For as much as divers complaints have been made to our Soveraign Lord the King by the Commons in this present Parliament Our Soveraign Lord the King hath ordained This will certainly shew the Legislative power to have been solely in the Kings Majesty in those dayes and therefore discovers the foolery to say no worse of those who upon that head assert a partition of that important piece of Soveraignty between him and the two Houses Be it enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament or Lords and Commons began in H. 7. time but that that variation of phrase should make such a considerable alteration of Government and no notice taken either by the King that parted or the people who received by it so large as is pretended a share in the Government is not easily imaginable Sure their apprehensions were very small of it the notice they took of it being so little We finde after that not to insist upon each act or reign which would be tedious and he that doubts may consult the Books Anno 1. Eliz. The Lords and Commons her majesties humble and faithfull Subjects most humbly beseeching that it may be Enacted c. And in the Act of Uniformity among others it is Be it Enacted by the Queens Highnesse with the assent of the Lords and Commons c. to which those words likewise inserted in some places of that Act by authority of this present Parliament cannot be thought without great imputation of folly to those members to be repugnant and the straining of those words is all that he can rely on I might here urge the old form Anno. 13. Eliz. Be it Enacted by the Queens most Excellent Majesty with the Assent c. among many others I will onely cite one of 4. Jac cap. 1. Be it Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty with the Assent of c. Now to speak of the fundamentall partitian of the Soveraignty in the very constititon of the Government and to make it out by a phrase newly taken up and to take no notice of the old forms The King Grants the King Wils the King provides argues one very desirous to say some thing in a bad matter but when this form is it self varied and in many Acts both are used sure the latter was never intended to evacuate the former and it is very unlikely so great a change of the Legislative power would passe without any notice either of King or People it deserved at least one Act or Parliament to have transmitted it to posterity when alas we finde even in King Charls his dayes an Act framed according to the old regular way in the Petition of Right even there when we were not sure giving away nor unmindfull of our liberties To the Kings most excellent Majesty in which the Lords and Commons do humbly pray that no such thing as they Complained of c. To which the answer was Soiâ— droit come est desire The Laws are alwayes called the Kings laws but very improperly if this new doctrine be true I conclude all with the words of Bracton an Author the Antimonarchical party make much use of Quod Principi placuit i. e. non quicquid est à Rege temere ex animi perturbati impetu quodam aestu praesumptum sed quicquid ex Magnatum suorum consilio REGIO Assensu Authortatem praestante habitâ super hoc deliberatione tractatu recti fuerit definitum legis habet vigorem What the reason and the effect of their assent is is not hard now to judge men have been so often taught to say that because they must assent to the making of Laws they have a part of the Legislative power in them and will call it non-sense and absurd to think otherwise I will cite Grotius cap. 3. de jure belli Sect. 18. and I the rather cite him because living in a Popular State he naturally favoured it so much as in this point especially of sharing in the Government he shewed himself tender of the peoples Rights Multum falâ—unâ—â—r qui existimant cum Reges acta quaedam sua nolunt esse rata nisi à Senatu probentur partitionem fieri potestatis nam quae acta in eum modum rescinduntur intelligi debent rescindi regis imperio qui eo modo sibi cavere voluit nèquid fallaciter impetratum pro verâ— ipsius voluntate haberetur which is not much different from what we cited out of Bracton The sum of which is this when the assent of the Senate is necessary to any of the Kings Acts it is not that they share in the doing but that they truly â—nform the Kâ—ng what it is he does He cites the example of Antiochus who wrote as our Kings use Nè sibi parerent siquid legibus adversum jussâ—sset They should not obey him in things contrary to law And Constantine nè pupilli aut viduae those forlorn people should not lose their priviledges etiam si Imperatoris rescriptum proferatur though by order under the Emperors own hand and yet the world took never any for their equals or them for any other then Soveraign Princes The same Author Sect. 1â— Non desinere summum esse imperium etiamsi is qui imperaturus est promittat aliqua sui ditis aut Deo etiam talia quae ad imperii rationem pertineant A Soveraign ceases not to be so though he promise his Subjects not to exercise by himself some parts even of the Soverâ—â—gn power Adrian the Emperour swore he neveâ— would punâ—sh a Senatoâ— without the assent of the â—enate which was a greater priviledge then our members can plead yet never any was so fond as to take them lesse for Subjects or him for Soveraign Princes upon the misinformation of corrupt men may doe much to the grievance of the Subjects if they to avoid this inconvenience to the people shall provide so for their security as to promise not to exercise such parts of their power without their advice and assent first in a Common Counsell assembled our old style they shew themselves unworthy of such an Act or grace who will interpret it to the disadvantage nay to the dethroning of him that passed it To apply it to our particular case suppose the King hath graciously promised not to leavy money on his Subjects without their assent first had in Parliament The King now cannot do it the King hath so far restrained the exercise of his power but is by this any power placed in them grant they had it will not reach their purpose The King cannot leavy mony without their assent but is there any law that gives them power to leavy any without his though they may give mony to the King I doubt it will puzzle a good Lawyer to prove they can give the Subjects money to themselves without which I doubt Contribution Excise and those other fine words was but Theft and Robbery That the assent of the two Houses
The Rebels Plea OR Mr. Baxters judgement Concerning the late Wars in these Particulars viz. The Originall of Government Coordinate and Legislative Power in the two Houses Third Estate Force upon the Houses in 1642. Principles the Houses went by at the beginning destructive to Monarchy Covenant Reasons for submitting to the late Government LONDON Printed by Thomas Mabb and are to be sold by Henry Brome at the signe of the Gun in Ivie-lain 1660. The Rebel's Plea Examined THe Writers of the Parliament side asserting highly the Liberty of the Subject think they oppose those of the Kings who plead strongly for Subjection to Rulers which are things no way inconsistent for it is very evident rulers doe not take away but preserve our Liberty Men being of the same nature desire the same things what every man desires none can securely enjoy the natural inequality between men being so little the mutuall yeelding would in all likely-hood be little also The title of the strongest though the best would be too weak to hold long some one or more would quickly over-match any that could pretend to that every bodies right was apparently no if any had the good or ill shall I call it luck to have any wealth it was according to Davids curse to him an occasion of falling By the inconveniencies that attend the want of Government we finde out the nature of it First Our inability singly to defend our selves from our own Country-men and from strangers made it necessary we should part with all our power into anothers hands that he might be so able to defend us from both seeing that from both we were in danger to receive injury in every thing we value Secondly Because we are capable of so much wrong and too apt to apprehend our selves wronged when we are not we must resigne whatsoever Power of Judging or Redressing we have in our hands into his hands and for the Publique safety are obliged to submit to his though it may seem to us an erronious and partiall judgment a thing though highly rationall and of great import to the generall yet not to be expected from selfish or opinionative men unlesse the Magistrate hath a compulsive Powerâ— which alone though we have no fear of Forreigners were ground enough to put the Sword and Scepter into the same Hand Supposing therefore Power to have originally been in the People which shall be afterwards examined it will not at all upon pretence of misuser entitle them to snatch it back any more than I can forcibly take away what I gave because I can prove it was once mine If the people are still Judges of what is to the publick good and have the Power of the Sword they are what they were before they were no Subjects But Mr. Baxter tells us not after the rate of Mr. Calvin who thinks it possible for the tres Ordines Regni to have a Power of resisting Princes but according to the worst principles of his most Scotized followers The People may Fight against King and Parliament both for the Common good if they be both against it Thes. 365. Of Obedience and resistance Kings conditions are very little bettered by those men who free them from the Popes Supremacy in ordine ad bonum spirituale and subject them to the Peoples in ordine ad bonum Publicum But it 's strange that the multitude for what else can the People signifie distinct from and opposed to the King and Parliament that the multitude I say should by Mr. Baxter be thus solemnly invested with the highest piece of Regality the Judging of the publique good whose â—ncapacity Levity Ignorance Naughtinesse Unaptnesse for even the meanest employment of this nature In his Book against Harrington he labours to demonstrate see his twenty Arguments against Popular Government King Iames in the Conference at Hampton Court told us out of experience how zealously the Presbyterian Ministers defended the Kings Power in Spirituals while there was need of it to pull down the Pope but that being done more wisely put it into their own hands So now it seems it shall fare even with Parliaments While the King could not be pulled down but by that Assemby their Omnipotency was every where proclaimed but now they must learn too to use the Power the People gave them for their good or else the people may take it from them But secondly This Tenent is destructive of its very pretence as being extreamly opposite to the publique good because to the peace of the Nation which is the onely time in which we can securely enjoy the benefit of the Governours care of the publique Affaires by having opportunity of following our private ones There is much fault to be found in the Administration of perhaps every Nation in the world private men injured by corrupt Officers c. But that the inconveniences are so great in any one place that it should be the concernment of the maâ—ority of the Nation to redresse them by a War whose effects aâ—e so calamitous and universall I durst be tryed by any besides the Needy Ambitious and Discontented men of the same place Man is by Nature a sociable Creature which though Mr. Hobs denyeth because another had said it before him is evident in this that if a man were furnished withall the delights the most wanton can fancy and freed from the feare of any assaults yet to be totally debarred the company of men would make all his pleasures irksome nor is there any other imaginable reason to be given how men of even good parts spend a very vast proportion of their time in hearing the flat and impertinent discourses of idle and weak men and women were there not a sociable principle in our nature so that we can no more put off our delighting in the company of men then we can our being men We are naturally then inclined to society which society cannot be maintained without Government nor Government possibly without the power of the Sword the natural right of Judging for our selves and maintaining that judgement by what force we can make being the inconvenience that attended want of Government and therefore sure laid down in the very Constitution He therefore that takes up the Sword without nay against the Command of the Supream Magistraâ—e resumes that Right which by mutuall consent all had laid down denies himself his Subject stands upon terms with him as equall which is as much as in him lyes to dissolve the Government reduce all to Anarchy and is therefore not more inâ—urious to the â—rince whose Authority he Usurps then to the Nation whose peace he thus treacherously disturbs Publique good and Liberty are two fine words that engage Nations to their own ruine alwayes insisted upon by those who have not so great a share of Wealth or Power in the present state of Affaires as they think they deserve or at least hope for in the next Change Their discoâ—rses are usually such as these
mechanick Readers amused with that venerable name when in all these cases there is but one that looks toward the Subâ—ect and that too upon the groundlesse fancy of diviâ—ion of Supremacy and with an exception that reaches the Case The Laws in England are above the King because not his Acts alone Whose Acts the Laws are hath been above discussed the consequences of this Proposition I understand not because he hath not done us the favour as to let us know its meaning if it is not more then the words signifie that the King ought to rule according to Law and cannot abrogate Laws at pleasure the King asserted it in all his Declarations In the exactest Monarchies I have shewed there were laws which the Kings were obliged by might they therefore be resisted if they broke them Let us blot then all the precepts of Obedience and Submission out of the Bible as things sit for that pusillanimous if not crafty age And let that patience of the Primitive Christians which made their persecutors admire and love be thought want of opportunity not desire of revenge The King was to execute judgement by his Iudges in his Court of Iustice and his Parliaments was his highest Court By the Parliament meaning the two Houses they are no Court of Judicature the House of Commons have nothing that looks like a Court of Judicature not the power of administring an Oath not the power of Imprisoning any but their own Members notwithstanding the contrary proceedings of those tender Gentlemen of the Liberty of the Subject the Members of the long-long-Parliament whose Committees could contrary to law imprison men and deny them their Habeas Corpus The House of Lord it is true is a Court of Judicature but that is as they are the Court of the Kings Barons whose judgment is but ministerial and not soveraign as appears in this that though they have power to reverse the Sentence of other Courts yet they cannot reverse their own judgment a clear argument their Authority is not soveraâ—gn whose judgement cannot be so far restrained no not by it self For the two Houses joyned together as the ingenious Author of the Case of our Affaires demonstrates they cannot so unite or conjoyn as to be an entire Court either of soveraign as ministeriall Jurisdictâ—on no otherwise cooperating then by concurrence of Votes in their severall Houses for preparing matters in order to an Act and his Argument is very good which when they have done they are so far from having any legall Authority in the State as that in law there is no stile or or form of their joynt acts nor doth the law so much as take notice of them untill they have the Royall Assent Should it be granted they were yet it is as evident there was a force upon the House then as there was in 1648. â—o that neither the House was full or free first for the Commons a very great number of persons fairly elected kept out upon pretence they had some Project Patent or Monoply and kept in Sr. Henry Mildmay Mr. Lawrence Whitaker the first the chief promoter and notoriously known to be so of the businesse of the gold and silver thred a Commission complained of viewed and examined the other as much employed in matters of that nature as any man but they voted as that party would have them Secondly Severall members of their party sate in the House against the consent of the Burroughs they pretended to serve for when such men were concerned and complaints made all the answer the honest elected Gentlemen could get was questions about Elections were of 〈◊〉 private a nature to be considered and would interrupt their proceedings too much If the Election of any such persons hath been heard at the Committee and they voted out of the House as unduely chosen that report must not be made whereby a good member may be lost as in the case of Mr. Nichols Mr. Pyms Nephew and others Thirdly The Scots Army was not suffered to disband that they might awe the King and dissenting members and Mr. Strode blushed not to say openly They could not yet spare them the sons of Zerviah were too hard for them Though the Bishops and Popish Lords had a Legal Right then at least to sit yet they invited tumults to cry No Bishops no popish Lords Nay made a stand at White-hall and said They would have 〈◊〉 more Porters lodge but would speake with the King when they pleased Proof was offered against that Captain who conducted the Rabble and sollicited them to come with Swords and Pistols yet he was not suffered to be brought to answer the intollerable violence upon the members of both Houses The Bishops were threatned to be pulled in pieces as they came from the House they were faine to steale away for feare of their lives see Bishop Hall's Narrative before his last Work The Lords made an Order to suppresse the Tumults but the Commons would not concurr Severall speeches were made in their Justification They must not discourage their friends this being a time they must makeuse of all their friends Mr. Pym saying God forbid the house of Commons should proceed in any way to dishearten the people to obtain their just desire in such a way Were not the names of these Gentlemen that voted not according to the sence of the good members posted up their persons assaulted did not Alderman Pennington Captain Ven brings down armed multitudes to terrify the members when the worser party as they call it were like to prevaile That the liberty of the house of Peers was no better preserved the arguments are too numerous Mr. Pym could tell the Earle of Doâ—er if he looked for any preferment he must comply with them in their wayes Mr Hollu demanded publickly 〈◊〉 the Bar the names of those Lords who would not consent to some propositions concerning the Militia sent by the Commons they got multitudes to deliver Petitions to both houses and to desire leave that they might protest against those Lords-who would not agree to the Votes of the House of Commons as the Petition of Surrey Harfordshire In this Petition of the poor people about London against the Malignant faction it was desired that those worthies of the Upper house who concurred with them in their happy Votes might sit and Vote in the House of Commons as one entire house professing that unlesse obstructions were removed They should be enforced to lay hold on the next remedy which was at hand to remove the disturbers of the peace 5. The four next Sections amount to this Our Rights were evidently invaded Ship money the new Oath against Law men punished for preaching Lectures twice on the Lords day The Parliament remonstrated our danger we had reason to beleeve them there was a generall endeavour to change the face of things among us many new orders brought into the Church abundance of painfull though peacable preachers cast out ignorant scandalous readers
us That the late King was the troubler of England â—s Achan was of Israel subjoyning It was the Lord that troubled Achan because he troubled Israel Oh that in this our State Physitians would resemble God to cut of those from the Land who have distempered it Melius est ut pereat VNVS quam Vnitas In the same Sermon Men whâ—ly under the guilt of much innocent blood are not meet persâ—us to be at peace with till all the guilt of blood be expiated or avenged either by the sword of the law or the laâ— of the sword The Independents 〈◊〉 themselves out of the Presbyterians principles and practises Gâ—odw defence pâ— 94. The Ministers of London themselves and the Church of Scotland Charge him being the greatest Delinquent guilty of the blood of hundreds of thousands of Protestants the bloodâ—est man under heaven He was summoned and Arraigned in the sight of God and his people curst and 〈…〉 worse than any 〈◊〉 or 〈…〉 exhortation to curse all those in the name of God that made not War aâ—gainst him as bitterly as Meroz was to be 〈◊〉 that went not out against the Canaanitish King Almost in all the Sermons Prayers of seven years He was called Opprobium generis humani The most bloody monster and miscreant under heaven That I am so civill 〈◊〉 to spare names I might use in this argument I hope will procure thus much that Mr. Baxter if he thinks fit to reply will do it fairely and calmely However my advantage is not quite lost but remains still to be used at pleasure over persons he very much esteems and for their sakes I believe I shall fare the better That they preached against putting the King to death the Presbyterian Ministers urge strongly and with much applause 〈◊〉 themselves though indeed it signifies as much as just nothing the reason is clear while the Parliament Declared and the Army fought for Presbytery and the King opposed it none were more vehement obstructers of all the designes tending to his restitution then the Ministers for so long they had hopes by that means that all the Lands Power of the Bishops Deans and Chapters the best Parsonages should be divided among them But when the Independents out-witted them and seemed to have perfectly learned their lesson they taught them of declaiming against something as an humane invention in the form of worship of those whose lands they longed for then and not till then they would have been content to have joyned with the King against that Army themselves had joyned with and raised against the King When the Votes no further Addresse were first passed by men they had hopes of which of them then abhominated the dethroning of their Prince I shall make this quere if it be not absuâ—d in so clear a matter to make a quere Whether if the Parliament and Army had joyned together as one man to set up high Presbytery divided the Church lands among them and the King had refused to yeeld his assent to such illegall Acts they would have pleaded the Covenant in his behalf and thus loudly talked for his restitution to his Authority let their friends speak That upon such terms as they pleased they would restore him is no more then the very Army would have done who after the Sentence passed came and offered him conditions They merit the lesse by their last appearing as they call it for the King in as much as in that juncture of affaires it seemed very unlikely they should-subsist without him The Coveâ—ant were exploded every where the Army called it a Carnal thing the Sectaries in the City said it was a thing ridiculous to unhorse Episcopacy and set Presbytery in the Saddle to be rid of my Lord Bishop and doe twice the homage to Sr. John Presbyter their own arguments were retorted upon them the Apostles were not Lord Bishops shew where they had their thousands per annum changed into the Apostles were not Parochial Ministers shew where they had tythes that at such a time as this they would have been content to have been maintained by the Common Enemy against their best friends is what they think highly obliging This was that great piece of Loyalty they would have had the King saved when it was the onely way to save themselves A King Deposed is surely not looked upon as a King by those who depose them now if imprisoning passing Votes of no further Addresse doth not depose a King I would fain know what doth Being in that condition and guilty of so much blood as they all along declared him to be when those words of the Covenant of Bringing all Delinquents to justice without respect of Persons should have come to be considered How much further they might have proceeded had not the power been snatched out of their hands by their Servants as themselves had done to their Master I leave to their past words and works to declare They did indeed recall those Votes of no Addresse and Treated with the King but it was when they could no otherwise be rid of the Army but by joyning with the King and Nation against them and even then they so perplexed the King and protracted time with terms and punctilio's of procedure and were so dissatisfied with whatever the King offered whilest they had the shadow of any power that the Army had opportunity to break off that Treaty the Houses would not end That part of the Covenant that concerns the Priviledge of Parliament Mr. Baxter and his side are very confident they have inviolably observed let us and them consider what was before said of the Tumults and the Scots Army the affronting and assaulting the Bishops and other Lords the posting up of the dissenting Members names of both Houses and which is above all their illegall turning men out for having a hand in some Patent Monopoly or other which they might as well have done for having been guilty of any fault having red Hair or a Roman Nose which action whether it did not null all their proceedings eo ipso as making it no House by feclâ—ding men fairely elected some make a very great question Before I take the Covenant I shall make this one not unreasonable request that I might know the Priviledges of Parliament first and swear to them afterwards one example may not be tedious On the 3d. of January 1641. It was declared To offer to Arrest or detain any member without first acquainting the House is a breach of Priviledge Ex. Coll. p. 35. The palpable absurdity of this Doctrine being discovered by the King in one of his Declarations and other Treatises in Novemb. â— 1642. They declare they â—ave no such priviledge but that any Minister of Iustice may Arrest a Member without order from the House and detain him in custody till be may be brought to parliament Whereas I represented the Covenanters to be pernicious enemies to every Government their dealings with our late Tyrants force me to retract
nature before their constitution and excepted and so secured in it The first of which assertions That the Originall of their government is by contract being the foundation though if granted a weak one ought in reason to have been backed with some clearer evidence then I take it for undenyable I shall make it out that the Originall of all Government was not so which though it is sufficient to overthrow that assertion there being not so much as an offer of any Argument peculiar to this Realm to evince its being so yet I shall say something to that particular A Nation is families multiplyed and a King but the common Father {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Arist. Where the Nations there the Government began in private families {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nor election there The eldest was the Ruler born not made their Soveraign and this sufficiently evidenced by the Kingly power the Power of life and death which in all antiquity we finde the fathers possessed of if there were any need of further proof the small teritories which in all new discovered places of the world Kings enjoy would easily perswade us their kindred and Subjects to be the same Joshua beat thirty Kings Adonizebeck seventy in the small land of Canaan and there might be more for any thing we know But secondly Nations if they chose a King may submit themselves absolutely to him Either 1. to be defended from some potent Adversary they more dread venture a possible extreamly unlikely to avoid a present imminent destruction so the Campanians of old to the Romans Liv. Populum Campanum Vrbemque Capuam agros delubra Deum diviâ—â— â—umanamque omnia in vestram P. C. ditionem dedimus Or 2. Apprehending that Government to be the best as knowing that in such a State the Kings private â—trest is concerned in the publique which canâ—ot so truly be said of any man or side in any how well contrived a mixture whatsoever and withall observing how well other Nations thrive underâ— the Roman Historian though a great adorer of a Republique could not deny but people liveâ— very happily sub imperio planâ— regio under one that was a King endeed Vrbis sub Eumene lâ—berae civitatis fortunam cum suâ mutatam vâ—luisse let others Cities apprehend themselves free under a great many they found themselves as free as they desired under one Ruler It is by this time evident sure that all Government is not by Contract I shall now resolve the above cited Section into these foure propositions First That the Originall of this Government was a bargain between the King and People Secondly The People did reserve some Rights to themselves Thirdly The Parliament are the Trustees for securing those exempted Rights Fourthly These Rights of the People as the people were before the Constitution excepted and so secured in it Of all which Propositions there cannot be one true according to all the Law and History this Age is acquainted with In the most tumultuous later ages past there hath been perhaps something of as good Authority to us as our own proceedings may be to future times I shall oppose onely this Because in all the Chronicles that ever I met with the higher I go the more absolute I finde the King an ill signe of Rights exempted in the very Constitution and the priviledges we now enjoy as to share in the Government were wrested and it is easie to track when by fraud and force from weak or indigent Kings or given as acts of grace and acknowledged with thankfulnesse for such I would desire to be informed when and where we did meet to chose our King whether before we lived without any form of Government oâ— what we had upon what occasion we changed it who were witness to the bargain between the King us where the Copy of it is where is an exact Catalogue of our Liberties for the Parliament being to secure our exempted Rights are I should think to know them Our fundamentall Laws are not I hope like the Traditions of the Church of Rome which no man knows where to find must we look on Parliaments as they on Councels believe what they at present Vote though we know it then to have beginning to have been from the beginning But Mr. Baxter may perhaps startle if out of this very Section as errour and lying frequently are their own confuters which as it is the foundation of most Seditious Pamphlets deserves to be particularly considered I can prove the War against his late Majesty to be Rebellion His Argument runs thus It was not Rebellion Because the Parliament are not his Subjects in one case i. e. as they are the Trustees for the securing those exempted Rights and represent the people as free not as wholly free but as being so far free as that exemption signifies that is as to such Rights as were in order of Nature before the Constitution excepted and so established and so secured in it From whence I thus argue The Parliament could not represent us as free except in those things in which we were free i. e. in respect of those particular priviledges which in the very constitution of the Government were reserved now if this Parliament did fight for any thing which was not so reserved they cannot be upon that head excused and so it was a War of Subjects against their Soveraign Ergo Now whether the Militia taking away the Kings Negative Vote according to the Declaration of May 26. 1642. the 19. Propo. were any of those exempted Rights let any modest man judge If the people reserved such a power to themselves in this fancied Contract it is strange it is not totidem verbis expressed De non apparentibus non existentibus eadem est ratio is a rule in law to avoid uncertainty and dash groundlesse pretences in things of smaller concernment If we reserved a Power of resisting what hindred but our Ancestors who were neither fools nor Complementers inserted not some such clause in the Coronation Oath at least as in the King of Poland Quod si Sacramentum meum â—iolavero incolae Regni nullam nobis obedientiam praestare tenebuntur Against this Capacity of Parliaments of representing the People as free and that in the very constitution of the Government though it is enough to confute it that it is not founded upon any thing in our laws or Lawyers I shall offer briefly these two things 1. This opinion under the glorious name of Parliament comprehends onely the most inconsiderable part of it the House of Commons the Lords representing not the People in any sence but to this head I shall say more when I come to examine how far our late alterations may be maintained out of the principles of those who began the war 2. It is the juâ—gment of â—r Edward Cook in his Preface to â— â—ep Fitzherbert Natur Brevium and indeed the 〈◊〉 coâ—â—ent of Lawyers that
the best way to understand the nature of a thing is to consult the Writ that belongs to it now if the Writ calls them onely to Counsel Conâ—â—lâ—m vestrum impensâ—ri c and De quibusdam arduis negotiis quibusdam some which he was pleased to desire their advice in not what ever they had a mind to be medling in There be fresh examples of latter times even in Qu Elizabeth's days of members sent to prison for mentioning in the House to move the Queen in a thing which highly concerned the peace of the Nation but a thing above their cognisance and it was not muttered at as breach of Priviledge If they had been intended for such sharers in the Soveraignty in the very Constitution of the Government How are the Burgesses so many more than the Knights of the Shire are the meanest Tradesmen more capable of ruling then the Gentry whose thoughts and education are sure more suitable to it That alone were enough to make one think representing to the King the several Obstructions of Trade in all parts of the Nation the greatest part of their errant it being the onely thing they are fit for Adde to this Sr. Edward Cook in Pref. to 9. Rep. reckons it â—p as one of the Priviledges of Tenants in Antient Demâ—sne that they were not to be returned Burgesses to serve in Parliament His next work is to Answer two Objections 1. The Oath of Supremacy saith he secureth the Kings Title against all Foraign Claim either Pope or any other The words of that Oath are plainly these I. A. B. Doe utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Kings Highnesse is the Onely Supream Governour of this Realm and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall Thus far it is as clear and positive as words can make it The Negative part of the Oath which because it hinders not mens designes they are content to take notice of followes and that no Forraigners c. If the King is the onely Supream Governour of this Realm and the two Houses are equal with him in the Government and we may swear this and yet believe that it is time to change not onely our law but our language and the Houses should make us new Dictionaries that we may know what English words signifie The second Argument is one would think convincing The two Houses acknowledge themselves His Majesties humble and loyall Subjects assembled in Parliaments They petition the King the King never them they cannot come unlesse he cals them nor choose to come when he doth call them nor stay one minuit longer than he pleases and yet these are his equals not to say his Superiours but he that hath an equall during his own pleasure hath none at all He warns us to take heed of Titles being it is likely not ignorant that King Monarch Emperor Supream Lord Majesty were every where in the law attributed to the Kings person but of him in his politicall capacity i e. the Majesty Regality of the two Houses There is as little to be found of the Name as the thing What hath been now said may evince that proposition the Soveraign power is onely in the King to be no groundlesse one but of that more hereafter The next Objection is Legislation is the most principall part of the Soveraignes Right But that belongs to the Houses as well as the King Be it enacted by the Kings Majesty Lords and Commons c. Ergo Here Mr Baxter evidently betrays his cause before while it was for his turn the Parliament fought for and represented us as free in oâ— Rights exempted in the very Constitution he referred all to the Originall â—ontract but here part of the Soverainty is proved to be in the Houses by these words â—e it enacted by the King Lords and Commons termes that came up but yesterday and he is so conscious to himself of waving his first plea that he saies he will not go to records and writings i. e. he knows the example of all laws the authority of all lawyers give judgment against him if a bargain was made at first we are obliged to keep it as well as the King nor can we encroach with more honesty upon his original priviledges then he on ours But the King it seems shall be one of the three Estates and the onely one whose rights may lawfully be invaded Neither is it true that the Legislative power is partly in them 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 Supream and Legislative power It is the interest of Kings as well as their duty to make and repeale laws as they suite with or are repugnant to the good of their Country which they can no way be so well informed of as by an Assembly conâ—isting of men chosen out of all parts of the Realm And where there are considerable and distinct ranks of men as the Spirituall and Lay Nobility and the Commons it was fit they should all be heard and consulted with their Interests being divers and sometimes thwarting it was very like their desires would be so too It was this way provided no one part should get a grant by surprise to the disadvantage of the others and thus it was in England and this the reason of demanding the opinion of the two Houses is evident I appeal to the Body of the Acts themselves here I will not insist upon the elder presidents though I might rationally enough from them overthrow the fancy of our Rights secured in the constitution of our Government but that being so universally granted I shall cite Acts of weak Kings and later times Onely desiring this thing of the Reader that he would not think those I quote to be the onely examples to be produced and so possibly think either fraud or force hath caused the people to suppresse their Rights let him but look upon the Statutes he will quickly be rid of any such fond imagination I have therefore purposely pitched upon a weak Prince and insulting Subjects to begin with Anno decimo Edw 2. For as much as our Soveraign Lord the King by the INFORMATION of his Prelates Earls Barons c. Our Soveraign Lord the King by the Assent c. hath Ordained and Established So Anno 12. Edw. so in all other Our Soveraign Lord the King by the Assent of c. hath made these Acts following In the 10. of Edward the 3. where there is expresse mention of Magna Charta Charta de foresta which shews that Assembly not unmindfull of their Liberties or Priviledges yet the same stile continues It is established by the King by the Assent of c. and at the request of the said Knights and Commons In the 25. Edw. 3. The King at the request of the Lords and Commons c. 2. H. 5.
kept in the Irish Rebells declared for the King we should have been butchred by them when they had conquered Ireland The Right of the people to resist their Prince having been examined we now come to the reasons upon which they did it 1. Shipmoney Not to insist upon the frequent practises of our Kings in that nature the consent of so many venerable judges the abundant care the King took to be informed the employments of it to those worthy ends for which it was raised were enough with al ingenuous minds if there were any miscarriages in the getting at least to excuse them But some men with their Loyalty put of their good nature with their Religion loose their civility But Mr. B. ought to have known that the King had relinquished his claim to Shipmoney before the Warr and therefore that could not be a cause of it Kings may confesse and forsake their faults yet some subâ—ects will not forget them Praticall serious godlinesse was a scorne That was not part of the kings cause but it was very suspicious to see men solemnize a few fasts and think that entiled them to eat other mens bread all their lives after to scruple at being like prophane Absalon who wore long hare yet immitate that good man Absalon that could pay his vow and Rebell devoutly The new Orders in the Church amount to no more then this Those to whom the administration of Ecclesiasticall affairs belong to by the Laws of this land observing some neglect order rudeness in the performance of divine service appointed for its future decency some ceremonies neither commanded nor forbidden in the word of God but some of them were used in the Church of Rome whereupon they were esteemed or at least wise called Popish All that can possibly be said against this is that it is unlawfull to use any thing in Divine Service for which there is neither command nor example in Scripture when by the way the latter confutes the former supposing there may be imitable examples in Scripture of things uncommanded there which would make the black and white caps as much Antichristian as the square one Or secondly it is lawfull to use it but not if it be enjoyned but this cannot be said by Mr B. who pleades for the Civill Magistrates Power in matter of Religion though I think he is scarce resolved to allow him any thing may be called Power but that sure is of a strange nature that ceases to be lawfull when it is commaded by a lawfull Magistrate Or thirdly The being used in the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to be used in the Church of England A very pretty principle truly we must differ from them when we have reason and when we have not reason when they reproach us with separation out of pride humour novelty the most rationall way to acquit our selves sure is to make it appeare we gladly will come as neare to them in Doctrine and Discipline as they will to Truth and pure Antiquity We did not in those things conform to Rome but to the Primitive Church and reduce those things as it were ex postlimino to their native innocent usage from which no additionall corruption of any abroad can rationally debarre us The last is a trim devise That the King would have destroyed us by the Irish Rebels who professed to raise Armes for the King Sect. 10. I suppose Mr. Baxter can tell of some in England who professed to fight for the King yet never had his Commission It seems the King must suffer as the Earle of Strafford was said to doe not for what he had but what he possibly might have done hereafter The War against the Parliament was just upon as good a ground we feared they would undo the Church and State with their Army of Sectaries whom they countenanced when he did not the Rebels in Ireland If the King had made use of the money raised for the relief of Ireland in the War at home when the poore Protestants were like to starve for want of it as the two Houses did he might have been thought to have abetted that Rebellion The Parliament could make such an inhumane Order for divertion of that money from the use it was raised for and when the King sent to them to revoke it for their own credits sake if not for the lives of his poor Irish subjects they according to their usuall rant Voted his messuage a breach of priviledge and made use of that mony to fight against him and yet they would be thought friends to the Protestants in Ireland If inferiour Courts of justice may prosecute the execution of their sentence in severall cases against the Kings will and the Sheriff may raise the power of the County to assist that execution much more may the highest Court but the former is true ergo The Argument is this If the Sheriff may raise the posse Commitatûs when by the law he is enabled so to do ergo the two houses may though the Law doth not enable them raise the posse regni Courts of judicature may use such force as doth not disturbe the peace of the Nation ergo the two houses may raise a war is a far fetcht consequence Again The house of Peers is solely the Court of Judicature the major part of which were evidently with the King The summe of the next three leaves is The warr was not against the Kings person or authority nor to change the Government of King Lords c. nor to take away the magistrates power in matters of Religion as appears by Protestation solemne league Covenant Declarations When I consider their Declarations for the King and their actions against him all I can gather is that notwithstanding their bitter remonstrances of the State of the Kingdome their unworthy unexampled ripping up and publishing to the vulgar all the faults and infelicities of his raigne which Parliaments were in a greater measure the cause of in not yeelding seasonable supply without taking any notice of the satiafaction made and care taken by him for prevention of the like for the time to come or the happy dayes men now remember they then enjoyed by which wayes it is easily to render any Government odious to the credulous and undiscerning populacy notwithstanding all this and the seditious invectives of Pen and Pulpit The King stood so clear in the eyes of all men that the being against him was a thing that they durst not own Though they spoyled him of his goods and endeavoured to do so of his good name ruined his friends preferred his most enraged enemies chased him from place to place they said to bring him to his Parliament when they caught him would not let him come thither though they deprived him of all authority as a King by taking it into their own hands his liberty as a man by imprisonment as an husband by keeping him from his wife as a father from his Children as a Christian
from his Chaplaines all which was done before the armies purge though they did all this yet they said and which is most rediculous some of them say so still they were for the King Quid verba audiam cum facta videam Their actions being such their loyall declarations shew them not more honest but more dissembling if they had too openly discovered they would never have compassed their intentions For example one of their first proposals without which there could be no peace was That all officers civill and military all honours should be conferred on such as were approved by the two houses of Parliament see 19. Prop. The People were willing to fight for so gay as they thought it a priviledge Had the English been a little plainer and it was if men had not been besorted plain enough viz Except all the wealth honour power of the Nation be shared among us and our friends neither King nor people shall be at quiet in these termes which differ little in expression and not at all in sense from the former the Nation would scarce have been fond of being undone in order to the procuring of it Some of their Declarations speak very fair as it was necessary they should and it is a great wonder how such wise and wary men suffered others to be so plaine wherein they palpably reduce to nothing the King and Peers To begin with the King see the Declaration of May 26. 1642. Where they declare that they have power to depose the King and the King had deserved they should do so We should not want either modesty or duty should we follow the highest presidâ—nts of former Parliaments See exact collection of all Remonstrances c. published by order of the house of Commons p. 265. Now Parliaments have deposed Kings as Edw 2. Rich. 2. and that the authors of that Declaration had a particular eye upon those monstrous proceedings is evident by the following words All the world knows what they put in act In the same Declaration they deny the King his Negative Vote so that he hath no Vote at all in making or repealing laws which the meanest Burgesse hath nay the meanest Commoner hath at least one that represents him so that the King is the onely man in the Nation except I may now reckon the Clergy too that is in so high a degree of slavery as to be bound by laws he in no sence concurrs to the making of So farr was he in 1642. from being a King that he was not so much as one of the free-borne people of England This new Doctrine they can prove as what could not the two houses do in those dayes from the very forme used by the King to those bills he fancied not Le Roy Saviserà which say they is a suspension rather then a refusall of assent A suspension if it must be called so was ever heretofore a thing of that validity that during it they are not able to quote one law ever reputed in force If they thought the law to be otherwise they might have done very well to have declared all the bills dashed for so many ages for want of the royall assent to be obliging laws But alas that forme intimates another thing not so pleasing viz. That notwithstanding the two Houses are the Kings great councill and have presented their advice in their concurring Votes yet le Roy Savisera the King may advise with other men as it is notorious in all Chronicles to have been the practise and take their advice if he like it better How little of a king they intended to leave him see nineteen Propositions sent the second of June in 1642 it is to be observed what I cite the Parliament in its purity as the phrase is Ex. Col. p. 307. the summe of all which are That all Peers Iudges Councellers Officers civill and military may be approved by themselves all Ecclesiasticall affairs Forts Castles Pardons Censures New Oaths The Mariage Government of his own Children may be at the disposall of the two houses After the forementioned declaration of May 26. the ordinance concerning the Militia these Propositions I would willingly know in what consists the authority of the King which Mr. B. saies he and they swore and fought to defend Certainly they could not call him Soveraign without a jeere If the houses have once this Power let them be sworne to defend us and no longer let us mock God the King and the world with giving an oath to a man to do that we our selves have rendred it as impossible for him to do as the Chaire in his Presence Chamber The King complaines in severall of his Declarations particularly that of August the 12. 1642. of severall insolent speeches which passed in the house of Commons unreproved as of Mr. Martin That the Kings Office was forfeitable that the happinesse of this Kingdome did not depend upon him nor any of the royall branches of that stock and of Sr. Henry Ludlow That he was not worthy to be King of England p. 550. Ex. Coll. He tells them plainly in his answer to their Declaration of May 26. 1642. That of that monstrous language by the help of God and the Law he must have some examination Ex Coll. p 28. But it may be said these things were done in the height of passion when the sence of those grievances they lately fancied they felt was fresh upon them Afterwards they were more moderate as I have shewed how the Parliament went at the very beginning of the Warr upon those principles their freinds now would be thought to detest I will briefly demonstrate they went by the same when the Warr was ended even whilst it continued Presbyterian for I shall not once mention what was done after the seclusion of Members by the Army and shall quote no Historian but him who wrote alwayes for the Parliament Mr May who in his Historiae Parl. Breviatium p. 146 tells us that on the fiftteenth of July 1646. there were propositions sent by the hands of some Lords and commons and Commissioners for the Scots The King looked upon those proposals as derogatory to his Crown injurious to his people as inconsistent with the quiet of the Nation as of his own conscience and therefore demurred upon them The Earle of Lounden tells the King in a trim Oration that unlesse he will agree to those propositions which himself acknowledges very hard ones it is to be feared he would be deposed and the nation setle in another way of Government without him or any of his Posterity The King resolved he would not give them his Crown they must take it forcibly if they would have it after that he was their Prisoner now he was from his evill Councill one would have thought they would have desired him at least not have denyed him to come nere his Parliament His usage was various sometimes their malice made him know what it was to be confined other times more
civilly bitter it allowed him as much ceremonious Royalty as might put him in mind of what he had been About Dec. 1647 for want of something else to do they treat with the King but he must grant foure previous propositions the first and last of which would serve to dethrone him and the other two to affront him which certainly they would never have asked had they not resolved to be denied But great ills cannot be maintained but by acting greater they would not allow the King any power because they feared what they deserved as it is usually seen that they that sin beyond all example think they sin beyond all possibility of forgivenesse so these though they might have had the greatest provision for their safety themselves could imagine so that they needed fear nothing but guilty consciences thought the King and themselves could not both be secure Wherefore on the third of January the Kings refusall tofigne the bills was wholy debated it was strongly urged how the King by denyall of those bills had refused to protect his people viz. by denying to part with the Militia without which it is impossible he should protect them so much as a constable can upon which score their subâ—ection was no longer due it was time for them to think how to settle the Nation without him accordingly upon mature deliberation they frantickly resolve upon it and on the seventeenth of January Vote They will never make any addresses more to the King nor receive any message from him May Breviarium Hist. Parl. p. 18. At the beginning of the War it was necessary for them though they did act quite contrary to say they would make the King a great and glorious King and it was not impossible but some fools might beleeve them but that after these Votes passed publâ—shed and maintained in a declaration set out to that purpose suitable usage they should dare to this day to professe they alwayes were for the King his Person and Authority is arrogantly monstrous unlesse at the same time they voted away their Princes liberty they thought they could vote away his Peoples reasons too It is true they afterwards recalled those Votes and sent some termes to the King which the necessity of affaires caused him to condiscend to but if it he remembred what previous concessions there were what an odious preface how harsh the Propositions were to the disparagement as well as the undoing of all his friends what fear themselves were then in of their own army will think the King obliged to thank them only when he hath nothing else to do How well the Pretences for the King have been seconded with unfit performances hath been in some measure seene the next enquiry must be about the Peers whether the pulling the sun out of the firmament hath been an effectuall way to make the starrs shine more gloriously The Bishops at the beginning of the Parliament were at the least so many Barons if not the third state and had as undoubted a right to fit there as the law could give to any man or men of this Nation they were a more ancient I add and a more considerable part of the Parliament then the whole house of Commons as having part of the judicative power in them which the other had not yet were they affronted menaced and endangered by tumults which the Lords would have suppressed and the Commons encouraged But of this before The Lords seeing the Commons would not joyne appoint a writ by the advice of the Judges to be directed to the Sheriffs and Justices upon divers statutes which issued accordingly to suppresse and hinder all tumultuous resort in obedience to which the Justices and other ministers appoint the Constables to attend about Westminster to hinder that unlawfull conflux of people which the Commons without any conference with the Lords to know upon what reason or what Law that writ was grounded Vote it a Breach of priviledge and send one of the Justices to the Tower Ex. Col. p. 53â— The Bill concerning the Militia a most considerable bill was sent to the King by the house of Commons alone notwithstanding the express refusall of the house of Peers as themselves confesse Ex. Col. p. 59. However they may talk they were for the old constitution of King Lords and Commons it is evident the grandees were for neither full and free but so many of each as would serve their turne After the bill for the Militia had been rejected twice in the house of Peers it was contrary to all law reason Presidents forced upon them again and to fright the Peers into agreement it was said there That whoever would not consent c. was an enemy to the Commonwealth and the same day Mr. Hollis contrary sure to the freedom of Parliaments demanded to know who were against it much to this purpose may be read in Ex. Col. p. 547. 548. What was that ridiculous proposall that the minor part of the Lords might joyn with the Major part of the Commons That threatning Petition that they might protest against the dissenting Lords and that other that the good Lords might sit in the same house with the Commons but devices to aw the Peers What was the unparliamentary course of forcing bills upon the House of Lords after severall times being cast out but a down right telling them they were resolved to take no deniall The House of Commons made an order against an established Law concerning the Common Prayer the Lords made an order for the observance of it which the Commons very mannerly declare against the nineth of September Ex Col p 526. The house of Peers was certainly of very great authority when an Order of theirs in behalf of an established law was not equivalent to one of the lower House in direct opposition to an established law Again The protestation being so early whatever the meaning was the termes in common prudence ought not to be too offensive but presently they perceived that their surest friends the haire-brained Sectaryes would not endure to be bound to observe the Doctrine of the Church of England Whereupon those words in the protestation were explayned by a declaration of the house of Commons onely to be intended onely so sar as it is opposite to Popery The house of Peers taking an Oath to be too sacred to admit of so jugling an interpretation refused to joyn with them in it Presently the house of Commons who would accept of the Peers assent when it might be had and when it could not would act without it so excellent observers were they of the ancient constitution voted it by their sole authority That all people who would not take that Protestation so interpreted unfit to bear any office in the Common-wealth After all these actions I hope a few good words will not acquit them Nor will it signify any thing with intelligent men what is next urged That The Covenant was for King and
Parliament The Covenant is lyable to more exceptions then at present I am willing to take the very designe was extreamly scandalous and as great a blow to Religion I am perswaded as it ever receiâ—ed in the world as representing it to be the parent of the worst of vices rebellions sacriledge and perjury some men have adventured to teach that God is the author of all sin these men come very neer them that can do the worst of Villanies upon his score fear God and break his commandements and all upon the newly revealed Doctrine of Piety and Plunder Surely Humility Patience self-deniall taking up the Cross loving enemies praying for persecutors are things commended only to pusillanimous and morrall men Hath the spirit that came down upon Christ in the forme of a Dove appeared since in the shape of a Vulture or a Roman Eagle was it weaknesse not religion that kept the primitive Châ—â—stians obedient must whatever they said about Rebelion be construed with this tacite reserve untill we have an opportunity We read in Scripture of a blessing laid up for those who in defence of Christ and his truth part with their Lands Houses or Life but not of any for those who upon that score invade other mens That there were no rewards appointed for those who killed Tyrants Buchanan esteemed it as a defect in policy and it is one in religion too He might as easily observed it to be an omission in the Law of God as man The quarrel was not then about Doctrine so much as discipline our articles were esteemed Orthodox our discipline not appostolick enough Their discipline in terminis in Scripture and as a command to introduce it with fire and sword in defiance of Prince and Laws are surely to be found in the same chapter These tender Consciences are very prety things that dare not conform to an indifferent Ceremony in obedience to all the authority the law of England takes notice Civill or Ecclesiasticall without an expresse command or example of Christ or his Apostles and yet without either can take up arms against their Soveraign plunder and slay all whose Consciences are not of the same size The Covenant not to mention upon what grounds they who at first Idolized it do now look upon it as an abominable Idoll lyes open to very just and very many material Obâ—ections It being my businesse onely by the by I shall onely intimate those that are so obvious that they cannot escape a very ordinary observer First It is directly contrary to the Oath of Supremacy formerly taken wherein they swear the King to be the oâ—ely supream Governour in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporall which power they there swear to defend and by resolving to reform the Church without nay against his direct Command they now as absolutely with an Oath too deny it Secondly It is contrary to the Oaths of Canonical obedience to their Ordinary Bishops Chancellors c. which those of them which had entered into Orders took and conscienciously observed by swearing their utter exterpation a Government they by subsciption testified to be lawfull which judgement many of them were known never to change till it was their interest the late usuall season of conversion so to do And some think a good Bishoprick would seduce many of them to their old errour again Thirdly Ecclesiasticall affaires never were nor can be by the law of England which they broke even in this very act of Covenanting for the laws as they said consulted on in Parliament but onely to have the civill Sanction and that after the law is expresse they have been determined by the Clergy in Convocation See The Reformation of the Church of England Justified a whole book to that purpose Now whether the Assembly of Divines being not called by the King who alone hath power by the Law to do it nor elected by the Clergy who alone have power to send the true Convocation not dissolved may be called The Clergy in Convocation I will leave to any one to determine and onely observe that as in other illegall Acts the late Powers proceeded according to their example so in this particularly Their naming what members they pleased without Election of the Clergy to sit in the Assembly was a fit President for Oliver Cromwel to call whom he pleased without choice of the Country to sit in the little Parliament The State and Church was pulled down the same way Fourthly The Covenant could not be imposed according to the Doctrine of the long Parliament who Ex Col. p. 859. tels us Men are not to be compelled to be sworn without an Act of Parliament which certainly the Votes of the two Houses are not I shall not prosecute these things any further but observe some few particulars in the Covenant it self and onely wonder with what face not to say with what Conscience men the professed Champions of our Liberty and of no part so much as our Consciences in regard of Oaths imposed even by an unquestionable Authority could on the sudden use such barbarous rigour toward the freeborn people of England for not taking that Oath which themselves had according to the fore-cited Doctrine no power to impose and the others had the â—ommand of the Prince Law and unanswered Reason to refuse at least they could say what themselves once thought enough it was against their Consciences We shall now examine whether there is any amends made in the Materiall Cause for the faultinesse of the Efficient and there is a presumption that it is so sure such good men would not involve their Country in the miseries of a War resist their Prince but in an order to a thing that was very excellent if not necessary That assertion in the Preface which gives chief countenance to the undertaking is a most horrible falsity that it was according to the Commendable practise of these kingdomes in former times and the example of Gods people in other Nations England hath behaved her self so commendably that it is impossible to make it out to have been her practise whosoever swears it to have been untill he can produce his instances if he doth not meet with very charitable persons will be looked upon as one horribly Perjured The Churches of God if there were any before Presbytery Rebelled into a being whose examples may be Rules to us must be either the holy men before the law under the law or the Primitive Christians beofore Religion was made a Bawde to Interest He that thinks there can be a thing fetcht from their doings in favour of this league let him serve that cause so far as to attempt The History of Covenants and see how many examples he can produce of Fighters with their Prince for not introducing a form of Worship they better liked of than what was by law established The Covenants we read of in Scripture were not against the King but with the King nor when the Kings refused doe we
doe not finde that the People ever thought themselves or the Prophets ever told them they were obliged to attempts of that nature I will use my pen no longer in this Argument because it ought to be confuâ—ed by the sword of the Civill Magistrate sure I am it will pull down every Government that doth not pull down it More especially by reason of that clause in the Conclusion wherein each private man swears to go before other in the work of Reformation words of very horrid import as obliging every man to disturb the Nation in pursuit of his own or anothers dreams if he could but fancy it to be a Reformation their full latitude might have been understood if Wallingford house men had continued much longer possibly not to the good liking of the first contrivers but sure to their eternal infamy who first infused into men such pernicious doctrine and then because the horridnesse of it would affright men of any good nature from it bound them to it by an Oath and lastly gave them swords into their hands to justifie the most desperate conclusion the maddest can draw and all this As they shall Answer it at the great Day A little after they expresse a right Presbyterian spirit a vehement desire to see all Christendome in a flame That Their proceeding may be encouragement to other Christian Churches growing under or in danger of the yoake of Antichristian Tyranny to joyn in the same or like Association or Covenant In which words all people whose Princes are Papists or something else which they did not stick formerly to call Antichristian are absolved from their obedience and encouraged to Rebell and those who are not under the yoke yet if they are in danger of being so and how small a thing creates such a danger England may remember they may be rid of that and their Allegiance together and provide for their security as they please Here is a great want of Prudence to give Forraign Princes such timely notice of such projected Rebellions and of the men they are in danger of And a great want of charity to Forraign Churches to represent them all as enemies to the State whereby they may be put out of their good esteem if not protection But some men have Preached and Printed not onely down-right Poâ—ery but Prelacy also and Ceremonies also to be an Antichristian yoke and to be in danger of it hath been formerly accounted to tolerate some things now used what in their judgment is to be done in such a case I must not repeat least they should say I had a design to â—ender them suspected and so odious to the present Government I shall conclude this point with this one note The Doctrine that allows private men to resist Magistrates upon the score of Religion is in it self so horrid black in its consequences that none dare own it that can defend themselves any other way accordingly the fancy of the coordinate Power of the two Houses was entertained with mighty applause by the Brethren of the Presbytery because it salved this grand Objection of Rebellion a sin which after that happy discovery of their being free from they disclaimed against no men more Prove the King Supream and then I will yeeld myself a Rebell so Mr. Baxter in his Preface And so they all acknowledging it unlawfull for Subjects to resist their Soveraign contrary to language of the former Pamphlets Rebellion they gladly acknowledged to be a sin in all men but themselves But that device of coordination suiting onely to this particular juncture of affaires by no means serving to acquit the Scots tumults or Armies or to incense their brethren beyond Sea they having no Parliament or of no such pretence of share in the Government and very like to oppose such designes if they had any such power the Covenant revives the former Doctrine and advises the Churches beyond â—ea to set themselves free as if errour in points of belief did deprive Princes though it doth no man else of his natural or civill power or rights Thus are they loath any one Nation should be peaceable or prince happy We shall now examine that clause of the Covenant themselves so much boast of viz. that concerning the preservation of the Kings person To preserve the Kings Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdome That they deprived the King of all Authority is proved already That his person was not the King themselves acknowledge and contend for â—rgo he is not at all provided for in this Article That the putting the King to death was no breach of Covenant I might prove many wayes but I shall refer Mr. Baxter to Mr. Goodwin his fellow-labourer in the War and Word who in the defence of the Honourable Sentence argues thus shrewdly I think ad homines p. 53. He was not then a King but a Subject and so lyable to processe of law for that blood they so often preached him guilty of Deposed he was saith he by themselves and their party when they denyed subjection to him withdrew their obedience from him acknowledged a power superiour to him viz the Parliament leavyed War against him as a Traitor as an Enemy to the Kingdome chased him from place to place and at last imprisoned his person and there was no clause in the Covenant for the preservation of a person that onec was King Nor doth this Article promise us any thing better when they shot their Cannons directly at the place where their treacherous Informers discovered the King to be they said it was in his defence because in the defence of the two Houses where his Authority forsooth resided Another cast of the same Logick may make it out that deposing nay killing the King if in the defence of true Religion shall be preserving him too because in defence of that where his Person may as properly be said to reside as his Authority where they placed it This Article at the best is but conditionall if he defends what they please to think or call the true Religion and the Liberties of the Kingdome And what his performance was in their judgement I might cite almost all their Sermons Pamphlets Declarations but I will content my self till further provocation with the Admonition of their gude brethren of the Kyrke of Scotland May Hist. p. 108 That he was very much guilty of Idolatry Prophanenesse of the Murder of many thousands of his best Subjects with much more to that purpose If I delighted to render the Presbyterians odious here I might do it to purpose but transcribe some of their Sermons and the work were done I shall for this time forbear and onely use a little which is necessary to my purpose and commonly known and already taken notice of by Mr. Goodwin whose book lying under so publick a Censure is very like to be read by most Mr. Love in his Sermon at Vxbridge told