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
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
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
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