of the Scotch Discipline and Government which so manifestly erects Imperium in Imperio may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent in Scotland 2. Why they who swear to endeavour to bring the Churches of God in England Scotland and Ireland to Uniformity in Discipline and Church-Government and consequently to endeavour the Introduction of that Scotch Form of Church-Government into England may not justly be looked upon as men that would enervate Monarchy in England also and render it too impotent by setting up there also Imperium in Imperio 3. Why they who swear the extirpation of Prelacy that is Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops c. may not justly be look'd upon as men that would enervate the power of that Monarchy which esteems that Form of Church-Government as a very considerable support and strengthening to it Witness the Aphorism of that wise Monarch King James No Bishop no King the truth whereof King Charles found by sad experience * Dum Episcoporum Jurisdictionem invadunt Anarchae caveant Principes Scitè admodum monet Poeta Tunc tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet ubi enim Episcoporum ditio expugnanda obsidetur ibidem proximè imo potissimè in Regum Principatus irruptio tentabitur S. Clara Apolog. Episc p. 20. 4. Why they who when they had power in their hands constrained our former Soveraign to grant such Propositions as left him only a titular Kingship may not justly be look'd upon as persons that would whensoever 't is in their power again enervate Monarchy and render it too impotent When he hath given a satisfactory answer to these Queries I may possibly trouble him with some more of the like import for I believe there are so many grounds of making this objection that in probability the only reason why this Author could find no other rise of it than what he mentions was because he would not seek it That which he is pleased to mention as the rise is That the Presbyterians were not willing 1. To come under any Yoke but that of the Laws of the Realm Or 2. To pay arbitrary Taxes levied without consent of Parliament To the 1. hoping that whatsoever this Authors words imply to the contrary they were willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of God also at least such of them as they thought would not lie too heavy upon their Necks I answer 1. If they had been willing to come under the Yoke of the Laws of the Realm they would long ago have ceased to be Presbyterians that is shakers off of the yoke of Prelacy and Ceremonies establisht by those Laws 2. If they had been unwilling to come under any other yoke they would not have come under the yoke of the Covenant since it was not injoyned by any Law of the Realm 3. They have not shewed themselves willing to come under the yoke of the Oath of Supremacy imposed by Law since they have been far from a practical acknowledgment that the King of England is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and all other his Dominions and Countries in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes and that the reforming ordering corrrecting of them is by a Statute 1. Eliz. for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm but on the contrary themselves usurpt the power of reforming ordering correcting them without yea against his consent and in so doing they enervated our Monarchy and rendred it too impotent in a chief part of its Prerogative nay too many of them are so far from acknowledging the Kings Supremacy in their actions that they refrain even from a verbal acknowledgment of it in their prayers for when they pray for the King they make a halt at the end of those words Defender of the Faith as if the confessing him Supreme Head in all Ecclesiastical causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons were either Error Heresie or a piece of Treason To the 2. I answer by demanding 1. Whether there be not as much if not more Law for the Kings imposing Taxes in some cases without the consent of Lords Temporal and Commons than there is for their imposing them without the Kings consent 2. Whether the King and his Privy Council are not more competent Judges of the exigency of times and cases in reference to such impositions than Presbyterian subjects 3. Whether any Law of the Land forbids the payment of Taxes imposed by the King without consent of the three Estates viz. Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons 4. Whether it does not equally forbid the payment of Taxes imposed by the three Estates and much more by two only without the King 5. Whether Presbyterians were not willing enough to pay arbitrary Taxes to the Presbyterian Lords Temporal and Commons though levied without the Kings consent and therefore without consent of Parliament and consequently whether that be not false which this Author tells us that they were not willing to pay Taxes levied without consent of Parliament 6. Whether in so doing they did not abundantly manifest that 't was not the arbitrariness of the Taxes but either their being imposed by the King or else their being imposed to such ends as did not serve the Presbyterian Interest that was the main reason of their quarrelling with and contending against those Imposition 'T is therefore too evident that the Presbyterians had a design to enervate our English Monarchy since though they refused not to pay arbitrary Taxes to some Lords Temporal and Commons levied without the Kings consent and on purpose to carry on a War against him yet they were unwilling to pay arbitrary Taxes to the King though levied for the defence of his person and Authority because levied without consent of Parliament Upon which pretence also their great Advocate Mr. Prynne would fain have perswaded them to deny the payment of the Assessments imposed by those powers that routed the Presbyterian Lords and Commons That Author in his Reasons why he would not pay Taxes viz. to the Independent Lords and Commons tells us p. 1. That by the Fundamental Laws and known Statutes of this Realm no Tax Tallage Aid Imposition Contribution Loan or Assessment whatsoever may or ought to be imposed or levied on the Free-men and people of this Realm of England but by the will and common assent of the Earls Barons Knights Burgesses Commons and whole Realm in a free and full Parliament by Act of Parliament all Taxes not so imposed and levied though for the common defence and profit of the Realm being unjust oppressive c. This is sound Doctrine it seems when Independents domineer but in the time of the Presbyterian Tyranny Taxes might be imposed and levied by some Lords Temporal and Commons only without Act of Parliament and yet not be accounted either unjust or oppressive or inconsistent with the Liberty of the Subject The reason was because Presbyterian ambition was cherish'd and
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
guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Mr. Love says that Author will not say that the King was not guilty of much innocent bloud left he should contradict himself neither will he say that bloud-guiltiness can be expiated but by bloud lest he should contradict the Scriptures neither can he say but the King was cut off either by the sword of the Law or by the Law of the sword Whence I conclude that according to those Principles of Mr. Love the King 's being put to death in that way of Tryal was neither contrary to the word of God nor the Principles of the Protestant Religion c. but a work fit and expedient to be done and 't will be well for English Presbyterians if when the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open it be not revealed to the world that the main reason why they deprecated the putting the King to death in that way of Tryal was because he was not tryed and condemned by Presbyterians nor for their advantage but by those men who hated Presbytery and would not suffer it to domineer any longer For these very men could notwithstanding both the word of God and the principles of the English Protestant Religion notwithstanding the protestation and Solemn League and Covenant yea notwithstanding the Fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom and the Oath of Allegiance I say maugre all these obligations to the contrary if at least one of them be such an obligation these very men could join with the Presbyterian Lords and Commons in making War against the King and send an Army to shed his bloud in the high places of the Field and therefore if Presbyterians be Protestants and their Religion the Protestant Religion 't was not their Loyalty but the divine goodness and providence wonderfully interposing for the Kings safety that in so many battels kept the Protestant Religion from being stained with the bloud of a King especially as to Edge-Hill-fight if that be true which is affirmed in Fabian Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 79. that Blague a villain in the Kings Army had a great pension allowed him that he might give notice in what part of the Field the King stood that they might the better know how to shoot at him who accordingly gave notice of it and if God had not had a greater care of his Anointed than of their Rebellious pretences that Bullet from the Earl of Essex his Canon which graz'd at the King's Heels as he was Kneeling at his prayers on the side of a bank had taken away his life and the Presbyterian Religion such as it is had been stained with the bloud of a King And though the Presbyterians as the Apology for Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament tells us p. 69. would excuse themselves that they never intended the Kings destruction yet that is a frivolous and foolish excuse For as Sir Walter Rawleigh says truly Our Law doth construe all levying War without the Kings Commission and all force raised to be intended for the death and destruction of the King not attending the sequel and so 't is judged upon good reason for every unlawful and ill action is supposed to be accompanied with an ill intent The Lord Cook as the Apologizer goes on p. 70. speaking fully of all kinds and degrees of Treason 3 Institut p. 12. saith Preparation by some overt act to depose the King or take the King by force and strong hand and to imprison him until he hath yielded to certain demands is a sufficient overt Act to prove the compassing and imagination of the death of the King For this upon the matter is to make the King a Subject and to despoil him of his Kingly office of Royal Government and so it was resolved by all the Judges of England Hill 1 Jac. Regis in the case of the Lord Cobham Lord Grey and Watson and Clark Seminary Priests and so it had been resolved by the Justices Hill 43 Eliz. in the case of the Earls of Essex and Southampton who intended to go to the Court where the Queen was and to have taken her into their power and to have removed divers of her Council and for that end did assemble a multitude of people which being raised to the end aforesaid was a sufficient overt Act for compassing the death of the Queen The Presbyterians says he did offend in this kind notoriously and therefore committed Treason manifestly for they imprisoned the King in divers places and at length in a remote place in the Isle of Wight and all this done by them who were for the most part Presbyterians out of their design to compel the King to yield to their projects to overthrow the Bishops and to take their Lands and their revenues From this we may judge how agreeable Presbyterian actions were to the Constitution and Law of this Kingdom and how manifest it is that they must in Law be reckoned King-killers as well as the Army and if the Law of the Nation damn them to such a guilt and punishment on earth there is no Gospel that I know of will save them from Hell without a repentance proportionable to their Crimes which for ought I see they are hitherto so far from thinking a duty that they rather go about to justifie their former actings by returning again as far as they dare to the same follies that ushered in their former war and at first embrued the Nation in bloud Nor do I believe that they who took away the Kings life in that way of Trial acted upon any more treasonable and rebellious Principles than are owned and taught by some Presbyterian writers of the first magnitude both French Scotch and English The truth whereof I doubt will be very evident to him that can get and will peruse these Presbyterian Scripts Buchanan's de jure regni apud Scotos Knox's Appellation Vindiciae contra Tyrannos by Junius Brutus supposed to be either Beza or Hottoman David Paraeus his Commentary on Rom. 13. burnt at London and Oxford in King James his reign for its seditious Maxims Goodman an intimate Friend as 't is said of John Knox's his book of the same nature and tendency Rutherford's Lex Rex I find in Bishop Bancroft's Dangerous Positions B. 1. Ch. 2. speaking of Calvin's reforming at Geneva these words Since which time as I suppose it hath been a principle with some of the chief Ministers of Geneva but contrary to the Judgment of all other reformed Churches for ought I know which have not addicted themselves to follow Geneva that if Kings and Princes refuse to reform Religion the inferiour Magistrates or people by direction of the Ministry might lawfully and ought if need required even by force and Arms to reform it themselves And Ch. 4. This Position is quoted out of Knox that the punishment of such crimes as touch the Majesty of God doth not appertain to Kings and
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
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
things legally established their reproaching those that would have upheld them as Malignants Incendiaries and Evil Instruments their choosing to take up Swords into their hands rather than the Cross their being so far from submitting to the King as supreme and the Governours sent by him that they resisted and maintained a long War against both Let him I say evince that such ways as these are the life and power of that pure spiritual and heavenly Doctrine taught in Scripture and owned by all true English Protestants Nor let him be angry that I handle him in this manner and reply thus particularly to his ambiguous generalities since the question now being Whether Presbyterians are the best English Protestants and whether on that account they ought in justice or reason of State to be encouraged It concerned him if he meant to discourse pertinently and clearly to manifest that they practically own those pure spiritual and heavenly Aphorisms in particular which so much conduce to the peace of the State and the preservation of the Order and Government by Law established and that they heartily acknowledge and embrace all that English Protestant Doctrine which is subservient to that end for otherwise the encouraging yea tolerating of them will probably prove pernicious to the State To affirm that the Presbyterian Interest is one chief strength of the true Reformed Protestant Religion p. 35. 45. is much easier than to prove it Let those well known Principles says he which strike to the heart of Popery be brought forth for evidence viz. 1. The perfection of holy Scripture in opposition to unwritten Tradition 2. The Authority of Canonical Books in opposition to the encroachments of the Apocrypha 3. The distinct Knowledge of the Doctrine of Salvation according to every mans capacity in opposition to implicit Faith 4. The reasonable serving of God according to the Word in opposition to blind devotion 5. Spiritual Gospel-worship in opposition to a pompous train of Ceremonies 6. The efficacious edifying use of Religious exercises in opposition to the Popish Opus operatum or work done 7. The power of Godliness in opposition to splendid formality A. 1. I deny this Argument The Presbyterians acknowledge the Truth of these Principles therefore that Party is one chief strength of the true reformed Protestant Religion for either 1. they may own other Principles also which contradict these and consequently weaken that Religion or 2. they may own together with these such principles as are inconsistent with other parts of the Protestant Faith grounded on and actuated by those Scriptures before mentioned and with the English Protestant Doctrine by Law establisht conform to them 2. Perhaps those seven Principles as those many Presbyterians understand them who are said to account our Ceremonies unlawful are no part of the English Protestant Doctrine but supposing they are rightly understood with due limitations and explications they are not all the parts of the Protestant Doctrine nor the chief parts of it as it refers to Government and Obedience which yet should have been most of all considered in the discussion of this Question 3. Independents Anabaptists yea Socinians do as heartily embrace all those Principles as Presbyterians therefore he may as rationally conclude that those also are chief supporters of the true reformed Protestant Religion and consequently to be protected and encouraged in this Kingdom 4. Presbytery may be extinguisht and yet these seven Principles understood in sano sensu may be asserted by Prelatists and consequently the State of England may continue Protestant without Presbyterian aids That Prelatical men assert them as well as Presbyterians this Author denies not only he seems willing p. 36. 46. to have it believed that the Presbyterian Party is more rooted and grounded in those principles which for my part I am ready to believe when I see it proved But 1. This implies that Prelatists also are rooted and grounded in those Principles Whence it follows that England may keep her self pure from Romish abominations though Prelatists only be protected and encouraged by her 2. Till I see the contrary proved I believe that Prelatists are more deeply rooted and grounded than Presbyterians in those and other Protestant Principles so far as they are by Law establisht among us in which sence they sufficiently strike at the heart of Popery even by this Authors own confession p. 34. 44. where he assures us if we may rely on his bare word that Let but the Protestant Doctrine as 't is by Law establisht in the Church of England be upheld and preached and 't will raise up a genuine off-spring of sound Protestants and therefore England may continue Protestant though Prelatists only are encouraged and Presbyterians rooted out which therefore may be done in Justice and Reason of State notwithstanding this Argument to the contrary As for his story p. 37. 47. I observe 1. that the English Roman Catholicks are called a Faction in Religion which is strange language from the pen of a Venetian Agent 2. That the Agent look'd not upon Puritans as Protestants which as this Author tells us p. 38. the Presbyterians complain of as a palpable injury and give evident proof that they of right have as much Interest in that venerable Name as English Prelatists Now really I am much of his mind in this particular if by Protestants he mean such as approve of Subjects protesting against the will the pleasure of their Soveraign and such as deny obedience to the Edicts and commands of Kings and Emperors or lawful Superiors and if Romanizing spirits call this Puritanism perhaps he well observes p. 39. 49. that the more primitive times of protestantism were more leaning to it I add than they should have been and I hope puritans have a greater portion of those venerable qualities than prelatists But if he mean by protestants such as practically own the truth of the English protestant Doctrine by Law establisht in the Church of England in which sence I suppose the Venetian Agent implicitly denied puritans to be protestants I acknowledge the name of protestant in that notion venerable since in that notion 't is a part of Christianity and shall be very glad if this Author can produce any evident proofs that the presbyterians have any right to and interest in that name which till he do he must pardon me if I suspend my assent since himself has given another character of them p. 22. and 29. 32. and 39. and if he had not their practises especially of late years too evidently prove them to be creatures hugely differing from true English protestants forasmuch as the Discipline of the Church of England excludes such Animals from its Communion Watson in his second Quodlibet and first Article proposes this Question Whether the Jesuits or Puritans be more dangerous pernicious and noisom to the Commonwealth of England Scotland or any other Realm where both or either of them live together or apart He answers thus The Jesuits
of Parliament and that inviolably by the 42 of Edw. 3. enacting that if any statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none and consequently the Act of Parliament so called against that Priviledge of the Bishops was ipso facto null and void by robbing the King of his Negative voice of his power in the Militia by making Ordinances without him yea against him and so practically denying what they verbally swore that he was the only supreme Governour in all Causes and over all Persons By their electing new members warranted only by a counterfeit Seal By their taking upon them to create new Judges Justices and other Officers without the Kings consent For Laws and Liberties says J. Jenkins p. 146. have not the prevailing party in the two Houses destroyed above an hundred Acts of Parliament and in effect Magna Charta and Charta de Forestâ which are the Common Laws of the Land And p. 135. The Writ of Summons to this Parliament is the Basis and Foundation of the Parliament if the Foundation be destroyed the Parliament falls The Assembly of Parliament is for three purposes Rex est habiturus colloquium tractatum cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus super arduis negotiis concernentibus 1. Nos 2. Defensionem Regni nostri 3. Defensionem Ecclesiae Anglicanae The King says the Writ intends to confer and treat with the Prelates Earls Barons about the arduous affairs relating to 1. our Royal self 2. the defence of our Realm 3. the defence of the Church of England This Parliament says the Judge hath overthrown this Foundation in all three parts 1. Nos Our Royal self the King they have chased away and imprisoned at Holmbey they have voted no Prelates and that a number of other Lords about forty in the City must not come to the House and about forty more are out of Town the conference and treaty is made void thereby for the King cannot consult and treat there with men removed from thence 2. The defence of our Realm that is gone they have made it their Kingdom not his for they have usurp'd all his Soveraignty 3. The defence of the Church of England that is gone By the Church of England must be understood necessarily that Church that at the Teste of the Writ was Ecclesia Anglicana they have destroyed that too So now these men would be called a Parliament having quashed and made nothing of the Writ whereby they were summoned and assembled If the Writ be made void the Process must be void also The House must needs fall where the Foundation is overthrown thus he And all this was done before those Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian were many of them imprisoned and others forcibly secluded by the violence of the Army So that 't is very wonderful how this Rector of Bramshot could be either so ignorant or so impudent as to utter such an assertion especially since in his own following words which it seems he fancied to be a proof of its Truth a very considerable Argument is suggested to evince it an egregious Falshood For quoth he They had voted the Kings Concessions a ground sufficient for the Houses to proceed on to settle the Nation and were willing to cast whatsoever they contended for upon a legal security Now in that very Treaty at the Isle of Wight the Presbyterian party wrested such Concessions from the King as did in their own nature subvert the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom as is evident from the speech of Mr. Pryn himself concerning those Concessions 3. Edit p. 38. wherein he confesses that the Kings of England have always held two swords in their hands the sword of Mars in time of War the sword of Justice in time of Peace And p. 37. he tells us that in those Concessions the King had wholly stript himself his Heirs and Successors for ever of all that power and interest which his Predecessors always enjoyed in the Militia Forces Forts Navy Magazines p. 36. not only of England but Ireland Wales Jersey Guernsey and Barwick too so as he and they can neither raise nor arm one man nor introduce any foreign Forces into any of them by vertue of any Commission Deputation or Authority without consent of both Houses of Parliament and that he had vested the sole power and disposition of the Militia Forts and Navy of all these in both Houses in such ample manner that they should never part with it to any King of England unless they pleased themselves A security says Mr. Pryn so grand and firm that none of our Ancestors ever demanded or enjoyed the like nor any other Kingdom whatsoever since the Creation for ought that I can find and such a self-denying condescension in the King to his people in this particular as no Age can Precedent Thus the sword of Mars which themselves confess the former Kings of England always held was insolently wrested out of the late Kings hands and consequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation subverted in this particular Besides some Parliaments says he p. 40. in former times have had the nomination of the Lord Chancellor some of the Lord Treasurer some of the great Justiciary or some few Judges of England only but never any Parliament of England claim'd or enjoy'd the nomination and appointment of any the great Officers Barons Judges or Treasurers places in Ireland nor yet of the Lord Warden of the Cinque-Ports Chancellors of the Exchequer and Dutchy Secretaries of State Master of the Rolls or Barons of the Exchequer of England yet all these the King for peace-sake hath parted with to us And p. 41. we have the disposal he might have added Horresco referens of all these Officers in England and Ireland both Military and Civil of his sword of War and Peace his Justice his Conscience his Purse his Treasury his Papers his publick Records his Cabinet his Great Seal more than ever we at first expected or desired Thus horridly was the sword of Justice also wrested out of his Majesties hands and consequently the Fundamental Government of the Nation subverted in that particular likewise Another Concession was that no Peer who should be after that Treaty made by the King his Heirs and Successors should sit or vote in the Parliament of England without consent of both Houses of Parliament which says Mr. Pryn p. 43. gives such an extraordinary new power to the House of Commons as they never formerly enjoyed nor pretended to By which provision p. 44. the Commons are made not only in some sence the Judges of Peers themselves which they could not try or judge before by the express letter of Magna Charta cap. 29. and the Common Law but even their very Creators too And if the House of Commons might justly be term'd any part of the Fundamental constitution of our Nation what was this but to subvert the Fundamental Government By other Concessions the Houses were enabled p. 45.
Practice But the latter clause that they teach obedience active in all lawful things and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the higher power may justly make an impartial Reader that reflects upon their actions for several years together to wonder what this man means by the higher power by things unlawful by obedience active and passive If in the days of the Long Parliament Presbyterian Doctrines and practices in this point were suitable and correspondent the words must be thus paraphrasad Presbyterians taught obedience active in things unlawful enjoyned by the two Houses whom Mr. Herle's as 't is reported seditious invention made only co-ordinate with the King and disobedience active even to bloudy Rebellion in things lawful enjoyned by the King whom by Oath they acknowledged to be the only Supreme Governour of this Kingdom I have read in Philips his Veritas inconcussa p. 23. that in 1642 Presbyterian Pulpits flamed with seditious invectives against the King and incitements to Rebellion and that the people running headlong into it had all manner of countenance and encouragement but those Ministers that preacht obedience and sought to prevent Rebellion were sure to be imprisoned and put out of their places for it Was this for Presbyterians to preach either Faith or Holiness or Obedience active to the King or were those men so good Subjects so good Christians as either actively or passively to obey his Majesty or preach such obedience when they took themselves and exhorted others to take that Solemn League and Covenant which the King in his Proclamation against it calls a Traiterous and Seditious combination against himself and the establisht Religion and Laws of the Kingdom We do therefore says his Majesty strictly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever upon their Allegiance that they presume not to take the said seditious and traiterous Covenant And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose administer or tender the said Covenant as they and every of them will answer the contrary at their utmost and extremest peril What therefore was the taking of this Covenant and tendering of it to others was it obedience either active or passive to the King No but on the contrary 't was active disobedience to his Majesties command and the taking up Arms against the King in prosecution of this Covenant thus taken and cursing those that did not was Treason and Rebellion by the Lawes of the Land and damnable resistance by the Law of Christ And these and other Presbyterian practices were such a palpable contradiction to the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance that in some late reflexions on those Oaths 't is admired with what face presbyterians can now either take or urge them It 's a wonderful mystery p. 41. how it should come to pass that our English Presbyterians c. should especially now of late with so much willingness and greediness themselves swallow these Oaths and so clamorously urge them on others Is it because the Oath of Supremacy has so peculiar a conformity to their principles and that of Allegiance to their practices or that they are so ready and pressing to disclaim and condemn all that themselves have done these last twenty years And a little after Who ever heard or knew to flow from the Tongue or drop from the Pen of a Presbyterian so Christian a Position as is sincerely avouched both by English Protestants and the general body of Roman Catholicks viz. that even in case a Christian or Heathen Prince should make use of his Civil Power to persecute Truth that power ought not upon any pretences to be actively resisted by violence or force of Arms but though they cannot approve they must at least patiently suffer the effects of his mis-used Authority leaving the judgment to God only If this Rector can answer this Question in the affirmative and then prove it true of any one Covenanting Presbyterian Scotch or English within the compass of this last twenty years let him I shall be glad to see it Whether he can do so much or no I doubt as I do likewise whether that Reflecter can prove that that Position as he has worded it is owned by the general body of Roman Catholicks but that he cannot do it of Presbyterians generally or any considerable number of them I am pretty well assured if he can 't will follow that the generality of Presbyterians or a considerable number of them most wretchedly detained that Truth in unrighteousness and for several years together acted most horrid things contrary to their Light Knowledge and Conscience But 't is observable that this crafty Impostor instead of proving that Presbyterians teach obedience active in things lawful and passive in things unlawful enjoyned by the King's Majesty affirms only that they teach such obedience in things enjoyned by the Higher power not telling us whether they mean the higher power de jure or de facto only nor whether their Doctrine will not comprehend the higher power de facto though themselves acknowledge it no power de jure if so be that power will in the main comply with the advancement of the Presbyterian Interest What the presbyterians meant by the higher power in the late divisions was too evident by their practises viz. that parcel minor part of the Long Parliament which favoured Presbytery which opposed the King and made War against him which elected a multitude of new Members by vertue of a counterfeit treasonable Seal Prove that the King was the Higher power in the time of the Divisions says Mr. Baxter Pref. to his Holy Commonwealth p. 23. They declared May 26. 1642. that the Soveraign power resides in both Houses of Parliament as the Author of Veritas Inconcussa quotes them p. 29. who also p. 91. informs us That the Parliament could not be called a Parliament when they had driven away the King who is the Head and Life of it nor they be said to be two Houses of Parliament when there was not at that time when they first raised a War above a third part of the House of Peers nor the half part of the House of Commons remaining in them and what those few did in their absence was either forced by a Faction of their own or a party of Seditious Londoners for indeed the War rightly considered was not betwixt the Parliament and the King but a War made by a Factious and Seditious party of the Parliament against the King and the major part of the Parliament So that a factious seditious part of a parliament was heretofore owned by Presbyterians as the Higher power Nay the chief Presbyterian Advocate was such a learned man such a good Subject and Christian he did so fear God and honour the King as to be able and willing to distinguish between the supreme Governour and the supreme Power of this Nation Sover power of Parl. p. 104. and to teach that the King was indeed the
Supreme Governour but the Parliament by which he understood those two Houses was the Supreme Power which is very strange says Judge Jenkins for who can govern without power p. 57. Whence all that I shall conclude is 1. That this part of the Authors Apology is rather an implicit confession and proof of the crime objected than an Argument of Presbyterian Innocence And 2. That it concerns his Majesty before he resolve to protect and encourage Presbyterians to catechize them very particularly and strictly touching those Loyal principles which this J. C. pretends to be embraced by them that so it may appear whether when they take the Oath of Supremacy they do it not with that Jesuitical or more than Jesuitical Equivocation just now mentioned or with such a mental reservation as will infer their approving now as well as in the late Wars of that Treasonable distinction between the King 's personal and politick capacity and that damnable and damned opinion as it seems Cook 's Reports call it B. 7. in Calvin's Case that Homage and the Oath of Allegiance was more by reason of the Kings Crown his Politick capacity than by reason of the Person of the King whence they inferred these detestable consequences 1. If the King demean not himself by reason his Leiges are bound by Oath to remove him 2. Seeing the King could not be reformed by Suit at Law that it ought to be done per aspertè by force 3. That his Leiges are bound to govern in aid of him all which were condemned by two Parliaments one in the reign of Edw. 2. and the other 1 Edw. 3. ch 1. See Sheringham's Remonstrance of the King 's right p. 75. And yet all these three damnable detestable and execrable consequences are the grounds whereupon the present time of the late Wars relies and the principles whereupon the two Houses found their cause says J. Jenkins p. 10. For ought I know Presbyterians own these principles to this day and so are prepared in mind again to teach men actively to disobey the King yea and to dethrone his Majesty by acknowledging two such Houses and obeying them as the Higher power whensoever they can by their disturbing Arts and Influences in raising and countenancing barbarous and seditious Tumults divide the King from the Houses the Loyal part of the Houses from the Disloyal and then patch them up again by Treasonable Elections and so pack together a company of men whom they will be bold enough to call a Parliament If all Presbyterians are of the same belief with Zachary Crofton in his Berith Anti-Baal they are still of opinion That the Covenant-imposing and taking Lords and Commons were a most lawful rightly called and constituted Assembly the Princes and principal Rulers of the people though themselves swear that the King is the only supreme Governour p. 7. that they were the Princes yea more the body of the people p. 30. That their Oath Covenant was the most positive authentick repeal of any Laws obliging to the contrary p. 31. 51. This says he Mr. Crofton and all rational men do believe That succeeding Parliaments are bound to repeal those Laws which establish the thing which those Lords and Commons had sworn to extirpate p. 31. That their swearing those things as the collective body of the Nation binds all posterity who shall any way succeed into that national capacity 'T is no reason of State for the King when he is able to suppress and reject them to protect and encourage any Party of men thus principl'd and dispos'd and therefore reason of State will put his Majesty upon a curious and diligent enquiry whether Presbyterians and others retain these and the like principles as that the Long Parliament is yet in being which is favour'd also p. 52. and will oblige him to deny them protection and encouragement till they renounce and abjure all such damnable and pernicious maxims In the following Lines p. 55-65 this Author would fain perswade us that Presbyterians must needs be good Subjects to a Christian King because Profaneness intemperance revellings outrages and filthy lewdness were not at any time in the memory of the present Age held under more restraint than in the late distracted times the special reason whereof was because a practical Ministry was more thick set throughout the Nation and the places where Presbyterian Ministers had the greatest influence were most reformed and civilized and the orderly walking of Religious Persons did keep others more within compass Which is no better than non causa pro causâ for 't is evident enough that that supposed effect must be attributed to Presbyterian Ordinances not Sermons and the Executors of them Presbyterian Magistrates I mean Mayors Bayliffs Justices of the peace Constables illegally chosen as the special principal cause without whose coercive power presbyterian Ministers might have preacht their hearts out before they had wrought the Reformation here talkt of especially considering 1. That himself p. 65. pleads for the annexing of some temporal damage and penalty to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction because spiritual censures and then say I much more Sermons pertaining only to the Conscience may be too little regarded And 2. That 't was easy enough for many filthy prophane intemperate persons thus to bespeak many of those practical Ministers as S. Paul did the Pharisaical Jew Behold thou art called a Presbyterian and restest in the Bible and makest thy boast of God and knowest his will and approvest the things that are excellent being instructed out of the Law and art confident that thou thy self art a guide of the Blind a light of them who are in darkness an instructer of the foolish a teacher of Babes who hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law Thou therefore who teachest another teachest thou not thy self Thou that preachest a man should not steal dost thou year after year reap the profits of that Living which by Law belongs to another who was plundered of it by illegal violence and that because he was a more loyal Subject than thy self Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou justifie and approve of the committing Sacriledge the robbing of God as well as man Thou that gloryest in the Law of the first Table at least by breaking the Law of the second Table dishonourest thou God Knowest thou not that he that said Thou shalt not commit adultery said also Honour thy Father and thy Mother Thou shalt not Kill nor Steal nor bear false witness nor covet other mens goods Thou thunderest out rebukes and threatnest damnation against us that are Adulterers Fornicators Unclean Drunkards Revellers and yet thou thy self art notoriously guilty of those other crimes which together with these are usually and equally forbidden and condemned in the same or the next verse and the doers of them sentenc'd to Hell When we lewd prophane and intemperate persons read in the Old Testament that Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft and stubbornness is as iniquity
those of presbyterians because their Kingdom and Tyranny lasted much longer than that of Presbytery 3. I gather that Prelatists had more reason to oppose Presbytery than sectarian Anarchy because if this Author be in this particular a tell-troth presbytery was like to produce a more firm and rooted Schism against the Bishops and a more formidable because more durable rebellion against the King than sectarian Anarchy 4. I conclude that therefore we have great reason to bless God that the Fanaticks routed the Presbyterians and put a period to the dominion of Presbytery since if it had once been setled in good earnest it would either have kept out his Majesty much longer than sectarian Anarchy did or else have introduced him upon such uncivil insolent and imperious terms as the Scotch Presbytery brought him into that Nation and would in probability have forced him to rest content with an Isle-of-Wight-titular-Kingship But 5. I gather that Reason of State forbids the protecting and encouraging of Presbyterians since they are not fit to overturn only and pull down but also to build up a stable and uniform Tower of Babel in defiance to the Laws of God and the King such an one as 't will concern Heaven it self to take cognizance of and to secure its own Soveraignty and Supremacy by exerting its wisdom power and goodness in defeating their Counsels controlling and confounding their ambitious designs It follows This Party doth not run so fast but they know where to stop they are a number of men so fixt and constant as none more and a Prince or State shall know where to find them Whereas 1. The Presbyterian Lords and Commons declared April 9. 1642. that they intended to take away nothing in the Government and Liturgie of the Church but what shall be evil and justly offensive or at least unnecessary and burthensom and yet afterwards they wholly extirpated the Government of our Church and abolisht its Liturgy things burdensom it seems to them at last though not justly offensive and yet these men are so fixt and constant as none more 2. His late Majesty in his Declaration occasioned by the Presbyterian Ordinance for assessing the Twentieth part of mens Estates hath left on record some notable examples of that Parties fixedness and consistency with themselves We have not says the King lately heard of the old Fundamental Laws which used to warrant the Innovations This Ordinance needs a refuge even below those Foundations They will say they cannot manage their undertakings without such extraordinary ways we think so too but that proves only that they have undertaken somewhat which they ought not to undertake not that it 's lawful for them to do any thing that is convenient for those ends We remembred them long ago and we cannot do it too often of that excellent speech of Mr. Pym's The Law is that which puts a difference between good and evil between just and unjust if you take away the Law all things will fall into a confusion every man will become a Law to himself which in the depraved condition of humane Nature must needs produce many great enormities Lust will become a Law and Envy will become a Law Covetousness and Ambition will become Laws and what Dictates what Decisions such Laws will produce may easily be discerned It may indeed says his Majesty by the sad instances over the whole Kingdom But will posterity believe that in the same Parliament this Doctrine was avow'd with that Acclamation and these Instances after produced that in the same Parliament such care was taken that no man should be committed in what case soever without the cause of his Imprisonment expressed and that all men should be immediately bailed in all cases bailable and during the same Parliament that Alderman Pennington or indeed any body else but the sworn Ministers of Justice should imprison whom they would and for what they would and for as long time as they would That the King should be reproach'd for breach of Priviledge for accusing of Sir John Hotham of High Treason when with force of Arms he kept him out of Hull and despised him to his Face because in no case a Member of either House might be committed or accused without leave of that House of which he is a Member and yet that during the same Parliament the same Alderman should commit the Earl of Middlesex a Peer of the Realm the Lord Buckhurst a Member of the House of Commons to the Counter without reprehension That to be a Traitor which is defin'd and every man understands should be no crime and to be call'd Malignant which no body knows the meaning of should be ground enough for close Imprisonment That a Law should be made that whosoever should presume to take Tonnage and Poundage without an Act of Parliament should incur the penalty of a Praemunire and in the same Parliament that the same Imposition should be laid upon our Subjects and taken by an Order of both Houses without and against our Consent Lastly That in the same Parliament a Law should be made to declare the proceedings and judgment upon Ship-money to be illegal and void and during that Parliament that an Order of both Houses shall upon pretence of Necessity enable four men to take away from all their Neighbours the Twentieth part of their Estates according to their discretion Thus his Majesty And yet these are the men whom a Prince or State shall know where to find I might instance in more particulars of the same or worse complexion as to Lay-Presbyterians but I must not pass over in silence some of the Presbyterian Ministers of London to whom Price in his Clerico-Class p. 53. speaks thus If doubts arise concerning resisting Kings and Rulers especially in case of Oaths Vows or Covenants touching preservation of the person of the King as there did from the Solemn League and Covenant then you are ready to give satisfaction and to tell the people that that clause in the Covenant is to be understood not simply but relatively that is is not a single but a complex engagement not an absolute but a conditional clause with many such distinctions It is for the Kings person in the preservation of our Religion and Liberties and though the King should be destroyed by you you have notwithstanding kept your Covenant But p. 54. when the War is ended the Enemy vanquish'd the Liberties of the people recovered c. if they bring not the spoil of their victories and lay them down at your Feet and if they that sit at the stern do not lay aside all other business and do nothing else but build your Palaces then p. 55. you temper your Sermons and turn your Tongues your Lines your Language for the Royal Interest and p. 27. fly to that part and Article of the Covenant engaging for the preservation and defence of the King's Majesties person and Authority and p. 35. plead it against the Parliament and Army for
those two Houses who were far enough from either deserving or being capable of the Title of the Parliament of England might discharge men from the obligation of this Oath for they imposed the Negative Oath and made men swear that they would not directly or indirectly adhere to or willingly assist the King in his War against the Forces of the two Houses which Negative Oath being contrary to that of Allegiance could not with any colour of reason or conscience be imposed or taken unless the imposers and takers were perswaded of the truth of that principle viz. that the Presbyterian Lords and Commons had authority to discharge men from the obligation of that Oath and yet these are the men that are so fixt and constant as none more and so setled in their principles that a Prince or State may know where to find them words that for ought I see have no Truth in them at all unless understood in this sence that a Prince may be sure to find Presbyterians constant to their self-Interest though not to their Principles and fixt and diligent in designing methods and carrying on contrivances in opposition to legal establishments for the thrusting up Presbytery into the Throne and the forcing of Majesty and Prelacy to embrace a Dunghil It follow p. 57. 67. They do not strain so high but they consider withal what the Kingdoms of the world will bear and are willing to bring things to the capacity of Political Government I suppose the mans meaning is this That Presbyterians are somewhat cautious and circumspect for their own safety They 'l venture their Ears before they hazard their Necks and contenting themselves with deserving a Dungeon only at first will take heed of meriting the Gallows till they are able to safeguard themselves from the sword of Justice by unsheathing that of Rebellion They 'l consider whether the Kings of the world have indeed the power of their respective Nations in their hands or no and whether if they have it 't is probable they will bear the sword in vain or execute vengeance with it on them that do evil In order whereunto they 'l feel their way it may be step by step first by talking seditiously in private Conventicles then by railing and reviling Loyal subjects in the Pulpit then by slandering inferiour Governours and rendring them contemptible and odious unto the people and afterwards by raising jealousies and envious malicious passions in mens minds against the Supreme and if he let the sword of Justice rust in the scabbard till by the predominancy of a tumultuous rabble aided and abetted by some seditious malignant spirits among the Nobility and Gentry he 's disenabled from drawing it either at all or to any purpose then those pawns and Rooks will strain so high as to give checkmate to Majesty and demonstrate to the world how imprudently those Pearls of Royal patience lenity and condescension were cast before such Swine whose brutish temper inclines them to turn upon and rent their Benefactors like traiterous Judas's to reward them evil for good and hatred for their good will Mr. Martin says the Hist of Independ p. 97. was expelled the House for words spoken against the King because spoken unseasonably when the King was in good strength and the words whether true or false were in strictness of Law Treason lest the whole House might be drawn within compass of High Treason for conniving at them but afterward the King growing weaker and the Parliament stronger the House restored Mr. Martin and thought fit to set every mans Tongue at liberty It seems the Political Government was then brought to a capacity of bearing such crimes Bishop Bancroft in his Book of Dangerous Positions p. 98. tells us of a Book of Discipline subscribed to by some presbyterian Brethren in those days which they promised as God should offer opportunity and give them to discern it so expedient by humble suit to her Majestie 's honourable Council and the Parliament and by all other lawful and convenient means to further and advance so far as the Laws and peace and the present state of the Church would suffer it and not enforce to the contrary One Mr. Littleton being examined upon his Oath what the last words should mean answered That he himself Mr. Snape Mr. Proudloe and others did agree to put that Discipline in execution and practice so far as the peace and the present state of the Church would suffer and not enforce to the contrary that is till the Magistrate did enjoyn them or enforce them to leave the practice of the said Discipline Now says the Bishop what if by the secret practices to draw away the peoples hearts from the present Government of the Church they could have procured such strength and number to have followed them as that no reasonable restraint or force of the Magistrate had been able to have encountered and suppressed them I do but ask the Question says he p. 101. and I answer it thus If they had been of the same Rebellious humour with our modern Presbyterians they would when they had brought things to that pass have appeared in Arms and raised a bloudy War and by force have set up their holy Discipline and strained so high in contradiction to all legal Authority as to have subverted the constitution of our English Monarchy and turned our Government in Church and State Topsiturvy He goes on They can have no pleasure in commotions for Order and regular Unity is their Way and therefore stability of Government and publick Tranquillity is their Interest Which has something of Truth in it if understood of Presbyterians when they are got into the Saddle themselves and are well setled in an usurp'd Dominion but till then for ought I see they take as much pleasure in commotions and alteraons as Jesuits do and will disturb the publick Tranquillity and subvert all legal Order and regular Unity rather than suffer their own Interest to be rejected and depressed witness their late Wars and their Solemn League and Covenant and a series of other actions whose direct tendency was to the destruction of our English Polity both Ecclesiastical and Civil as is before manifested It 's most unreasonable says he to object that the late wild postures extravagancies and incongruities in Government were the work of Presbytery or Presbyterians his reason is because the Nation had never proof of Presbytery for 't was never settled A. If it should be granted that the Nation had never proof of Presbytery what 's this to Presbyterians whom the objection speaks of as well as Presbytery Had the Nation never any proof of such kind of Creatures nay had we not such proof of them for several years together as we have great reason to lament even to this day And I much fear that the satal Influence of those wild postures and extravagancies which Presbyterians such persons as himself described p. 20. 30. by their main and rooted Principles were