condign punishment not only as the degree of their offences required or deserved but also as the Supreme Judicatories whether de facto or de jure we are not certified of both Kingdoms respectively or others having power from them for that effect should judge convenient So that since the men who ordered the Trial of the King were at that time de facto the supreme Judicatory of England and since they look'd upon him as an Incendiary and evil Instrument and therefore to be brought to publick Trial and the