Online Library of Liberty

A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets. A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Advanced Search

Tracts on Liberty by the Levellers and their Critics Vol. 8 Addendum (1638–1646)

1st Edition, uncorrected (Date added: August 4, 2015)

This volume is part of a set of 7 volumes of Leveller Tracts: Tracts on Liberty by the Levellers and their Critics (1638-1659), 7 vols. Edited by David M. Hart and Ross Kenyon (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2014). </titles/2595>.

It is an uncorrected HTML version which has been put online as a temporary measure until all the corrections have been made to the XML files which can be found [here](/titles/2595). The collection will contain over 250 pamphlets.

To date, the following volumes have been corrected:

Further information about the collection can be found here:

2nd Revised Edition

A second revised edition of the collection is planned after the conversion of the texts has been completed. It will include an image of the title page of the original pamphlet, its location, date, and id number in the Thomason Collection catalog, a brief bio of the author, and a brief description of the contents of the pamphlet. Also, the titles from the addendum volumes will be merged into their relevant volumes by date of publication.


Tracts on Liberty by the Levellers and their Critics, Volume 8 Addendum to (1638–1646)

The Liberty of the Freeborne Englishman (John Lilburne in Gaol)
The Liberty of the Freeborne Englishman (John Lilburne in Gaol)

The Liberty of the Freeborne English-Man, Conferred on him by the house of lords. June 1646. John Lilburne. His age 23. Year 1641. Made by G. Glo.

“Gaze not upon this shaddow that is vaine,
Bur rather raise thy thoughts a higher straine,
To GOD (I meane) who set this young-man free,
And in like straits can eke thee.
Yea though the lords have him in bonds againe
LORD of lords will his just cause maintaine.”


Table of Contents


Editor’s Introduction

This collection of pamphlets and tracts is a supplement to earlier volumes in this series which were discovered during the course of their preparation. Publishing information about each title can be found in the catalog of the George Thomason collection (henceforth “TT” for Thomason Tracts):

Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers, and Manuscripts relating to the Civil War, the Commonwealth, and Restoration, collected by George Thomason, 1640–1661. 2 vols. (London: William Cowper and Sons, 1908).

  • Vol. 1. Catalogue of the Collection, 1640–1652
  • Vol. 2. Catalogue of the Collection, 1653–1661. Newspapers. Index.

Biographical information about the authors can be found in the Biographical Dictionary of British Radicals in the Seventeenth Century, ed. Richard L. Greaves and Robert Zeller (Brighton, Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1982–84), 3 vols.

  • Volume I: A-F
  • Volume II: G-O
  • Volume III: P-Z

8.1. John Selden, A Brief Discourse concerning the Power of the Peeres (1640)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

John Selden, A Briefe Discourse, concerning the Power of the Peeres, and Commons of Parliament, in point of Judicature. Written by a learned Antiquerie, at the request of a Peere, of this Realme. Printed in the yeere, 1640.

Estimated date of publication

1640 (no month given).

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

Not listed in TT.

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

SIR, to give you as short an account of your desires as I can, I must crave leave to lay you as a ground, the frame or first modell of this state.

When after the period of the Saxon time, Harold had lifted himselfe into the Royall Seat; the Great men, to whom but lately hee was no more then equall either in fortune or power, disdaining this Act, of arrogancy, called in William then Duke of Normandy, a Prince more active then any in these Westerne parts, and renowned for many victories he had fortunately archieved against the French King, then the most potent Monarch in Europe.

This Duke led along with him to this worke of glory, many of the younger sons of the best families of Normandy, Picardy and Flanders, who as undertakers, accompanied the undertaking of this fortunate man.

The Usurper slaine, and the Crowne by warre gained, to secure certaine to his posterity, what he had so suddenly gotten, he shared out his purchase retaining in each County a portion to support the Dignity Soveraigne, which was stiled Demenia Regni; now the ancient Demeanes, and assigning to others his adventurers such portions as suited to their quality and expence, retaining to himselfe dependancy of their personall seruice, except such Lands as in free Almes were the portion of the Church, these were stiled Barones Regis, the Kings immediate Freeholders, for the word Baro imported then no more.

As the King to these, so these to their followers subdivided part of their shares into Knights fees, and their Tennants were called Barones Comites, or the like; for we finde, as in the Kings Writ in their Writs Baronibus suis & Francois & Anglois, the soveraigne gifts, for the most part extending to whole Counties or Hundreds, an Earle being Lord of the one, and a Baron of the inferiour donations to Lords of Towne-ships or Mannors.

As thus the Land, so was all course of Judicature divided even from the meanest to the highest portion, each severall had his Court of Law, preserving still the Mannor of our Ancestours the Saxons, who jura per pages reddebant; and these are still tearmed Court-Barons, or the Freeholders Court, twelue usually in number, who with the Thame or chiefe Lord were Judges.

The Hundred was next, where the Hundredus or Aldermanus Lord of the Hundred, with the cheife Lord of each Townshippe within their lymits judged; Gods people observed this forme in the publike Centureonis & decam Judicabant plebem omni tempore.

The County or Generale placitum was the next, this was so to supply the defect, or remedy the corruption of the inferior, Vbi Curiæ Dominorum probantur defecisse, pertinet ad vice comitem Provinciarum; the Iudges here were Comites, vice comites & Barones Comitatus qui liberas in hoterras habeant.

The last & supreme, & proper to our questio, was generale placitum aupud London universalis Synodus in Charters of the Conquerour, Capitalis curia by Glanvile, Magnum & Commune consilium coram Rege et magnatibus snis.

In the Rolles of Henry the 3. It is not stative, but summoned by Proclamation, Edicitur generale placitum apud London, saith the Booke of Abingdon, whether Epium Duces principes, Satrapæ Rectores, & Causidici ex omni parte confluxerunt ad istam curiam, saith Glanvile: Causes were referred, Propter aliquam dubitationem quæ Emergit in comitatu, cum Comitatus nescit dijudicare. Thus did Ethelweld Bishop of Winchester transferre his suit against Leostine, from the County ad generale placitum, in the time of King Etheldred, Queene Edgine against Goda; from the County appealed to King Etheldred at London. Congregatis principibus & sapaientibus Angliæ, a suit between the Bishops of Winchester and Durham in the time of Saint Edward. Coram Episcopis & principibus Regni in presentia Regis ventilate & finita. In the tenth yeere of the Conquerour, Episcopi, Comites & Barones Regni potestate adversis provinciis ad universalem Synodum pro causis audiendis & tractandis Convocati, saith the Book of Westminster. And this continued all along in the succeeding Kings raigne, untill towards the end of Henry the third.

AS this great Court or Councell consisting of the King and Barons, ruled the great affaires of State and controlled all inferiour Courts, so were there certaine Officers, whose transcendent power seemed to bee set to bound in the execution of Princes wills, as the Steward, Constable, and Marshall fixed upon Families in fee for many ages: They as Tribunes of the people, or ex plori among the Athenians, growne by unmanly courage fearefull to Monarchy, fell at the feete and mercy of the King, when the daring Earle of Leicester was slaine at Evesham.

This chance and the deare experience Hen. the 3. himselfe had made at the Parliament at Oxford in the 40. yeare of his raigne, and the memory of the many straights his Father was driven unto, especially at Rumny-mead neare Stanes, brought this King wisely to beginne what his successour fortunately finished, in lessoning the strength and power of his great Lords; and this was wrought by searching into the Regality they had usurped over their peculiar Soveraignes, wherby they were (as the Booke of Saint Albans termeth them.) Quot Dominum tot Tiranni.) and by the weakning that hand of power which they carried in the Parliaments by commanding the service of many Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses to that great Councell.

Now began the frequent sending of Writs to the Commons, their assent not onely used in money, charge, and making Lawes, for before all ordinances passed by the King and Peeres, but their consent in judgements of all natures whether civill or criminall: In proofe whereof I will produce some few succeeding Presidents out of Record.

Liber S. Alban, so. 20. &illegible; An. 44. H. 3.When Adamor that proud Prelate of Winchester the Kings halfe brother had grieved the State by his daring power, he was exiled by joynt sentence of the King, the Lords & Commons, and this appeareth expressely by the Letter sent to Pope Alexander the fourth, expostulating a revocation of him from banishment, because he was a Church-man, and so not subject to any censure, in this the answer is, Si Dominus Rex & Regni majores hoc vellent, meaning his revocation, Communitas tamen ipsius ingressũ in Angliã iam nullatemus sustineret. The Peeres subsigne this Answer with their names and Petrus de Mountford vice totius Communitatis, as speaker or proctor of the cõmons.

Charta orig. sub sigil. An. &illegible; H. &illegible;For by that stile Sir John Tiptofe, Prolocutor, affirmeth under his Armes the Deed of Intaile of the Crowne by King Henry the 4. in the 8. year of his raigne for all the Commons.

The banishment of the two Spencers in the 15. of Edward the second, Prelati Comites & Barones et les autres Peeres de la terre & Communes de Roialme give consent and sentence to the revocation and reversement of the former sentence the Lords and Commons accord, and so it is expressed in the Roll.

In the first of Edw. the 3.Rot. Parl. &illegible; E. 3. vel. &illegible; when Elizabeth the widdow of Sir John de Burgo complained in Parliament, that Hugh Spencer the yonger, Robert Boldock and William Cliffe his instruments had by duresse forced her to make a Writing to the King, whereby shee was despoiled of all her inheritance, sentence is given for her in these words, Pur ceo que avis est al Evesques Counts & Barones & autres grandes & a tout Cominalte de la terre, que le dit escript est fait contre ley, & tout manere de raison si fuist le dit escript per agard del Parliam. dampue elloques al livre a la dit Eliz.

In An. 4. Edw. 3.Prelationrs Parliam. 1. Ed. 3. Rot. 11. it appeareth by a Letter to the Pope, that to the sentence given against the Earle of Kent, the Commons were parties aswell as well as the Lords & Peeres, for the King directed their proceedings in these words, Comitibus, Magnatibus, Baronibus, & aliis de Communitate dicti Regni ad Parliamentum illud congregatis injunximus ut super his discernerent & judicarent quod rationi et justitiæ, conveniret, habere præ oculis, solum Deum qui eum concordi unanimi sententia tanquam reum criminis læsœ majestatis morti adjudicarent ejus sententia, &c.

&illegible; Ann. 5. &illegible;When in the 50. yeere of Ed. 3. the Lords had pronounced the sentence against Richard Lions, otherwise then the Commons agreed they appealed to the King, and had redresse, and the sentence entred to their desires.

&illegible; Ann 1. &illegible; 11. 3. &illegible;When in the first yeere of Richard the second, William Weston and John Jennings were arraigned in Parliament for surrendring certaine Forts of the Kings, the Commons were parties to the sentence against them given, as appeareth by a Memorandum ãnexed to that Record. In the first of Hen. the 4, although the Commons referre by protestation, the pronouncing of the sentence of deposition against King Rich. the 2. unto the Lords, yet are they equally interessed in it, as it appeareth by the Record, for there are made Proctors or Commissioners for the whole Parliament, one B. one Abbot, one E. one Baron, & 2. Knights, Gray and Erpingham for the Commons, and to inferre that because the Lords pronounced the sentence, the point of judgement should be onely theirs, were as absurd as to conclude, that no authority was best in any other Commissioner of Oyer and Terminer then in the person of that man solely that speaketh the sentence.

The following marginalia text is unreadable and Liberty Fund has made no effort to partially transcribe it.In 2. Hen. 5. the Petition of the Commons importeth no lesse then a right they had to act and assent to all things in Parliament, and so it is answered by the King; and had not the adjournall Roll of the higher house beene left to the sole entry of the Clarke of the upper House, who, either out of the neglect to observe due forme, or out of purpose to obscure the Commons right & to flatter the power of those he immediately served, there would have bin frequent examples of al times to cleer this doubt, and to preserve a just interest to the Cõmon-wealth, and how conveniently it suites with Monarchy to maintaine this forme, left others of that well framed body knit under one head, should swell too great and monstrous. It may be easily thought for; Monarchy againe may sooner groane under the weight of an Aristocracie as it once did, then under Democracie which it never yet either felt or fear’d.



8.2. John Davies, An Answer to those Printed Papers by the late Patentees of Salt (1641)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

An Answer To Those Printed Papers published in March last, 1640. by the late Patentees of Salt, in their pretended defence, and against free trade.
Composed by IOHN DAVIES Citizen and Fishmonger of London, a well-wisher to the Common-wealth in generall.

Sal sapit omnia. Ne scis quid valeat.
Printed in the yeare, 1641.

Estimated date of publication

1641 (no month given).

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

Not listed in TT.

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

THe ensuing Treatise, concerning the opposing of the project and Patents for Salt, tending to the good of his Majesty, and of the Subjects in generall, (wherein all faithfull endeavours on the Authours part are performed) is most humbly presented, praying, that if any error is therein committed, (whereof he is not conscious) may by this Honourable Assembly be pardoned.

An Answer to those Papers (falsly intituled, A true Remonstrance of the state of the Salt businesse, &c.) lutely published in print in March. 1640. by the Projectors of the first and second Patents for Salt, in their owne pretended defence, and against the free trade of all Merchants, Navigators, and Traders for Fish and Salt of the City of London, and all other Ports, and of all Salt makers and Salt refiners, and of all other his Majestces Subjects within the extent of their severall Patents betweene Barwicke and Weymouth, as followeth.

IN this Answer it will not be necessary to bee limited within the strict time where the Projectors began which was in Anno 1627. thereby to serve their own occasions, but is intended to declare the truth of the most usuall and constant prices of Salt at the City of London; as, it hath beene sold for 40. yeares last past, as in the sequell shall appeare.

That in Anno 1600. even till the latter part of the yeare, 1627. the most usuall price either of white or bay Salt, was neare about 50. s. or 3. l. a Wey, and often sold under that price, as can be sufficiently proved.

That in the said yeare 1627. the Watres began betweene the Kings Majesty of Great Britaine, and the French King, and the King of Spaine; in which time, till the peace was concluded betwixt those Kings, the commoditie of Salt was very deare and scarce, especially French Salt, which was at 6. s. or 7. s. a bushell at the City of London, which came to passe in regard the Salt-workes in France were destroyed.

First, at the Ile of Ree by the Duke of Buckinghams designe.

Secondly, by the French King himselfe in the warres when he tooke in Rochel.

And thirdly, by intemperate Raine which fell that time in France. So that the Kingdome of France it selfe, which was wont to supply many other parts, as England, Ireland, Holland, the Eastland, and Germany, was thereby necessitated with want of that commodity for its owne occasion. And therefore not to be admired, that the French King made an Edict in Anno 1630. that no Salt should bee exported out of his Kingdome, (untill his store should bee supplyed againe.) Which scarcity in France for that present, forced all men to send into Spaine for Salt, and thereupon a great number of Ships from all parts arriving there at one time, gave the King of Spaine occasion to make use of the present necessity, and layd a great Impost on the Salt that should bee transported from thence.

The very same cause also moved the Kings Majesty of Great Britaine, and the Lords of the Councell, to order in that time of scarcity of Salt, by meanes of a Petition exhibited to the Lords by the Lord Maior of the City of London, and divers other Ports in Anno 1630. that no Salt should be transported into any forraigne parts, which was effectually granted them by the Lords. But when in one or two yeares after, and that in France there were erected Salt-workers, and Salt was made plentifully againe, as in the yeare 1632. then by the Edicts of the said Kings, the great imposition of Salt in Spaine and France ceased, and Salt became cheape againe, and Trade free as in former yeares, as about 3. l. or 3. li. 10. s. per Wey, for English or French, and 4. l. per Wey for Spanish Salt at most, which continued till December, 1634.

So that the cause of the dearth of Salt in France, Anno 1628. till Anno 1632. hapned through Warre and intemperate Weather, as before is specified, and not by the pleasure of Princes, by laying of a great Impost upon it, as they the Patentees falsly pretended; but the Projectors were desirous to make that an occasion of bringing their covetous desires to effect, and about that time they beganne to devise to bring an Impost on the English native Salt, which was and is dearer to the makers of it then any other salt spent in this Kingdome. For French and Spanish Salt being made onely by the heat of the Sunne, stands not the makers of it in above 10. s. or 20. s. or 30. s. a London Wey at the most, according to the drinesse, or the wetnesse of the Summer, whereas the English Shields Salt at 1. d. per Gallon, (which is the cheap price the Patentees boast of stands the makers of it in 53. s. 4. s. the like Wey at least, being also the weakest Salt of all other by one third part, and therefore cannot be are any Impost, without destroying the English manufactures, as these Projectors have all this time practised, to the destruction thereof, although they pretended the contrary.

It is to be observed, that a Wey of Salt at the City of London, containeth 40. Bushels, and every Bushell 10. Gallons, which is the right measure according to the Statute; from which, in most other Ports it much differeth.

That in December, 1634. the first Projectors, consisting of twenty two in number, (whereof five were Knights, the other seventeene had the titles of Esquires and Gentlemen) having determined and practised formerly to doe mischiefe in this Land wherein they were borne and bred, and being all or most of them unexperienced in the matter they tooke in hand, devised and obtained this Monopoly of Salt, mis-informing his Majesty, and the Lords of the Councell, that it would be a great benefit to this Kingdome of England, and that of Scotland, to erect workes for the making a sufficient quantity of Salt, &c. and at a certaine moderate price, (as they so termed it) not exceeding 3. l. a Shields Wey, which is after the rate of 5. l. 12. s. for a Wey delivered at London, which is an intolerable exaction upon a native manufacture, made and spent in this Kingdome, as by their Patent more fully doth appeare; (although the Salt pannes in those places were erected long before, and not by these Patentees.) Which Patent being obtained by them, they practised to oppresse the Subject from January 1635. untill August 1638. all which time the first Patentees having made a Monopoly, in taking all the old Workes and Pannes at the Shields into their hands, forced white Salt at the City of London to the price of 4. l. 15. s. per Wey, and for the most part to 5. l. per Wey, and so in all other Ports according to that rate.

And Bay Salt by reason of their great Impost of 48. s. 6. d. per Wey, which was raised by a privy Seale, procured by Edward Nattall, and others his associates, (but nothing brought to accompt for his Majesty, as yet appears) was not all that time sold at London under 5. l. 10. s. per Wey, at least, but commonly at 5. l. 13. s. 4. d. per Wey, or 6. l. whereas the Westerne parts, which were free of their Patent, as Southampton, Exeter, Plimouth, Bristol, &c. had it in that time at or about 3. l. the like Wey, and sometimes under that price, which was most unjust and unequall, that the Easterne parts should suffer so much thereby, not onely in the price, but also in hindrance of Navigation, and losse of Trade.

That about July, 1638. the first Patentees having difference with Master Murford of Yarmouth, who had a Patent granted before theirs at Shields, prevailed against them, and some of them of the first Patent being wearied with the designe, voluntarily laid downe their Patent.

That after the first Patentees gave over their Patent, the Salt-makers at Shields in August, 1638. reassumed their Pannes, and sold Salt there cheape againe, and thereby both Scottish and Shields Salt was sold at London for 3. l. per Wey, or near thereabout, untill January following, that Thomas Horth and his associates obtained a grant of their Patent, which they presently after put in execution, yet Horth and his associates of the second Patent had no time to raise the price of white Salt at Shields to that height as they desired, for the Scots presently after the first Pacification in August, 1639. brought it downe at London to 2. l. 17. s. per Wey, whereas Horth and his Associates in June and July 1639. would sell none at London under 4. l. 10. s. per Wey.

That whereas the first and second Projectors of both Patents, to cleare themselves of the great wrong done by them to his Majesty and his Subjects, doe in their printed Papers lay the blame on the traders in Salt of the City of London, seeking therby to glosse over their oppressing the Subjects even in the face of this Honourable Parliament, still pretending as formerly, that what they did was for his Majesties profit, benefit of Navigation, support of home manufacture, and generall good of the subject, and many such like things, all which pretences are meere falshoods and suggestions.

For first his Majesties Revenew is no way increased, as doth appeare by their payments into his Majesties Exchequer, being in all but 700. l. whereas they have received Impost, and remaine debtors to his Majesty many thousands, as by further examination and proofe of their accompts will appeare.

Secondly, Navigation hath beene much hindred thereby, as by a former Petition of the Trinity house to his Majesty and the Lords of the privy Councell appeareth, as also it hath beene sufficiently proved before the Committee for the Salt businesse, by the Master and Wardens of the Trinity Company, who are most sensible of the destruction and advancement of the Shipping and Navigation of this Kingdome.

Thirdly, they have so cherished the home manufacture, by laying a heavy Impost upon it, that those that had 240. Pannes of their own, and were thriving people at the Shields, before their Patents were of force, and were the makers there of Salt, are by the meanes of these Patentees become so poore, that the greater part of them are not able to buy coals to set their Pannes on worke. And those the Patentees who bought 34. Pannes of the old traders, did cease working for the most part of the years 1639. and 1640. by reason they could not attaine to their intended price of 56. s. 8. d. per Wey at the Shields. So that whereas there was formerly made at the Shields before their Patents began about 16000. Wey per annum, they made in the time of the first Patent, which continued about three yeares and a halfe, not above 10000. Wey per annum. And in the time of the latter Patent but 8000. Wey per annum, even before the comming in of the Scottish Army into those parts: by all which appeares how much they have destroyed the native manufacture, and have no wayes advanced or increased it, as they pretended.

Fourthly, for their pretences of the generall good of the Subject, in place whereof they have so oppressed the Subject in generall, that not onely the traders in Salt of the City of London, have justly complained of their grievances to the Honourable Court of Parliament, but also Salt-refiners of Essex and Suffolke, also many Merchants in the West parts as far as Weymouth, as also from Yarmouth, and many other ports North as farre as Newcastle, that came up to London onely to informe the Court of Parliament of the great burden they have beene forced to lye under, even to many of their undoings: And many more would come up, had they not beene so impoverished by them the Patentees, that they are not able to beare their charges in comming so farre to complaine of their grievances. In generall, they have been the oppressors of Fishermen, and all the subjects of these North East parts of England, to the value of many thousand pounds in estimation, above fourescore thousand pounds since the time of their entring into these Patents, which can be made plainly to appeare by one yeares importation for forraigne and Scottish Salt, collected out of the Custome-house bookes, and Meters bookes of London, and for native Salt out of their owne bookes.


In the yeare 1637. (which was in the time of their first Patent) of Bay and Spanish Salt there was imported but 1364. Wey, which at 48. s. 6 d. per Wey, is impost 3307. l. 14. s. whereas in the yeare 1634. when the trade was free there was 4620. Wey of forraigne Salt imported, by which may be observed the decay of forraigne Trade during the time of their Impost.

That the Impost of forraigne Salt was received and taken of all the Subjects between Barwicke and Southampton, by vertue of Privy Seale dated in May 1636. procured by Edward Nattall, and others his associates, but nothing brought to accompt by them, nor paid to his Majesties use for the two yeares and 6. moneths, (as can yet appeare.)

That of Scottish and native white Salt Shields measure, there were expended for land use about 16000. Weyes, which at 10. s. per Wey Impost, and 10. s. per Wey increase of price, which came to passe by the Patentees contracting with the Scotch for deare selling, and can appeare to be damage to the subjects at least in one yeare, in the price of the white Salt 16000. l.

That for Fishers use of Scottish and native Salt, an estimate of 3000. Shields Wey, and upwards, at 3. s. 4. d. per Wey Impost, and 6. s. 8. d. increase of price, is at least 1500. l.

Whereby it appeares that the subjects suffered in one yeare by the first Salt Patents, &illegible; l. 15. s.

That the Patentees for Salt continued their first and second Patents above 5. yeares.

By all which it is manifest how profitable these Patents have beene to the Patentees, how little benefit hath accrued to his Majesty thereby, how great a burden to the Subjects in generall, and to the old Salt makers, and the Merchants for forraigne Salt, and all Fishermen, who use great quantities thereof, and to all traders in the same in their particulars. But if any trader in Salt hath either joyned with those Patentees in any indirect way, thereby to uphold them, or the extreme price of Salt, they are not hereby intended to be excused, but to be left to the consideration of the Honourable House of Parliament.

And whereas Horth and his Associates seek to justifie their Patent, comparing it with that which Master Murford intended (which would also have beene alike illegall with theirs, by laying an Impost on native Salt (as they have practised.)

For answer thereunto is said, that the unlawfulnesse of Murfords Patent intended, cannot make that of Horths to bee lawfull which was practised by him. For as well that of Horths, as also the first Patent, have beene sufficiently discussed by the Committee appointed by the Honourable House of Commons now assembled in Parliament, for the hearing of that businesse, and is by them most justly condemned to be illegall, a Monopoly, and prejudiciall to the Commonwealth. For so it is, that a Monopoly is a kinde of commerce in buying and selling usurped by a few, and sometimes by one person, and forestalled by them or him from all others, to the gaine of the Monopolist, and to the detriment of other men.

That the latter Patentees further proceed in their justification, declaring the low rates the subjects have beene served at since the time of the settlement of their Patent, which is (as they say) at 1. d. ob. per Gallon at the most, which in truth is a most intolerable exaction on the subject. For 1. d. ob. per gallon is no lesse then 50. s. a Shields Wey, which is but five eight parts of a London Wey, and so the fraught being added, which is 10. s. a Shields Wey, without Impost, it will stand the Adventurer in no lesse then 4. l. 16. s. a Wey London measure, whereas it may bee afforded, delivered at London, for 3. l. 12. s. per Wey, which is after the rate of 35. s. per Wey to the Salt makers at Shields for their Wey, at which said price of 35. s. per Wey, the old Salt makers say, they can afford it, but not under.

And for the rate of 1. d. per Gallon, which is the cheape price they so much boast on, it being but 33. s. 4. d. a Wey Shields measure, at which price, if they sold any so cheape, it was much against their wills, for they desired and alwayes sought to settle it at 56. s. 8. d. per Wey Shields measure for land use, and 46. s. 8. d. for the fishing Sea expence, which are the prices laid downe in the latter Patent: yet it is true, that they sold some at lower rates: but they were forced thereto by meanes of the great plenty that was brought in by the Scots, who sold it at London, Yarmouth, and some other Ports at 3. l. a Wey, in Anne 1639. and some under that price, as aforesaid, whereupon the Patentees gave over making Salt at Shields in their 34 pannes, in regard they could not attaine to their intended price of 56. s. 8. d. a Shields Wey, yet some of the old Salt makers still wrought, (though to their great losse, and some of their undoings) selling it not for above 30. s. per Wey, yet notwithstanding they the Patentees took of them the old Saltmakers, without any moderation or compassion, the full impost of 10. s. for every Shields Wey, for Land use, and 3. s. 4. d. per Wey, for the fisliery expence. For they had forced the old Saltmakers and Salt refiners to enter into bond, for the payment therof unto them, which if they refused to do, they violently forced them of the Sheilds, of great Yarmouth, and Salt Refiners of Essex and Suffolke thereunto by imprisoning of some, committing of others into Pursuivants hands, and causing others to come up and answer at the Councell Table, to their great expence both of money and time, which extreamity Horth used in that time he was governour more then any other either of the first or second Patentees.

That in the Months of September, October and November last, Salt became decret then it was in eight or nine yeares before, which came to passe partly by reason of the great impost continued by the Patentees of the last Patent, both on the native and forraigne Salt, and partly by reason of the imbarring of the Scottish trade, and the comming in of the Scottish Army, at that time into Newcastle and Shields, so that white Salt was sold in October last at the port of London at 6. l. 10. s. per Wey, and Bay Salt in November last, was sold at the port of London for 8. l. per Wey, in regard Master Strickson, Master Nuttall, and Master Duke, three of the last Patentees continued the taking impost even untill this present Parliament, which three were also chiese of the Projectors of the first Patent.

That the 23. of November last, the Honourable Assembly of Parliament upon a Petition of the traders in Salt of London, injoyned the Patentees to bring in their Patents & cease taking impost, and thereupon the price both of White and Bay Salt did fall at the port of London to 3. l. a Wey, and some for lesse: but the windes proving contrary in the latter part of December, January and February last, for above ten weekes together: And also small store of Salt having been laid up in London, or made at Shields by reason of the troubles in those parts with the Scottish Army, the store of white Salt for want of supply was soone spent here at London: and had it not beene that the Parliament before that time had taken off the Impost of forraigne Bay and Spanish Salt, whereby there was good quantities of forraigne Salt brought in, this City of London had been so necessitated for Salt, as the like hath not been knowne. Yet from the Kings Store house, and the East India Company, and other such like places, there was some small quantities of white Salt found, which supplyed the present want thereof, and was sold in those deerest times at or neere Billingsgate by some of the Traders in Salt for 6. s. 8. d. per Bushell at most, but Bay Salt all that time was sold for 22. d. or 2. s. a bushell, and not above all that time, which was in the Moneth of February, but before that Moneth was expired, and ever since it hath beene sold for 2. s. per Bushell, and five peckes to the Bushell, at or neare Billingsgate.

And whereas the Patentees alledge that white Salt was sold for 2. s. a pecke, at that instant day, when they published their printed papers, it is manifestly to bee proved that ten or twelve daies before they published them, white Salt was cryed in London streets at 5. d. a pecke, and so ever since, which proves their printed papers to be scandalous and false, in laying forth so many imputations upon the Traders in Salt, as though they were the cause of deare selling, which was only their continued impositions, and the occasion of the time as afore is shewed.

That before the Patentees had obtained their Patent for Salt there was imported yearly to London great quantities of Spanish, Straits, and French Salt, by Merchants, Navigators and Traders. And that many hundred Weyes thereof were from thence yearly transported for Flanders, Holland, Denmarke, and the East Countrie, whereby ships had their imployments both inwards and outwards, his Majesties Customes improved, and many poore people, as Porters and Labourers had their maintenance thereby; which trade of Importation is in a manner wholly decayed since the time these severall Patents were obtained.

Objections and Observations.

THat their Patents are found by the Committee appointed by the Parliament for hearing the Salt businesses to be illegall, and a Monopoly, by reason they brought an impost on the native Manufacture, and many other oppressions to the Subject.

That the prosecution hath beene most violent by imprisonments, and forcing many out of their Trades, and also Salt Refiners and Saltmakers, at Shields and great Yarmouth from their works; and the first Patentees forced divers at Shields to let them their Pannes at a Rent, which after two yeares and sixe monthes use, they returned into their hands much decayed, and not satisfied for Rent.

That they would have forced his Majesties Subjects to the only use of white Salt, which is not so sufficient for fishing Voiages and many other uses, as the forraigne.

That they forced the price both of white & Bay Salt, in the time of their Patents, to one third part more then otherwise it would have beene sold for.

That there was a far greater quantity of Salt made in England before their Patents began, then in the time of the continuance of their Patents.

That Horth at a hearing at Councell Table the 19. of December, 1638. to maintaine his unjust cause in taking his Patent, and upon some speech, which was moved about the insufficiency of white Salt for preserving of Fish, and an ancient Trader there saying, that the very scales fell off through the weaknesse of the white Salt; he the said Horth did most falsly reply and affirme, that Codde and Ling Fish had no scales, which he did to convince them of error who came to oppose him: and he with others (whose names are well knowne) did then and there before his Majesty and the Lords of the Councell so farre maintaine it, that they were believed, and that the others that spake the truth, were rejected, whereby the King and Lords were abused by the said Horth and others, by denying that to the creature which it had received in the creation either for defence or ornament.

That it is and hath beene proved both before his Majesty and the Lords, and also before the Committee by the Trinity house Masters, that if forraigne Salt be prohibited, or some heavy impost be laid upon it, Navigation will be much hindred and decaied.

That Horth alone above the rest of his partners obtained a Commission out of the Exchequer, and did thereby put men to their corporall oaths, to confesse what Salt of their owne or of others, they knew to be imported, and told the Commissioners hee was at Councel about that particular, and his Councell advised him, it must bee so, and to bee sure, would bee with the Commissioners himselfe, and urge it.

That the settled moderate rate (as the Patentees pleased to call it) of 56. s. 8. d. per Wey Shields measure, will stand the Adventurer delivered at London in 5. l. 6. s. 8. d. per wey, which is now since their Patent ceased sold at this City of London for 3. l. 10. s. per wey, and long before their Patents began, it was sold cheaper, (that time of three or foure yeares of hostility with France and Spaine, when there could be little forraigne Salt imported, onely excepted.) And Bay Salt at present is sold at 3. l. per wey.

That beyond the power of the Patents, Horth constrained the Salt refiners of divers. Counties to pay a double Impost.

That if the commodity of Salt be free for all men to import, or make it, there cannot be that ingrossing, forestalling, or regrating made which may be done by a few monopolizing Patentees, who having the command of it all, may conferre the commodity upon some few particular Traders, for some sinister respects, to the destruction of others in their Trades, (as the late times of their Patents have made manifest.) And for those 27. yeares afore specified, the commodity of Salt being then free of Impost, the price was alwayes reasonable, and would be so now, and so continue, without the helpe of any Projector.

That a free trade which is now so much desired of the subject, and a settled price, desired of the Patentee, cannot consist, for a constant price forced upon a native manufacture is a principall part of a Monopoly.

That forraigne Salt being absolutely necessary for speciall uses, the inhibition thereof cannot be admitted, but to the great prejudice of the subject.

That these Projectors, which pretend so much of supporting the home manufacture of Salt, have in a maner destroyed it, by laying so heavy an Impost upon it, as 16. s. for every London Wey. And if it be not supported by taking off the foresaid Impost, it is like utterly to decay, and then indeed (the Salt Wiches onely excepted) this Kingdome must wholly depend upon forraigne parts, for all the Salt shall be therein expended.

(The premises considered) the humble request to the Honourable House of Commons now assembled in PARLIAMENT, is, That they would be pleased, that the Projectors and late Patentees for Salt may be brought to an account upon the premisses, that so it may appeare what profits have accrued to his Majesty, and what disadvantage to the Subject, and what persons have beene molested and vexed by reason of them, that so reparations and redresse may be made to the parties so vexed and grieved, as in the judgement of the Honourable Assembly shall be thought expedient.



8.3. Anon., The Lamentable Complaints of Nick Froth the Tapster (May 1641)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

Anon., The Lamentable Complaints of Nick Froth the Tapster, and Rulerost the Cooke. Concerning the restraint lately set forth against drinking, potting and piping on the Sabbath Day, and against selling meate. Printed in the yeare, 1641.

Estimated date of publication

May, 1641.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 14; Thomason E. 156. (4.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

Concerning the restraint lately set forth, against drinking, potting, and piping on the Sabbath-day, and against selling meate.


MY honest friend Cooke Ruffin well met, I pray thee what good newes is stirring.


Good news (said you?) I, where is’t? there is such newes in the world, will anger thee to heare of, it is as bad, as bad may be.


Is there so? I pray thee what is it, tell me whatsoever it be.


Have you not heard of the restraint lately come out againstus, from the higher Powers; whereby we are commanded not to sell meat nor draw drink upon Sundays, as we wil answer the contrary at our perils.


I have heard that some such thing was intended to be done, but never before now, that it was under black and white: I hope there is no such matter: Art thou sure this thy news is true?


Am I sure, I ever roasted a fat Pig on a Sunday untill the eyes dropt out, thinke you. S’foot, shall I not credit my owne eyes.


I would thine had dropt out too, before ever thou hadst seen this, and if this be your news, you might have kept it, with a pox to you.


Nay, why so chollerick my friend, you told me you would heare me with patience, whatsoever it were.


I cry thee heartily mercy, honest Rulerost, I am sorry for what I said, it was my passion made me forget my self so much: but I hope this command as you speake, will not continue long, will it thinke you Master Cooke?


Too long to our greife I feare, the Church-Wardens, Side-men, and Constables, will so look to our red Lattices, that we shall not dare to put our heads out of doors on a Sunday hereafter. What think you neighbour, is it not like to prove so?


Truely it is much to be feared; but what do you think will become of us then, if these times hold?


Faith, Master Froth, we must shut up our doors and hang padlocks on them, and never so much as take leave of our Land-lords.


Master Rulerost, I jumpe with you in opinion for if I tarry in my house till quarter-day, my Land-lord, I feare, will provide me a house gratis. I am very unwilling to trust him, he was alwayes wonderfull kind, and ready to help any of his debtors to such a curtisie; to be plaine with you, I know not in which of the Compters I shall keep my Christmas, if I doe not wisely by running away prevent him.


Thou hast spoke my owne thoughts, but I stand not so much in danger of my griping Land-lord, as I doe of Master Kill-calfe my Butcher, I am run into almost halfe a yeares arrerages with him; I do owe him neare ninety pounds for meat, which I have had of him at divers and sundry times, as by his Tally, may more at large appeare.


I my selfe am almost as farre in debt to my Brewer, as you are to your Butcher; I had almost forgotten that, I see I am no man of this World; if I tarry in England: He hath often threatned to make dice of my bones already, but ile prevent him; ile shew him the bagg, I warrant him.


He had rather you would shew him the money and keep the bagge to your selfe.


I much wonder, Master Rulerost why my trade should be put downe, it being so necessary in a Common-wealth: why, the noble art of drinking, it is the soule of all good fellowship, the marrow of a Poets Minervs, it makes a man as valiant as Harcules, though he were as cowardly as a French man; besides, I could prove it necessary for any man sometimes to be drunk, for suppose you should kill a man when you are drunk, you shall never be hanged for it untill you are sober; therefore I thinke it good for a man to be alwayes drunk: and besides it is the kindest companion, and friendliest sin of all the seven; for most fins leave a man by some accident or other, before his death. But this will never forsake him till the breath be out of his body: and lastly, a full bowle of strong beere will drowne all sorrowes.


Master Nick, you are mistaken, your trade is not put downe as you seeme to say; what as done, is done to a good intent; to the end that poore men that worke hard all the weeke for a little money, should not spend it all on the Sunday while they should be at some Church, and so consequently there will not be so many Beggers.


Alack you know all my profit doth arise onely upon Sundays, let them but allow me that priviledge, and abridge me all the weeke besides: S’foot, I could have so scowred my young sparks up for a peny a demy Can, or a halfe pint, heapt with froth. I got more by uttering halfe a Barrell in time of Divine service, then I could by a whole Barrell at any other time, for my customers were glad to take any thing for money, and thinke themselves much ingaged to me; but now the case is altered.


Truely Master Froth, you are a man of a light constitution, and not so much to be blamed as I that am more solid: O what will become of me! I now thinke of the Iusty Surloines of roast Beefe which I with much policy divided into an innumerable company of semy stices, by which, with my provident wife, I used to make eighteene pence of that which cost me but a groat (provided that I sold it in service time,) I could tell you too, how I used my halfe Cans and my Bloomesbury Pots, when occasion served; and my Smoak which I sold dearer then any Apothecary doth his Physick: but those happy dayes are now past, and therefore no more of that.


Well, I am rid of one charge which did continually vex me by this meanes.


I pry thee what was that?


Why Master Rulerost, I was wont to be in see with the Apparitors, because they should not bring me into the Bawdy Court for selling drinke on Sundayes. Ile assure you they used to have a Noble a quanter of me, but now they shall excuse me, they are like to have no more quartridge of me, and indeed the truth is, their trade begins to be out of request aswell as ours.


I, trust me neighbour, I pity them; I was as much troubled with those kind of Rascals as your self, onely I confesse I paid them no quartridge, but they tickled my beefe, a stone of beef was no more in one of their bellies, then a man in Pauls; but now I must take occasion to ease my self of that charge; and with confidence I will now bid them, Walke knave, walke.


Truely Master Rulerost, it doth something ease my mind when I thinke that we have companions in misery. Authority I perceive is quick sighted, it can quickly espie a hole in a knaves coate. But Master Cooke we forget our selves, it groweth neare supper time, and we must part, I would tell you what I intend to doe, but time prevents me, therefore ile refer it untill the next time we meet; And so farewell.



8.4. Katherine Chidley, The Justification of the Independant Churches of Christ (October, 1641)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

Katherine Chidley, The Justification of the Independant Churches of Christ. Being an Answer to Mr. EDVVARDS his BOOKE, which hee hath written against the Government of CHRISTS CHVRCH, and Toleration of CHRISTS Publike Worship; BRIEFELY DECLARING That the Congregations of the Saints ought not to have Dependancie in Government upon any other; or direction in worship from any other than CHRIST their HEAD and LAVV-GIVER. By KATHERINE CHIDLEY.
1 SAM. 17. 45. Thou commest unto me with a Sword, and with a Speare, and with a Sheild, but I come unto thee in the name of the Lord of Hoasts the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.
IVDGES 4. 21. Then Iael, Hebers wife tooke a naile of the tent, and tooke an ham|mer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the naile into his temples and fastened it into the ground, (for he was fast asleepe and weary) and so he died.
LONDON, Printed for WILLIAM LARNAR, and are to be sold at his Shop, at the Signe of the Golden Anchor, neere Pauls-Chaine. 1641.

Estimated date of publication

October, 1641.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, pp. 37–38; Thomason E. 174 (7.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

TO The CHRISTIAN READER; Grace, Mercy, and Peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.

IT is, and hath beene (for a long time) a Question more enquired into than well weighed; Whether it be lawfull for such, who are informed of the evills of the Church of England, to Separate from it: For my owne part, considering that the Church of England is governed by the Canon Lawes (the Discipline of Antichrist) and altogether wanteth the Discipline of Christ, and that the most of them are ignorant what it is, and also doe professe to worship God by a stinted Service-Booke. I hold it not onely lawfull, but also the duty of all those who are informed of such evills, to separate themselves from them, and such as doe adhere unto them; and also to joyne together in the outward profession and practise of Gods true worship, when God hath declared unto them what it is; and being thus informed in their minds of the knowledge of the will of God (by the teaching of his Sonne Jesus Christ) it is their duty to put it in practise, not onely in a Land where they have Toleration, but also where they are forbidden to preach, or teach in the name (or by the power) of the Lord Jesus.

But Mr. Edwards (with whom I have here to deale) conceiving that the beauty of Christs true worship, would quickly discover the Foggy darkenesse of the Antichristian devised worship; and also that the glory of Christs true Discipline, grounded and founded in his Word, would soone discover the blacknesse and darkenesse of the Antihristian Government (which the poore people of England are in bondage unto) hath set his wits a work to withstand the bright comming of Christs Kingdome (into the hearts of men) which we are all commanded in the most absolute rule of Prayer to petition for; for the turning aside whereof Mr. Edwards hath mustred up his forces, even eight Reasons, against the government of Christ, which hee calls Independant; and hath joyned unto these eight, ten more; which he hath made against Toleration; affirming that they may not practise contrary to the course of the Nation wherein they live, without the leave of the Magistrate, neither judgeth he it commendable in them to aske the Magistrates leave, nor commendable in the Magistrate to heare their petitions, but rather seeketh to stirre up all men to disturbe their peace, affirming most unjustly, that they disturbe the peace of the Kingdome, nay, the peace of three Kingdomes, which all the lands under the Kings Dominions know to be contrary, nay I thinke most of the Kingdomes in Europe cannot be ignorant what the cause of the disturbance was;

But this is not the practise of Mr. Edwards alone, but also of the whole generation of the Clergie; as thou maist know, Christian Reader, to was the practise of the Bishop of Canterbury to exclaime against Mr. Burton, Doctor Bastwicke, and Mr. Prynne, calling them scandalous Libellers, & Innovators (though they put their own name to that which they write, and proved what they taught by divine authority) and this hath beene alwayes the practise of the instruments of Sathan, to accuse the Lords people, for disturbing of the peace, as it hath beene found in many Nations, when indeede the troublers be themselves and their fathers house. But in this they are like unto Athalia crying treason, treason, when they are in the treason themselves.

But for the further strengthning of his army, he hath also subjoyned unto these his Answer to fixe Reasons, which he saith, are theirs, but the forme of some of them seemeth to be of his owne making; all which thou shalt finde answered, and disproved in this following Treatise.

But though these my Answers are not laid downe in a Schollerlik way, but by the plaine truth of holy Scripture; yet I beseechthee have the patience to take the paynes to reade them, and spare some time to consider them; and if thou findest things disorderly placed, labour to rectifie them to thine own mind. And if there be any weight in them, give the glory to God; but if thou feest nothing worthy, attribute not the weakenesse thereof to the truth of the cause, but rather to the ignorance and unskilfulnesse of the weake Instrument.

Thine in the Lord Jesus,

Katherine Chidlet.

THE Answer to Mr. Edvvards his Introdvction.

I Hearing the complaints of many that were godly, against the Booke that Mr. Edwards hath written; and upon the sight of this his Introduction considering his desperate resolution, (namely) that he would set out severall Tractates against the whole way of Separation. I could not but declare by the testimony of the Scripture it selfe, that the way of Separation is the way of God, who is the author of it,* which manifestly appeares by his separating of his Church from the world, and the world from his Church in all ages.

When the Church was greater than the world, then the world was to be separated from the Church; but when the world was greater than the Church, then the Church was to separate from the world.

As for instance,

When Caine was a member of the Church, then the Church was greater than the world; and Caine being discovered, was exempted from Gods presence;* before whom he formerly had presented himselfe:c but in the time of Noah, when the world was greater than the Churchd then Noah and his Family who were the Church, were commanded to goe into the Arkee in which place they were saved, when the world was drowned,f yet Ham being afterward discovered, was accursed of his Father, and Shem was blessed, and good prophesied for Iaphat.

Afterward when the world was grown mightier than the Church againe, then Abraham was called out of Vr of the Caldeans, both from his country and from his kindred, and from his fathers houseg (because they were &illegible;) to worship God in Canaan.

Moreover, afterwards Moses was &illegible; and his brother &illegible; to deliver the children of Israel out of the Land of Egypt when Pharaoh vexed them,h at which time God wrought their deliverance,i separating wondrously between the Egyptians and the Israelites, and that which was light to the one, was darkenesse to the other.

Afterwards, when Corah and his Congregation rebelled against God, and were obstinate thereink the people were commanded to depart from the tenis of those &illegible; I &illegible; were the children separated from the parents, and those who did not separate, were destroyed by fire,lm and swallowed by the earth,n upon the day which God had appointed* as those Noahs time, who repented not, were swallowed by &illegible;.

Moreover, when God brought his people into the promised Land, he commanded them to be separated from the Idolatrous and not to meddle with the accursed things.Deut. 5. 26. 27. And for this cause God gave them his Ordinances and Commandements; and by the manifestation of their Obedience to them they were knowne to be the onely people of God,* which made a reall separation.

Ezza. 1. Hag. 1. 2, 3. 4. 8. 12. 14.And when they more carried captive into Babylon at any time for their sinnes: God raised them up deliverors to bring them from thence: and Prophets to call them from thencep and from their backesliding.q And it was the practise of all the Prophets of God, (which prophesied of the Church under the New Testament) to separate the precious from the vile, and God hath declared that bee that so doth shall be as his mouth, Jer. 15. 19.

And we know it was the practise of the Apostles of the Lord Iesus, to declare to the people that there could be no more agreement betweene beleevers and unbeleevers, than betweene light and darkenesse, God and Belial, as Paul writing to the Corinthians doth declare, when he saith, Be not unequally yoked together with unbeleevers; for what fellowship hath righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse? and what communion hath light with darkenesse, and what concord hath Christ with Belial?Christ made so great a difference betweene the world and the Church, that hee would not pray for the world; yet would die for the Church, which was given him out of the world; and without a Separation the Church can not be known from the world. or what part hath he that beleeveth with an Infidell? and what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idolls? for yee are the Temple of the living God, as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walke in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people; Wherefore come out from among them, and be yet Separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the uncleane thing, and I will receive you, and I will be a Father unto you, and yee shall be my sonnes and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty, 1 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

Moreover, they are pronounced blessed, which reade, heare, and keepe the words of the Booke of the Revelation of Iesus Christ;r among which sentences, there is a commandement from heaven for a totall Separation.s

These things (in briefe) I have minded from the Scriptures, to prove the necessitie of Separation; and though the Scripture be a deepe Well, and containeth in the Treasures thereof innumerable Doctrines and Precepts tending to this purpose; yet I leave the further prosecution of the same, till a fitter opertunity be offered to me, or any other whom the Lord shall indue with a greater measure of his Spirit.

But Mr. Edwards, for preparation to this his desperate intention, hath sent these Reasons against Independant government, and Toleration, and presented them to the Honorable House of Commons; which Reasons (I thinke) he would have to beget a Snake, to appeare (as he saith) under the greene grasse; for I am sure, he cannot make the humble petitions of of the Kings subjects to be a Snake, for petitioning is away of peace and submission, without violence or venum; neither can it cast durt upon any government of the Nation, as he unjustly accuseth the Protestation Protested, for that Author leaveth it to the Magistrate, not undertaking to determine of himselfe what government shall be set ever the Nation, for the bringing of men to God but leaveth it to the consideration of them that have authority.

And whereas Mr. Edwards grudges that they preach so often at the Parliament; in this he is like unto Amazial, who bid the Prophet Amos to flee away into the Land of Judea. and not to Prophesie at Bethel, the Kings Chappeil, and the House of the Kingdome.*

And though Mr. Edwards boast himselfe heare, to be a Minister of the Gospell, and a sufferer for it, yet I challenge him, to prove unto me, that he hath any Calling or, Ordination to the Ministry, but that which he hath successively from Rome; If he lay claime to that; he is one of the Popes household; But if he deny that calling, then is he as void of a calling to the worke of the Ministry, and as void of Ordination, as any of those Ministers, whom hee calleth Independant men, (which have cust off the Ordination of the Prelates) and consequently as void of Ordination as a macanicall trades man.

And therefore I hope that Honourable House that is so full of wisedome (which Mr Edwards doth confesse) will never judge these men unreasonable, because they do Petition, nor their petitions unreasonable before they are tried, and so proved, by some better ground, then the bare entrance of Mr. Edwards his Cavit, or writ of Ne admittas, though he saith he forehed it from heaven; for I know it was never there, Neither is it confirmed by the Records of holy Scripture, but taken from the practise of Nimrod. That mighty Hunter before the Lord,* and from the practise of Haman that wicked persecucuter,* & from the evill behaviour and malicious speeches, and gesture of wicked Sanballet,* and Tobias, who were both bitter enemies to God, and sought to hinder the building of the walles of Jerusalem.

But the Prophet Haggai, reproveth not onely such as hindred the building of the Lords House: but also those that were contented to live in their seyled Houses, and suffer the Lords House to lie waste, Hag. 1.

AN ANSVVER To Mr. Edvvards his Booke, Intituled, Reasons against the Independent Government in particular Congregations.


I Understanding that you are a mighty Champion, and now mustering up yourmighty forces (as you say) and I apprehending, they must come against the Hoast of Israel, and hearing the Armies of the Living God so defied by you, could nor be withheld, but that I (in stead of a better) must needs give you the meeting.

First, Whereas you affirme, That the Church of God (which is his House and Kingdome) could not subsist with such provision as their father gave them: which provision was (by your owne confession) the watering of them by Evangelists, and Prophets, when they were planted by the apostles, and after planting and watering to have Pastors and Teachers, with all other Officers, set over them by the Apostles & their own Election, yet notwithstanding all this provision, the Father hath made for them, it was evident (say you) they could not well stand of themselves, without some other helpe.

This was the very suggestion of Sathan into the hearts of our first Parents; for they having a desire of some thing more then was warranted by God, tooke unto them the forbidden fruit, as you would have the Lords Churches to doe when you say they must take some others besides these Churches and Officers, and that to interpose authoritatively; and these something else you make to be Apostles, Evangelists, and Elders of other Churches, whereas you confessed before, that these are the furniture of Christs Kingdome; and wee know their authoritie was limitted, within the bounds of the Word of God: as first, If any of them would be greater, he must be servant to all. Secondly, they were forbidden to be Lords over Gods heritage. Thirdly, they were commanded to teach the people, to observe onely those things which Christ had commanded them.

And whereas you seeme to affirme, that these Offices were extraordinary and ceased, and yet the Churches have still neede of them: You seeme to contradict your selfe, and would faine cure it againe, in that some other way which you say, you have to supply the want of them, but this other way you have not yet made known: You presuppose, it may be by some Smods and Councels, to make a conjunction of the whole.

If you meane such a Counsell, as is mentioned; Acts 15. 4. 22. consisting of Apostles and Elders with the whole Church; then you have said no more than you have said before, and that which we grant, for this is still the furniture of the Kingdome; but if you intend that your Counsell should consist of an armie of Arch-Bishops Diocesan Bishops, Deanes, Suffragans, with the rest of that rabble, which be for their titles names of blasphemy, and such as were bred in the smoake of the pit. I deny that any of these be ordained of God, for they have no footing in his word; therefore indeede these are a part of the fruit of the forbidden Tree, which the Churches of God have taken and eaten; and this seeking out inventions of their owne, after that God made them righteous, hath brought them into a state of Apostasie, even as Ieroboams high places and Calves did the people of Israel; which may plainely appeare by the Churches of Asia. If these be that some other supply which you meane and have produced to helpe the Churches, and Cities of God (as you call them) to determine for those Churches and Cities the cases of Doctrine and Discipline in stead of those many Ministers which, you conceive them now to want, it tends to make (as they have now done) a conjunction not onely of all the Churches prosessing one faith into one body; but also of all the Armies of the Man of Sinne, and so to confound the Church and the world together, which the Ministers of the Gospell ought to divide,Iss. 15. 19. by separating the precious from the vile.

And whereas you affirme, The Independent Congregations now have but few Ministers;

It is very true, for indeede they are but a few people, and a few hands will feede a few mouths sufficiently, if God provide meat.

But whereas you affirme, That those Congregations may have no Officer, at all by their owne grounds, and yet be independent.

I thinke, they conceive by those grounds, the Office onely of Pastor, and Teacher; but not that the Church of God hath need at any time of the helpe of any other, then God hath given and set in his Church, which be all the Officers that are before mentioned, as Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers; and to have recourse to any for counsell, helpe, or assistance, either of Church or Ministry, which is not of Christs owne, were very ridiculous. For it is recorded, Ephe. 4. 11. 12. That he gave these for the gathering together of the Saints for the worke of the Ministry, and for the edification of the body of Christ, being so gathered;Verse 13. 14. 16. The time they must continue is, till all the Saints be in the unitie of faith. The reason wherefore they were given, was to keepe people from being tossed too and fro with every winde of Doctrine. And these are they, by whom all the body is coupled and knit together,Compared with 1 Cor. 12. by every joynt for the furniture thereof, according to the effectuall power, which is in the measure of every part, and receiveth increase of the body unto the edifying of it selfe in love. And this is according to the promise that Christ made, Matth. 28. 19. 20. to be with his Ministers in teaching his people to the end of the world.

And thus you may see Mr. Edwards, you cannot gather from our owne words, that we have neede of the helpe of any other Churches, or Ministers, to interpose (as you unjustly affirme) as it may plainely appeare by Mr. Robinsons owne words in the Justification of the Separation, pag. 121. 122. These are his words; It is the Stewards duty to make provision for the family; but what if he neglect this duty in the Masters absence? Must the whole family starve, yea and the wife also? Or is not some other of the family best able to be employed for the present necessity? The like he saith concerning the government of a Ship, of an Armie, and of Commonwealths; alluding to the Church of Christ. And further expresseth, that as a private Citizen may become a Magistrate, so a private member may become a Minister, for an action of necessity to be performed, by the consent of the rest, &c.

Therefore it appeares plainely by all that hath binsaid, that the Churches of Christ may be truely constituted according to the Scripture, and subsist a certaine time without Pastor and Teacher, and enjoy the power of Christ amongst themselves having no dependancie upon any other Church or Churches which shall claime Authority or superiority over them.

And thus much for your first Reason.

NOw in your second Reason, which runneth upon the calling of the Ministry, you affirme, That the government of the Independent Congregations is not of divine institution.

Which I utterly denie, and will prove it, by disproveing the following. Instances, by which you affirme to prove it.

Whereas you affirme, That their Independencie forces them to have Ministers without Ordination.

I Answer, it is a plaine case by the foregoing Answer, to your first Reason, that you speake untruely, for their practise is there made knowne to be otherwise; and if you will still affirme, that they have not power so to practise, you will thereby deny the truth of the Scriptures; for the Apostles were commanded to teach the Churches, to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them. But Christ commanded the Apostles to ordaine Elders in every Church by election; therefore the Apostles taught the Churches to ordaine Elders by Election also. And whereas you bid us produce one instance (if we can) for an ordinary Officer to be made without Ordination, it is needlesse; for we (whom you call Independant) strive for no such thing, as you have proved it plainely out of Mr. Robinsons Booke, Apol. Chap. 1. 18. to which I send you to learne better.

Further you alleadge, That if they be ordained, it is by persons who are not in office.

Now if you meane, they have no office because they are not elected, ordained and set apart by the Clergie to some serviceable, administration; I pray you tell me who ordained the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists to their worke or Ministry? If you will say they were ordained of God, I will grant it, and doe also affirme that God hath promised the supply of them, to the end of the world, as before hath beene mentioned, from Ephe. 4. As a so, it appeares by Pauls charge to Timothy; 2 Tim. 2. 2. That what things he had heard of him, among many witnesses, the same he should commit to faithfull men who should be able to teach others also: but I verily doe beleeve, that as Titus, so Timoth, heard of Paul that Elders must be ordained by Election in every city, and that Titus was as much bound to communicate the things unto others, which he had learned of Paul, as Timothy was, and Timothy (we know) was to teach faithfull men, and those faithfull men were to teach others those things that they had heard of Timothy, among which things Ordination was one, as it was delivered to Titus; and we are not to doubt of Timothius faithfulnesse in the declaring of this part of his message more than the rest, but if those to whom Timothy delivered it, were not faithfull in the discharge of their duty: but that in due time the Ordinances might possibly grow out of use, as the Churches did by little and little apostate; yet that hinders not but that it was still written in the Scripture that the generations to come might recover againe the right use of the Ordinances when God should by his Spirit direct them to know the same.

Moreover, I affirme, that all the Lords people, that are made Kings and Priests to God, have a free voyce in the Ordinance of Election, therefore they must freely consent before there can be any Ordination; and having so consented they may proceede to Ordination, notwithstanding they be destitute, of the Counsell or assistance of any neighbour Church; as if there were no other Churches in the Land, but onely one company of beleevers joyned together in fellowship, according to Christs institution. The promise made in the 14th, of Iohn 12. 13. is made unto them, where Christ said. The workes that he did they should doe &illegible; & that whatsoever they should aske in his name, that he would do for &illegible; that the Father may be glorified, and that the Spirit of truth should dide with them for ever. And that he should teach them all things, and bring all things unto their remembrance, as it is said in the following verses of the same Chapter. This (you may see) is the portion of beleevers, and they that have this portion are the greatest in the world, and many of them are greater than one, but many joyned together in a comely order in the fellowship of the Gospell, according to the Scriptures, are the greatest of all and therefore have power to ordaine, and to blesse their Ministers in the name of the Lord. Thus the lesser is blessed of the greater.

Now Mr. Edwards, I hope you will confesse, that you spake unadvisedly, when you affirmed, The maintenance of Independensie, was the breaking of Gods Ordinance, and violating of that Order and constant way of Ministers recorded in the Word.

To this I Answer, that if the Church doe elect one, he must be elected out of some more, & those that are not elected, may be as able to blesse the Church in the name of the Lord, as he, therefore one of these who are not elected, being chosen by the whole Church, to blesse him in the name of the Lord, whom the Church hath ordained, is the hand of the whole (who are greatest of all, and so a sufficient Officer for that worke which hee is put a part to doe.

Thus you may see (Mr. Edwards) that we doe not hold Ordination extraordinary and temporary; neither doe we hold it the least of Gods Institutions, for we have respect unto them all; But that nothing in matter of Order hath so cleare and constant a practise as this (as you do affirme) and also say, the whole frame of Church and Discipline, hath not so much ground in the word for it as this. I deny, and doe affirme, that not onely this, but all Gods Ordinances have as much ground and footing in Gods Word also.

Yet notwithstanding you say, that Calvin confesseth, that there is no expresse precept concerning the imposition of hands: Hath the imposition of hands no footing in Gods Word? and yet hath not all the forme of Gods Worship so much footing as it? Here Mr. Calvin and you, will now pin all the forme of Church and Discipline, upon unwritten verities.

Further, you rehearse confusedly, the opinion of Zanchius to strenghen yours who (say you) would have the example of the Apostles and ancient Church, to be more esteemed of, and to be instead of a command.

I pray you, how doe you know it to be their example, if it be not written?

And whereas you alledge, that Zanchius saith, it is no value Ceremony but the holy Spirit is present to performe things inwardly, which are signified by this Ordinance outwardly.

I have granted you that already, where I affirme, that the Church having the Spirit of God hath power by an instrument of her owne chusing, to blesse the party to his worke in the name of the LORD; and I am also bound to beleeve, that God will accompany that his owne Ordinance (which is performed by them outwardly) with his owne Spirit inwardly, to furnish the party (so blessed by them) with the knowledge of the Scripture, which is able to furnish the man of God to every part of his duty. And thus you may see, that we have not departed from Christs way, nor gone any other way, in things concerning his House and Officers, then he hath directed.

And whereas you demand for what cause Paul left Titus at Creete? I answer, that I have told you before, that it was to communicate the things unto others, which hee had learned, whereof Ordination was one. And no doubt but hee declared the same to faithfull men, that they might teach others also, therefore he was there employed in preaching of the Gospell, as well as if he had gone preaching with Paul.

The next thing you goe upon, is the triall of the gifts of Ministers, and this you attribute to them which have the greatest measure of the Spirit, for you say, Examination belongeth to the most skilfull, and they who have most authority.

All these things are well allowed of by us, for who hath a greater measure of the Spirit than beleevers? and who hath more skill than he that hath beene trained up in the Schoole of Christ? and hath learned this Lesson to be obedient to his Master Christ in keeping of all his commandements? and who hath greater authority upon the earth then they that are visible Saints? and what makes men visible Saints? if not the manifestation of their obedience to God the Father, and Christ his sonne, in the practise of all his Ordinances, and not to have some other Presbyters present with them, to assist them, (as you affirme) for by these other Presbyters, I know not yet who you meane.

And whereas you say, that the Church may be led into errours, or kept in a low estate by unfit Pastors and Elders.

I answer, It is a cleare truth; as wofull experience teacheth us, who live here in the Land of England.

And whereas you affirme, that visible Saints cannot ordaine Officers, because they have no gifts of prayer.

I Answer, Here you make prayer the Ordination of Ministers.

And whereas you say they are not able to conceive prayer.

Here you give the holy Ghost the lie: for Beleevers have received the Spirit of adoption to cry Abba Father,

But say you, they cannot conceive prayer according to the action in &illegible;

Here you would seeme to make beleevers, which have the Spirit of God, to leade them into all truths, more voide of common reason, then men that have but gifts of nature.

Againe, you say, they have not gifts to make publike exhortation, and admonition.

To which I answer, If they had first knowledge to feele the want of a Pastor, and also diversable men out of whom to elect and ordaine a Pastor, then they out of whom this person is chosen, are able to exhort, and to admonish: for he that hath not the gift of teaching, may have the gift of exhortation: againe, the man that undertaketh to teach others, ought to be taught by God, and likewise to be able by sound Doctrine to withstand the Gainesayers, but a man may give good exhortations, (and that publikely) that is not able to withstand the Gainesayers by sound Doctrine. By this you may see, the Church of God can never be without some Ministers, except it be (according to that spoken by zachariah) in the day of very small things indeede, when God shall take away their Ministers by death, prison, or exile: for seeing the Churches were planted by Ministers of Gods owne ordaining; therefore they were not without Ministers in the very beginning: and still the Churches are planted by the Ministeriall power of the Lord Jesus, which cannot be exercised without fit instruments; Yet that they must want the word preached, or Sacraments administred, till they have Pastors and Teacher in Office, is yet to be proved, but that page of Mr. Robinsons, which hath beene alledged before, is sufficient for this present purpose against you, even to prove that the family must not be unprovided for, either for the absence or neglect of a Steward.

But now you seeme to insinuate an affirmation, or a supposition, I cannot well tell whether, That a ruleing Elder may be destitute of the guift of discering, and seeme to imply, that if he be destitute, then all the Church must be destitute, if there be no more Officers then be.

Here you would faine make the ruling Elders, the eyes of the Church, and then all the rest of the body must be blinde, and so unfit to have any hand in election, and also voide of the Spirit of Grace to discerne the gifts by, though it hath beene proved unto you before, that she is the greatest of all, having the Spirit of God to leade her into all truth, being the Spouse of Christ, and endowed with all his riches, gifts, and donations.

And thus you still deny the Authority & ability of the Church giving to the persons in office all power and deserning. But this is indeede according to your practise here in England, but not according to the minde and Spirit of God.

And for the neighbour Churches Counsell, I deny not, but that it may be imbraced, and the Saints have cause to praise God for any helpes of Gods ordaining. But if they want the helpe of a neighbour Church to Counsell them, or neighbour Ministers to direct them: yet if they be a Church of Jesus Christ, they have (as hath beene said before) power among themselves to elect and ordaine their owne Officers; as also the Spirit of discerning, whereby to try their gifts, and yet be farre from falling into that evill, which they complaine against in the Episcopacie (namely) for one man to have the sole power of Ordination.

By all these particulars, you may clearely see all your pretended proofes and former assertions disproved, as I promised you, in the entrance of this my answer to your second Reason.

So that these two first Reasons, being (as I conceive) the greatest Champions, which you have sent out in this skirmage, are now both slaine, and made voide of all the life that ever was in them, for, they were made most of suppositions, and of things that appeared unto you by likelihood, without any ground from the Scriptures: and of some other thing than Gods Word allowed: and of some triviall affirmations which were not grounded upon any truth of Gods Word.

Now, these two being thus turned aside, by one of the meanest of all the Army of Jesus Christ, you may justly feare, that all the rest of your souldiers will run away wounded.

IN your third Reason, You say it is not to be thought, that Christ would institute such a Government of his Church which off ords no helpe; nor allowes no way or remedy for innocent persons that are wronged.

Which thing I grant to be very true; but touching the means and helpes which you pleade for, that is, some other Synods to appeale unto, I tell you I know not what Synods you meane. But this I affirme that there are no larger Synods to be kept to settle Church differences, then the comming together of the Ministers, and Brethren, as it is mentioned in the 15th. of the Acts, which I have garnted you in my Answers to your former Reasons.

And whereas you strive for appeales:

I Answer, It is the rule of Christ:Matth. 14. 15. 16. 17. that if one brother doe trespasse against another; and if the brother offending will not be reclaimed by the private admonition of the brother offended, he is to be admonished by one or two other brethren with him; but if he will not heare them, the brother offended is to tell the Church; and if he will not heare the Church, then he is not to be accounted a brother but as a Heathen man and a Publican; if not as a brother, then out of the fellowship: then if the wrong be any personall injury, as oppression, or fraud, or any other finne of these natures, the Law is open, where he may appeale for Justice to the Magistrate in any part of the Kingdome, where-ever he liveth; but if it be a matter of scandall; as if hee should be a drunkard, or incontinent, or the like, then he hath sufficient remedy, when such a one is cast out of his society. By this you may see, the way of government given by Christ Jesus, the King of peace, is the way of peace and righteousnesse.

And whereas you affirme, That if the controversie touching Circumcision, should have beene ended in the Church of Antiochia, then parties must have beene Iudges.

Here, you would seeme by this to make the whole Church of Antioch leavened with the Doctrine of Justification by Circumcision, which to doe is a very great slander, as it appeares by Paul & Barnabas opposing them there, and that Churches sending Paul and Barnabas to have the Churches advise at Ierusalem concerning this matter.

But whereas you affirme,Acts 15. 1. &illegible; That the Church of Antiochia, judged it unequall to decide the case among themselves:

I answer, That they judged it unequall, is more than is expressed in that place: but if that should be granted it will make against you, for their reason in sending the matter to Ierusalem, was, because the parties were members of the Church of Ierusalem, as it appeares by Acts. 15. 1. 5. 24. The first verse sheweth, that they were men of Iudea; the 5th. verse proves that they were Beleevers; The 24th verse declares, that they went out of the Church of Ierusalem unto them. And by this you may see plainely, that this Chapter (above all the Chapters that I can finde) proves Independencie upon your owne ground; that the Church of Antiochia judged it an unequall thing for them to judge the members of the Church of Ierusalem. And by this you may perceive, how you have either erred, not knowing the Scriptures or else you have done worse in labouring to darken the truth by evasions, or false glosses.

Thus much for your third Reason.

IN your fourth Reason you affirme, That the light and Law of Nature, with right reason, is against the Independencie of particular Churches; which is an unjust affirmation as hath beene plainely proved before in the Answer to your third Reason. But a few words concerning this Reason.

You say it is found necessary, in bodies naturall, that the particular members doe joyne in one, for the good of the whole, and that the whole being greater than a part, the severall parts should be subject too, and ordered by the whole: All this I have granted you freely already in the Answer to your second Reason; where I have plainely proved unto you, that the hands of the Church are ordered by the whole body, in the Ordination of the Ministery: And this is according to the very Scripture it selfe, for the holy Ghost speaketh so, in 1 Cor. 12.1 Cor. 12. Comparing the Church of God to the naturall body of a man; and therefore when the hand lanceth the foote, it cannot be said properly to be the action of the hand alone, because the hand is set a worke, by the body; neither can the body set the hand a worke, if it be destitute of the power, for the motion of the body commeth not from the hand but the motion of the hand from the body; and thus you may see I have granted your comparison. And the nearer politicke bodies doe goe to this Rule; the more orderly they are guided; for as all the cities and country of England, make up but one Kingdome, and all the people in England ought to be subject to one King; so all the Independant Congregations in England, and out of England, (that are guided by the Lawes of Christ) make up but one Kingdome spiritually to him that is their King.

Now concerning Armies; though I be very ignorant in these things, yet thus much I conceive, that all the Armies, that belong to the Kingdome ought to be under the banner of their owne King; even so all the particular Congregations of Christ, are to be guided by the Lawes of their owne Captaine Christ, who rideth before them with his garments dipt in blood, and they follow after him riding upon white horses, Revel. 19. 11, 12. 13, 14.

We reade also in the Scripture of another armie, which were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ: And this armie (I conceive) consisteth of those Locusts, which ascended out of the bottomlesse pit, Rev. 9. And these, as I told you before, are Arch-Bishops, Diocesan Bishops, Deanes, Prebends, &c. and the rest of that rabble; and these also have a King over them, which is the Angell of the bottomlesse pit, who is said to be the great red Dragon the Devill and Sathan, Rev. 12. 3. 9. and 20. 2. who gave unto this armie his power and throne, and great authority, Rev. 13. 2. Therefore, to any Counsells that are held, or Canon Lawes that are enacted by any Captaine of this armie, the Churches of Christ ought not to submit, though they should be commanded, by any Statute Law of the Kingdome; for those Statute Lawes are not according to Christs Rule, but ought by all Councells of State to be repealed.

And whereas you say, It is alledged by the Separation; that hold Independancie, That the Magistrate of Leyden cannot governe in Delph:

This I hope you will grant; for I am sure the Magistrates of Coventry cannot execute their office in Shrewsbury, neither can the one Towne chuse Magistrates for the other: and this still proves Independencie, for either of these may chuse their owne, and guide their owne at all times, except they forfeit their Charter.

Now whereas you say, the people alleadge for themselves, that the Law of nature teacheth them to make a Covenant; though there be neither precept nor practise of it in the word.

I suppose you misconster their sayings, for the text alleadged in Thessalonians 40 doth not prove that brotherly love was never written of in the Scripture; but that it had beene so sufficiently taught of God by written precepts, that it needed not to be written againe. Besides, I am able to prove by the Scripture, that there is both precept and practise for a Church Covenant: the which I will answer you in the Answer to your 6th. Reason, where you begge the Question.

Concerning what is asserted by some Divines of Scotland, That in such things as are alike common to the Church, and Commonwealth, and have the same use in both, and that whatsoever natures light directeth the one, directeth the other also.

You know (by what hath beene formerly spoken) I have fully assented unto it.

I also agree with Amesius, as farre as he agrees with the truth; but to agree with you in that falsehood, that the Government of independant Churches, is against the light of nature and right Reason, that I have denied, and disproved sufficiently already.

Thus having answered every particular thing in this Reason, that hath not beene answered already, I proceede to the Fifth.

IN your 5th. Reason you affirme, That there be many Rules in Scripture, that doe require the combination of Churches into Synods; for proofe whereof you say, that Amesius confesseth, the Rules and Commands to be such as these; Let all things be done to edification, decently and in order, Cor. 14. 26. 40. and follow after the things which make for peace, Rom. 14. 19. So Phil. 4. 8. And you conclude that Synods are found to be for edification, peace, and order. But you have brought no Scripture yet that proveth it; and I know all Scripture is against it, therefore I deny it. And as for the Scriptures alleadged (as you say) by Amesius, they are such as were spoken to particular Congregations: and in the particular Congregation of Colosse, Paul beheld a comely order, notwithstanding there were no Synod consisting of any but onely the members and Ministers of that Congregation, Col. 2. 5.

And as for commands, which you say are some generall, and others particular; Here you labour by evasions to turne away the truth; for you your selfe know, that every particular command reacheth not to the generall, though a generall command reach to every particular. Now if you can shew us in the Scriptures any generall command, that all the Churches should, or an example that all the Churches did gather a Councell of some Ministers out of every particular Congregation, to make Decrees or Lawes to impose upon the whole, then you will speake speake something to the purpose, but as yet you have not spoken one word that proveth any such thing.

And whereas you alleadge that Scripture, That the Spirits of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. 32.

I Answer, That that is given to particular Congregations; and therefore not to all in a Province or Nation, and so not to Synods: And Paul never sought to winne credit nor obedience to Orders established by himselfe, (as you say) for he never made any other Orders, nor taught the people any other thing than what he had received of the Lord Jesus, as it is plaine in 1 Cor. 11. Be ye followers of me (saith he) as I am of Christ, and in the 23. verse of the same Chapter, I have received of the Lord (saith he) that which I have delivered unto you. Paul also writes unto these Corinthians, (whom he had converted unto the faith) to be followers of him, 1 Cor. 4. 16. in ver. 17. he sheweth them, that therefore he sent Timothy unto them, to the end that Timothy should put them in remembrance of Pauls wayes in Christ, as Paul had taught every where in every Church. Here you may see Paul brings not the Example of the Synod before them, nor layes upon them any Decree or Command, to practise otherwise than he himselfe had learned in Christ; yet I hope you will not deny, but that this Church spoken of, was a Church of Christ as well as the Church of Colosse.

Now the next thing to be considered is, that which you alleadge of Pauls submission, to the practise of what was agreed upon, by the common consent of Iames, and the rest of the Elders, Acts 21. from. 18. &illegible; 27.

The Reason why they counselled Paul to doe the thing, was, because of the information that the Jewes had then against Paul; that he taught the people to forsake Moses, Acts 21. 21. Now I hope you will not deny, but that this was a false affirmation.

The thing wherein they conceived he transgressed was, by bringing in Trophimus and Ephesian, (as they thought into the Temple) because they saw him with him in the citie.

This was but their supposition, as it appeares in the 29 verse of this Chapter.

Now what the Elders counselled Paul to doe, in respect of giving offence to the Jewes, was no injunction to any to follow the same example, except it were in the same case.

Now Paul himselfe was a Jew, and taught all men that Christ was come to fulfill the Law, and not to destroy the Law; therefore he condescended to circumcise Timothy because his mother was a Jew,Act. 16. 1. 3. and the Jewes knew his father was a Grecian. But Titus a Grecian was not compelled to be circumcised; yea, though there were false brethren craftily crept in, to spy out their liberty; Paul gave not place to them, no not for an houre, Gal 2. 3. 4. 5.

Now the things that the Elders counselled Paul to doe, was to purifie himselfe, with them that had a vow, and to contribute with them; and the reason wherefore they counselled Paul to doe this, was, that it might appeare to the Jewes that Paul was a Jew, and not an uncircumcised person for the Jewes knew that it was a sinfull thing to bring into the Temple any uncircumcised person in heart or flesh, Ezek. 44. 7.

Now Paul in all this did nothing but what was commanded in the Law, as purifications and vowes, &c.

Moreover, this counsell of Iames and the Elders unto Paul, was not generall to the beleeving Jewes; neither was it generally or particularly to the Gentiles, but particularly to Paul, and the rest with him, because of the false report which the Jewes had received of him.

And as this Counsell was not generall, so it was not perpetuall, but served to put an honorable end to the Law, which Christ came to fulfill, and not to destroy.

By all this it appeares, it maketh nothing for any counsell that you plead for, to establish any unwritten verities; for such counsels are the counsels of darkenesse: because they are not according to the Law and the Testimony, it appeares there is no light in them: therefore they are not of authoritie to bind any particular member of the Church, much lesse the generall, as you say they are.

But seeing you confesse, that no Synod can say, It seemeth good unto the holy Ghost and to us; it plainely appeares that your counsels presume without the counsell of the holy Ghost. But you may see, that the Church of Ierusalem did nothing without the counsell of the Spirit, neither determined of anything, that was not written in the Scripture. So the Churches of God now ought to presume to do nothing but what the written Word allowes them; being taught the true meaning thereof by the Spirit that God hath given them.

Moreover, the counsell of Ierusalem imposed nothing upon the Gentiles for a Law, but counselled them to abstaine from some necessary things, which would be either offensive to the Jewes, or sinfull in themselves, Acts 15. 29. 20. 28. 29.

Now seeing the Church of Ierusalem hath done nothing, but by he counsell of the written word, in forbidding things sinfull in themselves and offensive to their brethren, it appeares to be plainely against your Synods, and dependencie in government, which in cases difficult, doe establish things which have no footing in Gods word; neither have they, by your owne confession, in their Counsels any one, who is immediately and infallibly imspired by the Spirit, and able of himselfe to satisfie the controversie, they being by your owne confession inferiour to Paul and Barnabas; And Paul and Barnabas might teach nothing but what was taught in the Law and the Prophets. And therefore, by this it appeares you have not grounded any affirmation or supposition upon Gods word; for the proving either of your Synods or dependencie.

Thus much for your fifth Reason.

IN your sixth Reason you affirme that the government of the Church by Synods, is no where forbidden by God in the new Testament, either directly, or by consequence.

But I doe affirme the contrary, and prove it thus;

That whatsoever Government is not commanded by God is accursed, and that is plainely manifested in the New Testament, Rev. 22. 18.

But your government by Synods is not commanded by God, and therefore it is accursed; as it will appeare in the following discourse.

Whereas you say, that all the Ministers are greater than one:

I have already proved,See the Answer to his second Reason against Independencie. that the Church of Christ is greater than all the Ministers.

You say Synods appoint no other office or Officer in the Church, which Christ hath not appointed.

Me thinkes you are strangely put to your shifts, that dare not tell the world what you meane by your Synods. But if you meane the Councell or Convocation that used to sit at Pauls, I have told you already they are none of the Councell of Christ neither hath he appointed that councell or any other councell, to make, or ordaine, either Officers or Offices for his Church, therefore so to affirme is blasphemie, for he himselfe is their Lord and Law-giver, and hath instituted every particular Ordinance in his Church, that the Church hath neede of, therefore it is (as hath beene said already) against the Law and light of nature, and contrary to edification, order, peace, purenesse, lovelinesse, for any to decree for, or injoyne upon, the Assemblies of the Saints any other practise but those that the Apostles have taught, which they themselves had learned from the Lord Jesus; but as for you Mr. Edwards, it appeareth plainely that you doe not understand nor see the forme of the Lords House; which causeth you to call upon any to produce a particular word, or rule, for the order of Gods worship, what must be performed first, what second, what third, what fourth, and so of the rest; and that no Ordinance, and part of worship may be in another order. Further, you chalenge them if they can, to shew a particular word or rule out of the New Testament, for their Church Covenant, which you say, is the forme of the Church.

You also inquire for the forme of Excommunication, and Ordination, and gestures in the severall Ordinances of God, and this you say they are not able to doe, but onely in generall rules.

I have told you already that generall rules reach to every perticular, and that is no more than you seeme to know already; for you have confessed, that there are generall rules to teach every one of these particulars, which you could not chuse but acknowledge; otherwise you would have made Christ not so faithfull in his house as Moses. But the more you know, the greater is your sinne, in that you labour to turne away the light; and you are still repairing of those thresholds, which have beene set up by Gods thresholds. If I had any hope therefore that you would be ashamed of all that you have done, I would shew you, though not all that I see, yet what I am able to expresse of the forme of the house of God,See Ezck. 43. 11. and the paterne thereof, and the going out thereof, and the comming in thereof, and all the Ordinances thereof, and the Lawes thereof and write it in your sight, that so you may keepe the whole fashion thereof, and all the Ordinances thereof, and doe them.

As for the Ordinance of Election, Ordination, and Excommunication &c. I have declared already the forme to them that have their eyes open to see it. But they cannot see the forme of the house, that have not repented them of the evills that they have done, therefore I will cease to strive with such persons, for they may live and stay long enough, and be of no Church of Christ.

Thus much for your Sixth Reason.

IN your 7th. Reason you say, That consociation and combination, in way of Synods, is granted by themselves, (and you produce for your Authors these foure; Christ on his Throne, Examination of Prelates Petition, Syons Prerogative Royal, and the Protestation Protested; which Authors, if the Reader please to examine, shall final cleare against you) That which you have gathered here from these Authors is, that they grant that one Church should be content that matters of difference and importance should be heard by other Churches, as also to be advised and counselled by other Churches, &c.

I answer, though all should confesse, that it is profitable to have the counsell of their brethren and neighbour Churches in doubtfull cases, yet this will be farre from proving the lawfulnesse of your Synods; as may appeare by the Authors that your selfe hath here alledged, for they intend no such Consociation, nor Combination, which you have mentioned: but seeing your selfe would have something which you cannot prove, you would begge of others to grant it or prove it for you.

Concerning the Orders, or Decrees of the Church of Ierusalem (Acts 164) they were not such Decrees as were alterable, but such as were warranted by God, and a perpetuall Rule for all the Churches of the Gentiles.

You neede not tell me what Amesius speaketh of the parts of Discipline, as if any of the Separation, held it to consist all in Excommunication; for I have told you already, that they have seene the forme of the Lords house, and have respect unto all his Ordinances, and doe not take one for all.

Neither is it granted you, that admonitions and reproofes, and decreeing of Excommunications should be by Officers of other Churches, towards members of any Congregation, though in the same constitution; the contrary most evidently appeareth, even by the practise of the Church of Antioch, who brought the matter to the Church of Ierusalem, which concerned the Church of Ierusalems members, neither may any of the Churches now be subject to the censures of other Congregations except they must be subject to humane Ordinances; but in case, both the members, and the Church, be obstinate in any knowne sinne, then are the Churches of God bound to admonish her, and reprove her, and reject her; as if the Church of Antiochia had found the Church of Ierusalem all leavened with the Doctrine of Iustification by circumcision; then had the Church of Antiochia power to admonish, reprove, and reject the Church of Ierusalem, and not have communion with them, if they persisted obstinate in that evill; for the Church of Antiochia was not inferiour in power to the Church of Ierusalem.

Thus much for your seventh Reason.

IN the beginning of your Eight Reason you say they grant and confesse That Churches of one constitution ought to withdraw from; and renounce communion and fellowship with a Congregation or Church that is fallen into sinne, as false Doctrine, and evill discipline, &c.

I answer, I have granted you, that in the conclusion of the answer to your 7th. Reason, if the Church stand obstinace in sinne and will not be reclaimed.

But that they should be complained on to Synods and Classes, and subject to their censures, that is but a question of your owne begging, and remaines for you to prove, and denied of me.

The next thing you would know is the diference betweene Excommunication and rejection and would seeme to make them both one.

To which I answer, Titus had power to reject a person,a but we doe not reade that he had power of himselfe to excommunicate that person.

A wicked man may be said to reject God when he rejecteth his Word. So Saul rejected God, (1 Sam. 15. 23. therefore God rejected him from being King, vers. 26. but did he excommunicate God? So the people of Israel rejected God, 1 Sam. 8. 7. and 10. 19. Did they therefore excommunicate God?

Here Mr. Edwards, you may see that Excommunication is more than rejection, as it also plainely appeares by Pauls words, 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. where he delivers unto them the forme of Excommunication, in these words; When ye are gathered together, and my spirit, in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, that such a one by the power of our Lord Iesus Christ be delivered unto Sathan, &c. Here Mr. Edwards, you may plainely see the forme of this part of the Lords house; This you see Paul had determined before; and also that Pauls spirit was together with the Church in the action doing; yet Paul tooke not upon him that power of himselfe, but committed the action to the Church who had the power of our Lord Iesus Christ, as he himselfe testifieth, which plainely proves, that the Church had the power that Paul had not; for though Paul was a good Counsellor, yet he was no executioner in that action, but as a member for his part. Here Mr. Edwards you may see the difference betweene rejection and excommunication; a man in rejecting the Law of God may be said to reject God, and he that addes to, or diminisheth from the Lawes of God, rejects God, in rejecting the counsell of God, which injoynes him neither to adde, nor diminish; but you by pleading for your unknowne Synods and ungrounded dependencie, reject the counsell of God: and so doe all those, that assist you in it.

The next thing you affirme as; That this government of Independencie (which I have proved to be Christs government) &illegible; the Communion of Saints.

To which I answer, This appeares to be contrary by that which hath beene said already; as for example, the difference betweene the Church of Antiochia, and the Church of Ierusalem; turned to good, because they undertooke not the authority to determine the case themselves, as hath beene said; because it was against the members of the Church of Ierusalem: and this increased union and communion in both Churches, as we may plainely see, for Peter communicated unto them what God had revealed unto him: and Paul & Bernabas declared what God had done by them. Iames calls from bathe to confidet what Peter had declared; and backes it with the Scripture, manifesting how it agreed with the words of the Prophets, as you may reade at large, in Act. 15. Thus you may see what sweete Communion was betweene these Churches that were both Independant.

Now, whereas you say it cannot be in a Christian Common-wealth, or Nation.

I doe affirme it may stand with Christs Church in a Common-wealth, as may plainely appeare in the three first Chapters of the Revelations, which cestifies that there were seven Churches in Asia, and these seven Churches were compared to seven &illegible; Candlestickes,b and every Candlesticke stood by it &illegible; and held forth her owne light, as appeares by those severall messages, which were sent to those seven Churches for had they had a dependencie one upon another in respect of power, then one message would have served unto them all; and what sinne any of the Churches or Angels were guilty of, would have been said unto the change of all the Churches and Angels; but wee see it was otherwise:Rev. 2. 20. As for instance, there was none charged for suffering the woman Iezebel to teach the people, to commit fornication, and to eate things sacrificed to Idols, but the Angell of Thyatira; by this you may plainely see there was not one Angell set over them all, nor one Synod oppointed to judge and correct them all, which is the thing you labour for. Yet it cannot be said that the Independancie of these seven Churches hindred their communion, either with Christ their head, or one with another; neither was it any disturbance to the Common-wealth or Nation wherein they lived.

And here you cannot say that I have evaded, but have answered you directly to these your doubts, and suppositions, and to many of your Iffs. which have beene your &illegible; out in this Scout; And moreover, I will answer all your many Reasons as I come to them (though they be joyned in battle with these) I meane your following Reasons against Toleration; and also batter, or drive backe your answers which you have made to the Six Reasons, which you say be theirs, and yet neither this Scout, nor the joyned, nor the subjoyned forces, shall be able to discover what strength is on my side, although they be formed by you in battle aray.

Now I have proved the Independant Government to be Christs Government; I will also prove in my Answers to these your following Reasons, that the Independant Congregations performe Christs publike worship, and therefore ought to be tolerated, and maintained in the practise thereof.

IN the beginning of your first Reason against Toleration, you grant, that the Scriptures speake much for Toleration, and bearing with one another in many things, both in matters of opinion and practise, and the Scriptures you quote are very pertinent to this purpose, his alwayes provided, they are to be understood as spoken properly to particular Congregations, and not unto any whole Nation.

But to stand for the Toleration of the maintenance of Heresie, and Schisme, is not the Toleration that we plead for (as farre as hath beene yet made knowne) but rather your insinuation: for I have declared unto you already in the driving backe of the first Scout of your Army. That God hath provided a way and meanes to purge every Congregation of his from all such persons that doe offend, whether it be in matters of Faith or Order. Neither doe any that stand for Christian liberty condemne them for cruelty, or that it is against charitie.

For if we compare the Church with one man or a few then it will easily appeare, that the one doth out-weigh the other: and you say, Calvin saith, It is cruell mercy which preferres one man, or a few, before the Church: To these words of Calvin I doe fully agree unto, for they are of the same nature with my former Answers to your Reasons against Independancie, where I have proved against you, that the weight and power lieth in the Church and that the Church is above the Ministers, and that the Ministers have their power by the Church to exercise in the Church, and not the Church by the Ministers.

The next thing to be considered in this your Reason, is your peremptory affirmation, but grounded upon no Scripture, (namely) That to set up Independant and separated Churches, is a Schisme in it selfe, and that it will make great disturbance in the Church, both to the outward peace, and to the faith and conscience of the people of the Kingdome.

Now that it is a Schisme in it selfe, I deny, and prove the contrary thus;

God hath commanded all his people to separate themselves from all Idolatryc and false worshippingd and false worshiperse (and therefore it is no Schisme) except you will make God the Author of Schisme) & this is according to the Prophet Esaiabs words, Esay 1. which is the first Lesson that every one ought to learne; evento cease to doe evill. But I hope it will not be denied but that they are to learne another lesson, which is, to learne to doe well: but to doe well is to keepe all Gods Commandements, and to obey God rather then men.

Now Gods commands to his people, is, that they learne to know the forme of the house (as I have told you before) and all the Ordinances of the house, and to doe them, Ezek. 43. 11. but the Ordinances of Christs Kingdome under the Gospell, (amongst the rest) are Doctrine, Fellowship, breaking of Bread, and Prayer; which Ordinances the Saints continued stedfastly in, and are commended for their constancie in the same, Acts 2. 42 and that in every particular Church or Congregation, though there were divers in one Nation, and yet I hope you will not affirme it was any disturbance to the Nation (otherwise then Christ hath shewed shall ever be, that the seed of the Serpent, shall persecute the seede of the Woman) for Gods people are said to be a peaceable people and the Lord himself hath said that he hath set them in the world as Lambs among Wolves. Now there must needs be a disagreement betweene Lambes and Wolves but the Lambes are not the cause thereof. By this you may see that Separation is not a Scisme, but obedience to Gods Commandement.

And for any Magistrate to give way for men to separate, from the worship of the Kingdome established by Law (if that worship be not according to Gods Law) is the Magistrates duty; and the Magistrate shall partake of no sinne in so doing because there is no sinne committed. Therefore the Magistrate ought not to forbid the practise of Gods Worship; when hee hath power to command it; for he is set up for the practise of those that doe well, and for the punishment of evill does.

And therefore you did well, when you admonished the Parliament in your Epistle, to cast out of the way all &illegible; blockes, and to breake downe all Images,See the 3. & 4 lease of his Epistle. and Crucifixes; and to throw downe all &illegible; and remove the High places; and to breake to pieces the brazen Serpents which have beene so abused to Idolatry and Superfiction. So then you grant, that much may be done (as it seemeth by your speech) and yet if there be not a full reformation, even to the throwing downe of the High places, it will prove a blemish to the reformers.

Reasons. 1. Pag. 23.You say, be that doth not forbid, when he hath power, he commands.

But I hope you doubt not but the Parliament hath power, and therefore whatsoever they doe not forbid (by your owne ground) they have of doe command.

But in the Protestation, they have not forbidden Gods Worship, which is according to his Word; but they have Protested (and have injoyned others so to doe) to maintaine and defend the Protestant Religion, expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England, against all Popery, and Popish Innovations, within this Realme &c. And in the Interpretation of their meaning of the said Oath, they binde us neither to the setforme of Worship, Discipline, or Government, nor any Rites or Ceremonies of the said Church of England.

Now if we must withstand Popery, and Popish Innovations, then we must needs withstand such dependencie as makes up a whole Nation a Church both good and bad, without separating the precious from the vile, and also such Synods or Counsels that decree, and make Lawes, and impose them upon any Church to keepe, having not the Word of God to warrant them; for these are Popish Innovations, and to be withstood by us, according to our Oath.

And truely Mr. Edwards, you might have asked the independant Ministers a question in private, (for you knew where to finde them) and not have propounded so filly a question before the Parliament, when there was none there to answer you.

Pag. 23.Your Question is, Whether it be fitting, that well meaning Christians should be suffered to goe to make Churches?

To this I Answer, It is fitter for well meaning Christians than for ill-meaning Christians, for well-meaning Christians be the fittest on the earth to make Churches, and to choose their Officers; whether they be Taylors, Felt-makers, Button-makers, Tent-makers, Shepherds, or Ploughmen, or what honest Trade soever, if they are well-meaning Christians; but ill-meaning Priests are very unfit men to make Churches; because what they build up with one hand, they pull downe with the other.

Further you seeme to feare the spreading of Heresies, if there be not a hindrance of these Assemblies.

But you should rather feare that your owne glory would be eclipsed by their gifts and graces; for they are not men of so meane parts as you would make them: but are able to divide the Word of God aright by the spirit that God hath given them. Therefore I would wish you rather to let your heart bleed for your selfe and for the evills that you have done. For Christ will never suffer any to perish for whom he died.

Thus much for your first Reason.

IN your second Reason you say, the Toleration desired will not helpe to heale the Schismes and Rents of your Church.

To which I answer, that if your Church be not the Church of Christ, it will not heale it indeede, for though the Prophets would have healed Babel, it could not be healed.

You say that Ministers and people will not submit to the Reformation and Government setled by Low.

It is very like so, if it be not free from Innovations of Popery, because they are sworne to the contrary.

But you say many doubts will arise in the peoples mindes, that the Government of your Church is not ordered according to the Word of God.

To this I answer; If you meane the Church of Englands Government, established by the Canon Law. I thinke it is out of doubt with the most, for they that understand but little, doe see and know that that Government is vaine and Popish; and that is the reason (as I conceive) why so many refuse to conforme to it: and if you feare that that will prove so great a division, you may doe well to counsell the Magistrates, to expell all such Government, and to reject all such Svnods and Counsells, and to labour to understand the minde of God, and to set up his Government over Beleevers in the Kingdome of England.

And whereas you say, that many of the people who yet be not in this Church way, are possessed with these principles (of the Independant way) and much looking towards it:

I say it is pitty they should any longer be led about by the way of the Wildernesse.

2. You doe affirme, that the mindes of multitudes of Professors in England, and especially in the City of London, are upon all occasions, very apt to fall to any way in Doctrine or discipline, that is not commonly received by the Church.

I answer, Indeede the Proverbe is verified upon them. The burned child dreads the fire; for they have beene so long deceived by your false glosses, that now their eyes being a little open, the light appeareth very sweete unto them; yea, although they see men but like trees, as the blinde man, when his eyes began to be opened, who had beene blinde from his birth.

The third thing which you have laid downe in this Reason, is; That the Ministers will not be tied, from preaching those points in publike, not from speaking of them in private.

To which I answer, I hope they will not indeed, for it were their great sinne, if they should not declare Gods whole Councell, so farre as he hath revealed it unto them.

But if they would (you say) the people both men and women, are so strangely bold and pragmaticall, and so highly conceited of their way as the Kingdome of Christ and the onely way of Christ, that out of those principles, they would be drawing many of their friendship and kindred; and many would (say you) come unto them.

I answer, that this (I hope) you count a vertue, for it is the property of the Sheepe when they fare well, to call their fellowes, But Hogges will not doe so.

The fourth thing to be minded is (that you say) Liberty, the power of government, and rule, to be in the people, are mighty pleasing to flesh and blood, especially in meane persons, and such as have beene kept under.

To which I answer, that they that have beene kept under, have beene kept under by the tyranny of the Man of Sinne; This you confesse to be especially the poore, upon whom those Taskemasters have laid the greatest burthens. Therefore for them to affect liberty is no wonder.

And whereas you say they would have the power and Rule:

I answer, It is not any power or Rule which is pleasing to the flesh (as you speake, thinking them to be like those Priests, Whose god is their belly, whose glory is their shame, who minde earthly things) but it is the power of Christ which they stand for, as they are members of the Churches of Christ; to which Churches Christ the King thereof hath given all power in spirituall things.

And that the Church of Christ consisteth of meane persons, is no wonder; for wee have learned, that the poore receive the Gospell, and you know you have granted, that it stands with the light and Law of Nature, That the liberty, power, and rule, should be in the whole, and not in one man or a few; so that the power must rest in the body; and not in the Officers, though the Church be never so poore.

Now the fifth thing you minde in this Reason is, That Tolleration will be made use of to strengthen their way.

And you also conclude, it will be granted, that the ablest Ministers could not answer them, and therefore were content they should have a Tolleration.

You doe very well to feare the worst, but you had done better if you had armed your selfe against them, and answered the Scriptures, they bring by Scripture: But it is a plaine case, you could not do that, & therfore your feare was just; but if you were a wellminded man, or a wellmeaning Christian man, you should not have feared the comming of the truth to light, nor have been afraid of reformation, because it would worke to your greater divisions, and rents, for Christ came not to set peace upon the earth, (as I have told you before) but the seede of the Serpent will be ever playing his part.

Thus much for your second Reason.

IN your third Reason you affirme, That Tolleration will breed divisions, and Schismes, disturbing the peace and quiet of Churches, and Townes.

I answer, I have told you already, we plead for no tolleration that shall disturbe the peace of Churches or Townes.

Moreover, you say, it will not onely doe so, but it will also breed divisions in families betweene husband and wife, brother, and brother.

To which I answer, There was a division in the first Family that ever was, and brother rose up against brother, but Tolleration was not the cause of it; but the malice of Sathan in the seed of the Serpent, as it hath beene, and is now at this day.

And this is according to Christs words, Luke 12. 52, 53. which saith, That there shall be five in one house, two against three, and three against two, &c. and in Matth. 10. 34. 35. 36. Thinke not (saith he) that I come to send peace into the earth, I came not to send peace, but the sword: For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in Law against her mother in Law, and a mans enemies shall be they of his owne household; and moreover, in Luke 21. 16. our Saviour doth declare, that we shall be betrayed, both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolkes, and friends.

Now if Christ may be said to be the Author of evill, then you may say that Toleration of true Religion is the cause of this division.

Againe you say, (O how) this will occasion disobedience.

To this your Lamentation I answer. O that you would remember the rule* that every servant ought to count his Master worthy of all honour; and in the judgement of charitie beleeve, that persons professing the Gospel will learne that lesson.

Next you say O! how will this take away that power & authority which God hath given to Husbands, Fathers, and Masters, over wives, children, and servants.

To this I answer, O! that you would consider the text in 1 Cor. 7. which plainly declares that the wife may be a beleever, & the husband an unbeleever, but if you have considered this Text. I pray you tell me, what authority this unbeleeving husband hath over the conscience of his beleeving wife; It is true he hath authority over her in bodily and civill respects, but not to be a Lord over her conscience; and the like may be said of fathers and masters, and it is the very same authority which the Soveraigne hath over all his subjects, & therfore it must needes reach to families: for it is granted that the King hath power (according to the Law) over the bodies, goods, and lives of all his subjects; yet it is Christ the King of Kings that reigneth over their consciences: and thus you may see it taketh away no authority which God hath given to them.

The next thing you say is, that they cannot be certaine, that their servants and children sanctifie the Lords day.

To which I answer, that indeede unbeleeving Masters take as little care of this, as they that have given liberty to prophane the Lords Day; but beleeving Parents and Masters, may easily know (if their children or servants be of any Congregation) what their life and conversation is, and therefore this can binder no duties, or workes of Families (as you falsely affirme) nor crosse the good and peace of Familes.

By this you may see, that this your groundlesse affirmation, is no good Reason against Toleration.

And therefore the Court of Parliament (to whom you submit for judgement) may easily see that good members both for Churches and Common-wealths, may issue out of such Families, that live under Christs government, and that such Families may be good Nurseries, both for Church and Common-wealth.

Thus much for your third Reason.

IN your fourth Reason you doe affirme, that there will be great danger of disputes amongst you about Government and Worship, and Doctrine, and practises (in the Conclusion) you say, it will be about a question where Saints goe when they die, whether to heaven or a third place.

I Answer, This is a question I never heard amongst the Separates, (or any of those whom you call Independant men), but amongst the Papists of Rome, and England.

The next thing is, about sitting with hats on to breake bread?

I Answer, this may be a question indeed, but not to breede division; for it may be as lawfull for one man to sit covered & another uncovered, as it may be lawfull for one man to receive it sitting, and another lying in bed. But if any man list to be contentious, the Churches of God have no such custome.

Thus much for your Fourth Reason.

IN your fifth Reason you affirme, that the Ministers of the Kingdome, can have little assurance, of the continuance of their flockes to them, if such a toleration be granted, but that the tolerated Churches will admit them into fellowship, and increase Churches out of their labours: and that they should doe little else but spend and be spent.

To this I answer, that if you were the Ministers of Christ, as you would be taken to be, it might be your comfort, joy, and glory, for it was the Apostles worke to gather the Saints, and to travell in birth of children; and they did not grudge that they were added unto the Churches of Christ, but tooke care for them being so added, for the care of all Churches lay upon them, and therefore they were as Fathers, and Nurses, unto them; and the Gospell admits of no such theft as to steale away members from other Churches: but if men draw neere to the truth (which never were members of any Church) and offer themselves to joyne unto us; we may admit them upon good experience of their life and conversation, for those members that travelled from one Church to another, were commended unto those Churches by Letters from the Church where they were members, or else they could not have beene admitted: and thus you may see the way of the Gospell admits of no such disorder.

Now whereas you say, that this Toleration upon any light occasion of demanding dues; or preaching against any thing they like not, opens a wide doore, and will invite them to disert their Ministers.

I answer, by demanding of that which you call dues; you may indeede give just occasion, for you may demand for due, that which is not due; as all the Priests of England doe. Likewise by preaching of Doctrine, you may give just occasion, if you justifie the wicked, and condemne the just, and make sad the hearts of those whom God would not have made sad; and then if your people slye from you, you may thanke your selves; but concerning what you count to be your due, I will declare hereafter.*

Thus much for your fifth Reason.

NOw in the beginning of your sixth Reason, you say, that liberty will be an undoubted meanes and way of their infinite multiplication and increase, even to thirty fould.

Truely I thinke you are afraid, as Pharaoh was, least the Lords-people should grow mightier then you.

Next you say, if the Parliament could like to have more of the breede of them, and have a delight to have multitudes exempted from the Ecclesiasticall Lawes of the Land, &c.

I answer, it is no disgrace to the Parliament, if they should so delight, though never Parliament before had done the like.

Moreover, you say, they have increased within this nine moneths, without a toleration, therefore (you conclude) they would multiply much, if they had a toleration, in many, if not in most Townes and Parishes, and you say it cannot be helped.

All this I grant may be; although they have not a Toleration, I thinke they will increase; for the Taskemasters can lay no heavier burthens upon them, then they have said already: but though they should increase, it will not be unprofitable, for the increase of beleevers will be the strength and glory of the Kingdome; for they will in all lawfull things, be subject to the Kings Majestie their dread Soveraigne, and to all the wholesome Lawes of his Land, and therefore it will be no danger to have (as you say) swarmes of them.

Thus much for your Sixth Reason.

Pag. 29.IN your 7th. Reason you affirme, that it will be very prejudiciall dengerous and insufferable to this Kingdome, for Saints two, or three, or more, to gather, and combine themselves in Church Fellowship, having one of power from Christ their immediate heade: without expecting warrant from any Governors.

First, whereas you say it will be prejudiciall:

I answer, It can prejudice none in the Kingdome, except it be the Priests, and it will be but of a little tithes, which they dare not in conscience pay, because those Iewish Ceremonies are ceased, and if they have not Toleration, that will be all one (in that respect,) for they will rather suffer, then doe any thing against conscience.

Now whereas you say it will be dangerous, and insufferable to the Kingdome, both these I deny; for if they were offensive people, two or three or a few could doe but little hurt. But they have beene proved to be a peaccable people and the suffering of such hath never beene dangerous to any Nation, but the not suffering of such to live quietly in a Land, or to passe quietly thorow a land, hath brought Judgements upon such Lands.

Now whereas you seeme to imply, that they should aske leave of the Magistrate, to gather and combine themselves into visible Churches, &c.

I answer, I doe not reade that any ever asked leave of the Magistrate for such a thing; nor to performe any of the parts of Gods Worship or Discipline: and yet you confesse that these independant men doe petition, to the Parliament for liberty.* Now I pray you Master Edwards, would you have Magistrates, and Kings, and Princes to have more power over their subjects then over their bodies, estates, and lives? would you have them be Lords over their consciences? I pray you where must Christ reigne then? Must he sit at the Magistrats footestoole? and take what power the Magistrate will give him? (I meane spirituall power of gathering and making Churches) and such Lawes as the Magistrate will give him leave to have, to rule over them by? Here you thrust Christ into a narrow corner; for you would faine force him to give his glory to some other, and his praise to some graven Image, of your owne devising, which he hath said he will not doe.*

But me thinkes it were fitter for men of your coate, to ground the Government of Christs Church, upon the written Word of God, and not upon Statute Lawes, nor Canon Lawes, which you call Ecclesiasticall; for it will be no disparagement to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme, for Christs Church to be governed by Christs owne Lawes.

The next thing is, you say,Pag. 30. lin. 30. 31. the Oath of Supremacie was appointed by Law for Ecclesiasticall persons to take.

Me thinkes that was a good consideration, for Ecclesiasticall persons have beene in all ages ready to tyrannize, over Kings and Emperours.

But now you aske the independant men (as you call them) a question; but before you come to the question, you lay downe an affirmation or a conclusion: (namely) That these, independant men give power to the Churches.

To which I answer; If they should doe so, they were very ignorant, and very presumptuous, for Christ hath given power to the Churches, and all the Ministers that doe administer in the Churches, must have the power by the Church.

But say you, they give that power to the Churches, which the Papists give unto the Pope.

I answer, if they doe so they are blasphemers for the Papists acknowledge the Pope to be the head of the Church: which title all men ought to give onely unto Christ.

But now to your question; which is, whether they will take the Oath of Supremacie, or doe acknowledge in their prayers, The King Defender of the Faith? &c.

To which I answer, This Ooth you say, was ordained for Ecclesiasticall persons, and I hope these Ecclesiasticall independant men (if I may safely so call them) will ever, both acknowledge, and maintaine, that the King is supreme over all the Land, therefore over the Church of the Land, though it consist of the Clergie, as it appeares by that Oath which you say was appointed for the Clergie.

But whether they doe acknowledge the King, defender of the Faith, &c. which is the later part of your Question?

To this I answer. It is out of all doubt, that these men doe desire from their heart, (as well as all the Lords people) that the King may defend the Faith of Christ Jesus, and dayly make their prayers and supplications to God for him, and that in conscience, and obedience to God, being commanded in his Word so to doe, for they know it is a duty laid upon them; for prayers and supplications must be made for Kings, and all them that be in authoritie;b but &illegible; can make axceptable prayers, but the Saints, for the prayers of the wicked are abomination unto the Lordc But that all Kings have beene defenders of the Faith of Christ, I deny; for there is but one Faith,* and those that do maintaine that true faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, lawfully have that title given them; and none other may lawfully have it but they.

You will happily say, Queene Mary was not a Defender of the Faith. But I say unto you, if the Crowne of England give unto Kings and Queenes that title; Queene Mary had as much right to the title as Queene Elizabeth. &c.

Pag. 31. lin. 30.Secondly, you say, they hold that the imposition of lawfull things, doth make them unlawfull, (which you say is a strange paradoxe.)

I answer the imposition of lawfull things doe not make them unlawfull, if he that imposeth them have authoritie so to doe: as for example; the imposition of an Oath is very lawfull; but if it be imposed by him that hath not authoritie, though it make not the Oath unlawfull simply in it selfe, yet it makes the use of it unlawfull, at that time, both to him and to me.

But as for formes of prayer: which (you say) they doe confesse to be for order, and lawfull in themselves, yet unlawfull, being imposed.

I say, not as you say, they say, for I know no forme of prayer lawfull in it selfe, for any of the Lords people to tie themselves unto; nor that ever was imposed upon any by Christ, or his Apostles; (We reade in 1 Tim. 2. 1. 2. that all manner of prayers must be made unto God; and amongst other, supplications must be made for Kings, but there was no forme of words given by which wee must pray for any: and we are commanded to pray with the Spirit, and to pray with understanding;) but we are commanded to avoid an evill manner of praying; that we should not be like the Hipocrites; which love to stand and pray in the Synogogues,* nor that we should make vaine repititions as the Heathens, which thinke to be heard for their much babling:* and as also we are forbidden an evill manner of praying; so wee are commanded by God what manner to use, as it is plaine in Matth. 6. 9.

The manner is that wee must in our prayers acknowledge God to be our Father.Matth. 6. 9.

And secondly, That he is in heaven.

Thirdly, we must give glory to his Name.

Fourthly, we must pray for the coming of his Kingdome.

Fiftly, we must pray that the Lords Will may be done,Ver. 10. both in earth and in heaven.

Sixthly, wee must pray for all things necessary for this life,Ver. 11. which is there set forth under the name of dayly bread.

Seventhly,Ver. 12. wee must pray for the forgivenesse of our owne sinnes; and we are also put in minde, that as wee would have our owne sinnes forgiven, so we should forgive others; if they acknowledge their offences, according to that in Luke 17. 4, If thy brother trespasse against thee seven times a day, and seven times a day, and say it repenteth him, &c.

Eightly,Ver. 13. we must pray against temptations to be delivered from the evills thereof.

And lastly, we must conclude with thankesgiving acknowledging the Kingdome to be the Lords and all power, and glory to be due unto him, not onely for that present time, but for ever.

Here you may see we are taught the manner how we ought to pray, but we are tied to no forme of words, yet we are to beleeve that this is a perfect Rule, and that we may sufficiently ground all the petitions we neede to put up from this very rule.

As for Example.

As we desire to acknowledge God to be our Father, so wee ought to desire, that others would doe the like.

And whereas we ought to pray for the Kingdome of God to come, we are not to limit it to this, (that Christ may come to rule in us onely) but that he may rule as a King in the heart of all his chosen.

Neither ought wee alone to acknowledge praises but wee ought to desire that prayses to God may be acknowledged by others also, and that they may grant the Kingdome, and power, and glory to be his, not that he should be a King onely to rule in the hearts of men, but also that he may rule and governe the actions of the bodies of men in his outward worship: as we are commanded to glorifie God with our bodies and soules, and the reason, is because they are his, 1 Cor. 6. 20. Now, if our bodies and soules be Gods, then it must needs be granted, that it is in spirituall worship: for in all civill things it hath beene acknowledged already, that both bodies and lives are our soveraigne Lord the Kings; in whose Land we dwell.

Now if there were any forme of prayer for men to bind themselves unto, it would have beene shewed, either in this Scripture, or in some other; which thing you have not yet proved.

That they were not tied to this forme of words is plaine by another Evangelist, which doth not use the same words, but addeth some, and leaveth out other some; and also the whole forme of thankesgiving, is left out by Luke, (Luke 11. 2. 3. 4. Compared with Matth. 6. 9.) and to seeke the helpe of any booke but the Bible to teach men to pray, is to disable God which hath promised to give Beleevers his Spirit, whereby they shall cry Abba Father,c and that that Spirit should leade them into all truth, and bring all things to their remembranced Therefore a forme of prayer for men to tie themselves unto, cannot be sufficient and pleasing to God though it were never imposed by any.

Thirdly, you lay another slander upon us, as though we should affirme, that Christian Princes, and Magistrates, who are defenders of the Faith have no more to doe in and about the Church, then Heathen Princes.

This is not true, for we know that Christian Princes, and Magistrates ought to be members of Christs Church; and so being they may be Officers in the Church; And if they be Defenders of the Faith, they be such as defend the pure worship of God, manifested in his Word, as also the true professors thereof, and that against all tyrannicall power that shall attempt to suppresse either it or them, as the good Kings of Judah and Israel did, by slaying the Servants and Prophets of Baal who had slaine the Lords people.

But Heathen Kings cannot be said to be members of the Church of Christ before they know Christ, and then they become Christian Kings. Therefore, to vent upon all occasions, such principles as you see wee hold, and maintaine, is not (as you say) dangerous and insufferable, neither are the people.

But you say further, that the people for a great part of them are heady and refractory, and proud, and bitter, and scornfull, and dispisers of authoritie, and that they will not suffer publike prayer; to be prayed, but that by their gesture and threatning of the Ministers, they have laboured to binder the use of them: And these people (I gather from your owne words) are the professors in England, and especially in the city of London; and it is very like to be so; because they were there at the time of your service; (for neither the Separates nor Semiseparates (as you call them) use to be there at the time of your service (for ought I know:) and these Professors you have also called Idle, & busibodies, tatlers also, as it is said, 1 Tim. 5. 13. very wanton in their wits (say you) affecting novelties in Religion, and liking of points that are not established nor commonly held, and these you say are many of the professors* And in your second Reason against Toleration, Pag. 24. (you say) that the mindes of multitudes of the Professors in England, and especially in this citie, are upon all occasions very apt to fall to any way in Doctrine or Discipline that is not commonly received by the Church, &c. But I tel you, you ought not to blame any for withstanding any thing in Gods worship, which is not grounded in his Word: Neither (if the whole body of the worship there tendred be the invention of man) ought any of them to be blamed for opposing such a worship; because it is according to their Protestation.

Yet I justifie none that will oppose disorderly, as either by casting up of hats, or threatning the Minister, or any the like unseemely behaviour; for I judge it better for them to depart in peace, if they have not faith in the action performed.

But methinkes (Mr. Edwards) you have soulely missed it, in that you have thus vilified your brethren, to call them by the names of those mockers which (Paul testified) should come in the last time, that should be heady, and high minded, and proud boasters, and despisers of authority; for such as these have not the power of godlinesse, (and by this you make your Church a soule Church, and defile shrewdly your owne nest, and make it appeare to all men that you live in a Cage of uncleane birds) & therefore you are commanded from such to turne aside;* if the feare of God be in your heart.

Moreover, You say, you feare they will not tolerate the Government established by the Ecclesiasticall, and civill Lawes; and you would faine father the cause of this your feare upon Separates, and Independancie, whereas you cannot be so ignorant, but that you must know, that the government established by Law may stand without the leave of Separates, for they have neither power to give toleration, nor to prohibit toleration, for, or against any thing.

But you say, you would rather pray against toleration, than prophesie of the wofull esse is of it.

I answer, if you can make such a prayer in a time acceptable, then sometimes such prayers will be accepted which are not grounded upon Gods Word.

But of the wofullest effects of toleration, you have prophesied already; in that you say, they will withstand your Doctrine and your dues,* and that will be a wofull effect indeede! when you shall be driven, to cry out, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, for in one boure is so great wealth come to desolation.

Thus much for your Seventh Reason.

IN your Eight Reason, you affirme, That these Independant men, where they have power, as in New-England, will not tolerate any Churches or Government, but in their owne way.

In using the word these, you carry the matter so darkely, that I know not whom you meane, for you have named none.

But you seeme to say, they be men that have power in New England.

I answer, Indeede it may happen to be so; That there may be some men there, that take upon them authority, to binde mens consciences, as you and all your fellowes do here. But if it have beene so, I thinke it was, because they had (here in England) taken upon them an oath of conformity, (as you have sometimes done;) and because the tyranny of the Prelats was so mighty, against all good men, that they were faine to go away privately, and so had not time or opportunity publikely to disclaime this their Oath; and then there might be feare, that upon complaint made for disorder committed there, in suffering the liberty of the Gospel there which could not be admitted here, they might have beene sent for backe by their Ordinaries, and so have been committed, to some stincking prison, here in London, there to have beene murdered, as divers of the Lords people have beene, of these late yeares, as I am able to prove of my owne knowledge; and if they have banished any out of their Parents, that were neither disturbers of the peace, of the Land, nor the worship practised in the Land, I am perswaded, it was their weakenesse, and I hope they will never attempt to doe the like. But I am still perswaded, they did it upon the same ground, that having knowledge in themselves, that their former Oath, might be a snare unto them, if they did not hold still some correspondencie with the practise of England, even till God should open a way or meanes for them to seeke free liberty for all, by the approbation of authority.

The next thing you minde against them is, that they would not admit liberty, to some of their brethren, which were godly Ministers, though they did approve of them, as being against Ceremonies.

To this, 1. I answer, that it is strange that any man should send to aske their liberty. 2. It is much more strange to me (if it be true, as you say, that these men were against Ceremonies) that there should be any difference betweene them, and the Ministers in New England.

But it seemes (by your speech) they would have gone in a middle way, which presupposeth to me, that they are so farre from being against Ceremonies, that are already invented, that they would have set up some invention of their owne.

The next thing you charge some of them with, is, That they would not admit into fellowship, those that would not enter into their Covenant, and professe faith, and submit to their Church Orders, though they would be of their Church.

Me thinkes you have strange evasions, but I pray you answer me to these two questions: the first is, how men of yeares of discretion, may (by the rule of Gods Word) be admitted into fellowship, and not professe their faith.

Secondly, how men may be accounted, to be of the Church, and not submit unto the orders of the Church: Seeing that the Apostle Paul had these two things to rejoyce in; the beholding of the Saints stedfast faith, and comely order, in the Church.

But you say, that these men would faine have a toleration in this great kingdome, will not allow any in their small particular Congregations.

Truely (Mr. Edwards) It were good for you to labour to understand the minde and will of God for your selfe, and have charitie towards your brethren; and hope well, that they have so much knowledge, of the Lords will, that they will not pleade for such an absurdity, as to set up one Church, within another, and so make a schisme. But the Toleration they plead for, is that Gods true worship, may be set up in the Kingdome by those that understand what it is; and that by the sufferance of the Governors; and that it should be setled in a peaceable way; which would be farre from disturbing the peace of three Kingdomes, (as you invectively speake;) but to set up a Congregation in a Congregation, would be confusion, even as to set up one Kingdome within another.

The next thing you charge them with, is, that they are partiall; (by a supposition of your owne:) for you say, it is ordinary for men, when they are not in place, nor have no power in Church or Common-wealth; and hold also Doctrines and principles contrary to what is held and established; to pleade for Toleration; but when the same men come to have place and power (say you) they will not tolerate others; and you say, that you doe beleeve that these are the men, which now indevour a toleration.

To this I answer, you may doe well to let this beleefe of yours be no Article of your faith, because it stands upon no ground; for though a man may hope the best, and feare the worst; yet he may beleeve nothing but what he hath proofe for. But I doe beleeve that all this is your evill surmising, (to think, that if they had power in their hands to settle a Government, they would tolerate none but their independant way,) as it may plainely appeare by the Protestation Protested, which you quote here for your Author, for though the Protestor declare what he would have for the Churches of the Saints; yet he doth not take upon him to determine, what Government or rule, shall be set up in the Land, to bring men out of darkenesse to light, but leaveth that to the judgement of them which have the power, even the King and Parliament.

Thus much for your Eight Reason.

IN your ninth Reason you affirme, that toleration may be demanded, upon the same grounds, for Brownists, Anabaptists, and Familists, and others, who professe it is their conscience.

To which I answer; That seeing you plead for them, I may well hold my peace. But I thinke the Familists will not aske liberty for toleration if they be as (I doe conceive) of the Sect of the Libertines mention in the Acts.

But, say you, these may be pleaded for upon better grounds then Semi-Separates, and the Reason you say is, because they deny the truth of your Church.

Answer, I do beleeve, those (whom you call Semi-Separates) do deny the truth of your Church also; (though not in all respects,) and so farre as they be Separates, they must needs deny the Church from which they Separate.

But you here demand, whether Papists may not petition and have hope: for toleration, seeing it is their conscience.

To this I answer, I know no reason why they may not petition and hope to speede also, seeing they have many friends in the Kingdome.

Further, you adde, that if one sort may have an exemption from the Religion established, why not others?

I answer, There may be many reasons given, why those may not have freedome (of any great resorts in the Land) which have often attempted, by plots, and treachery to ruinate the Land.

The next thing you affirme, is, if ever the doore of toleration, should be but a little opened, there would be great crowding in.

To this I answer, That the more good men doe imbrace the whole truth of God, the better it will be, but there have beene too many crowders and creepers in in all ages; and we may justly seare it will be so still; for the Text saith, in the 2 Pet. 2. 2. That many shall follow their destruction, and some of them shall doe it through &illegible; who shall with fained words make merchandise of the Lords people (as is plaine in the next verse) whose destruction sleepeth not. But who these creepers in be, appeares by the 15. verse of this Chapter, That they were they that loved the wages of unrighteousnesse as Balaam did: But if any one so doe, his last end shall be worse then his beginning.

Thus much for your ninth Reason.

IN your Tenth Reason, you affirme, That the first principle of the Independant way, is, That two or three Saints wheresoever, or by what meanes soever they doe arise; separating themselves from the world into the fellowship of the Gospell, are a Church truely gathered: for this you quit? Mr. Robinsons Iustification, pag. 221.

But in that page there is no such thing written, as I can finde, but seeing it commeth so neere the truth, we neede not to contend about it. For I doe affirme, that a company of Saints, Separated from the world, and gathered into the fellowship of the Gospell (by what meanes so ever it be, that matters not, so it be by the teaching of the Sonne of God, according to that in Heb. 1. 1.) these Saints (I say) separating themselves, and being gathered into the fellowship of the Gospell (though they combine themselves without the warrant of the Governours) are a true Church, and have right to all Gods Ordinances,Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Rev. 21. 27. and 22, 14, 15. not onely to admit men into fellowship, but also to admonish, to reprove and to cast out of their societie all obstinate offenders amongst them that doe transgresse, either against the first or second Table; having (as hath beene said before) the Spirit of God to guide them, and wisedome from above to judge of persons, and causes, within the Church, though they have nothing to doe to judge those that are without.

And this doth not make way for Libertisnime, for Heresies and Sectaries (as you say) neither doth it make men to runne from their owne Ministers, because they restraine them from sinne, or keepe them to Gods Ordinances, (as you doe affirme) for if any separate for any such cause, they shall not be received into fellowship, nor justified of any of the Lords people.

But the way of the Gospell, as hath beene plainely proved, is not to live without Gods Ordinances, nor to live at liberty (as you say) except you meane the liberty wherein Christ hath set them, and commanded them to stand fast, because he hath made them free, Gal. 5. 1. By this you may see the Saints are called into liberty; but not a liberty to sinne (as you would insinuate) but to be freed from the yoake of bondage, which is the tyranny, or tyrannicall government of the Canon Lawes, either of Rome or England.

But you say, all heretickes, Sectaries, or libertines will count themselves Saints, as well as the Independant men; and the reason you seeme to give for this, is, because the Ministers, and Magistrats of the Kingdome, shall not have power to determine who be Saints.*

Now let all men judge what a weighty argument this is, who is he that knows any thing, & knows not this, that the Priests in England which are the Bishops creatures, do generally justifie the wicked, and condemne the just, and are not these meet men to judge Saints? they justifie none that will not be conformable, and yeeld unto the traditions which they have invented, in their Councels and Convocations; though they have not one title of Gods Word to warrant them; Furthermore, they condemne all that will not submit, to their devised worship, even in all the traditions thereof: and this is the dependancie which they have brought all men unto, both high and low, even to be subject to their wills, which is a Law.

But now touching the Magistrate, you would seeme to inferre that he should have no more power than a Priest.

It is plaine, the Priests have no power, but what they have by permission, and sufferance, though they have dependancie upon the Pope himselfe, but the Magistrate hath power given him of God, by whom he is set up, for the praise of those that doe well, and for the punishment of evill doers, and hath the same rule given him (whereby to judge them) that God hath given to his Church; especially Christian Magistrates, notwithstanding they are opposed, yet they have power given of God; as you may reade in Acts 7 35. This man Moses whom they for sooke saying, who make thee a Prince and a Iudge, the same God sent for a Prince and a deliverer: and this is he which was as a God unto Aaron; when Aaron was as the mouth of Moses to the people, Exod. 4. 16. Now if you Priests could have proved your selves as Aaron, then you might have beene assistants to Godly Magistrates to deliver the Lords people out of the hands of Tyrannicall Princes; but contrariwise, you adde afflictions as Pharaohs Taskemasters did;Exod. 5. 19. even you (Mr. Edwards) when you say the Lords people are wanton-witted and idle, when they desire to have liberty to serve God.

And thus you sit in the consciences of men; judging zeale to be hypocrisie; but the time will come, when every worke shall be brought to judgement.

And now drawing neere to an end of this Answer to your tenth Reason (which is the last of this your joyned army) it is good to looke backe a little, and consider what hath beene said.

You have spoken much for Dependencie; but upon whom you doe depend, I cannot tell;

You labour to bring men into doubts, by your suppositions, but you doe not make any conclusion, which is Gods way, that men fearing God, may expect a blessing when they walke in it, but you cry out for Dependencie, upon Councels, and Synods, and Churches; I pray you what Dependencie hath the Church of England upon any other Church? for I suppose you will say, that all the Land is but one Church.

If you say, that you have Dependencie, upon the Church of Rome; I doe beleeve you; for the Bishop of Canterbury hath said so much, in his booke, where hee confesseth, Rome to be as leprous Naaman, and England to be the same Naaman cleansed.

Now that it is the same, may easily be proved, by divers of your owne Authors. But you in your Epistle, affirme, it is not cleansed, in that place, where you say, that there is yet Altars and Images, brasen Serpents, abused to Idolatry, with divers other things, which you would have purged out.

By this it appeares, that it is the same with Rome, in the very nature of it, though not in every Circumstance, and this (for any thing can be discerned) is the Dependancie, for which you pleade: even the Dependancie and affinitie, betweene Rome and England.

Therefore you should rather have said, That in the belly of this Dependancie, doth lurke all liberty, and heresie, and whatsoever, Sathan, and the corrupt hearts of men have a pleasure to broach. For in that way, it is too common for men to broach their owne pleasures; for their Religion is made of mens inventions.

Thus much for your 10th. Reason.

YEt furthermore, (for addition to these ten Reasons, you adde a Question;* your Qeustion is, what these men would have in this Toleration, Whether the number of five or sixe Congregations onely, and no more? Or whether the number shall be left undetermined, and be free to multiply? &c.

For answer to this, I doe affirme, that the number ought not to be limitted, for the Churches of the New Testament were free, to multiply, not onely in greatnesse, but also in number. I say they were left free by God; for the Apostles were not limitted, from constituting Churches wheresoever men were brought to beleeve in Christ.

But say you, it is their principles to breake one Church in two or three.

I answer, I know no man that holdeth any such principle.

But say you, it hath beene so at Amsterdam, Roterdam, and London.

To this I answer, I deny not, but that there may be offences taken, and sometimes given, which may cause men to depart one from another (as Paul and Barnabas did) sometimes about persons, and sometimes about things; and wofull experience teacheth all men, that brethren are apt to fall out by the way; and that Ioseph knew very well, when he admonished his brethren to the contrary.* But though some should be offended, and could not be reconciled, (as the Scripture saith, a brother offended, is harder to be wonne than a strong citie*) yet the departing of such a brother, (or brethren) cannot make that Church two Churches, yet notwithstanding this may sometimes tend to the further spreading of the Gospell even as the departing of Paul and Barnabas did. Not that I justifie the practise of any that are not apt to beare, but that God doth sometimes, bring good out of evill, (as it was in the selling of Ioseph,* by turning it to his owne glory, and the good and comfort of his people.

Therefore you neede not to marvell, which shall be the state approved by the Magistrate; because that properly, there remaineth but one intire state, (in such cases of division, as you have before mentioned.) By all this it appeares that it is none of our principles to breake one Church into two or three.

But you say, if the number be left undetermined, there may be many Churches in a Towne.

For answer whereof. I must tell you, that I reade in the Scriptures of no more Churches in a towne, but one, as in Ierusalem where there were many Converts, yet I reade but of one Church.

Now this was in the first plantation of the Gospell, but what they might increase to afterward, the Scripture is silent in, for any thing I know.

But that there may be two or three in one place (as you say) that seemeth unto me to be confusion, except they should meete in one place for consultation, which may very well be, for God is the God of Order and not of confusion.

And I never reade in the Scripture, that two Churches met together in one place, for the practise of publike worship.

But say you; we may have, every where, three or foure men; of an opinion differing from others, to goe to make a Church.

To this I answer, If you meane (by every where) in every Towne of the Land, I say, although it should be so, (and though there be sixe townes in a Parish) yet it will be no no confusion; for the fewer they are together the lesse ground will there be of fearing them.

But touching divisions and subdivisions.

If any such thing happen, it is but that which we have bin told on before. The Apostles words are these, They went out from us, because they were not of us, &c.* and if evill minded men, that crept in departed from Christ,* we neede not to thinke much, that such creepers in, should depard from us also; yet the disorderly going away of any (as I have said before) doth not make them a Church which goe away disorderly.

And thus I have given you an answer to your second tenth Reason,* for in your Booke you have by your stile made it a Reason, though you seemed at the first entrance into it to make it but a question.

But before you conclude the whole, you subjoyne to these, the Answer to five or sixe things (which you would make to be their reasons) and you say that they are continually alleadged, by them for their toleration, in this Kingdome.

THe first Reason (you say they bring) is, that toleration is no more then the French, and Dutch enjoy, who live among us.

Indeede that is a very good reason, for methinkes it stands with equitie, that Natives borne, should have as much priviledge as Strangers.

But you would seeme to alter the state of the case, in sixe respects.

First, That the French and Dutch Protestants have nothing, nor desire nothing, as contra distinct to the Protestants of France and Holland.

I answer, if the Protestants of France, and Holland, have liberty of their conscience, and be not at all burdened, with Iewish, Popish, or Heathenish Observations, but may be free there, to worship God, according to his Will, revealed in his Word, then they that are here (amongst us) neede not to seeke more liberty, and I am sure the Independant men will aske no more.

Secondly, you say, that this liberty, was granted, by our Pious Princes, in the times of persecution to the Protestants.

Here you crosse your first respect, for if these Protestants were persecuted in France, then it is certaine their Religion was different, from the state of their owne Nation; for you say they could not enjoy their Religion at home.

Furthermore you adde, that it hath beene kept ever since, for a refuge to the persecuted Protestants.

To which I answer, The very like may be said of the libertie granted to the English Church in Amsterdame, which hath beene a refuge for the Protestants which have beene persecuted out of England ever since.

But (you say) we may enjoy our Religion in this Land, and that by the authority of the King and Parliament.

If it be so: I pray you what is the meaning, of the bleating of such cattell, as your selfe? which cry out dayly to the King and Parliament, for the suppression of the Lords people; and for the hindring of their meetings.

Thirdly, you say, The French and Dutch Churches will willingly be joyned in Government, and in one way of discipline with the Kingdome, if there be a Reformation.

Indeede if you had not added a great If, here you had told a loud untruth, but if this were performed, that there were a Reformation, according to Gods Will, I doubt not but the Independant men would doe the like.

Fourthly, you say these Churches doe not hold our principles, but doe admit of appeales in great businesses.

I answer, I have told you already, and I now tell you againe, that I admit of appeales also, such as the Scripture warrants, and I have declared at large what appeales they be.*

Fifthly, you say, they be strangers different in Language, and have little acquaintance with you (keeping themselves for the most part among themselves) and therefore (say you) there will be the lesse danger of drawing away the people.

I answer, if they differ so little from you, as you would make the world beleeve, there were small cause of danger, or Schisme, if they will willingly be joyned (as you said before) in Government, and in one way of discipline with the Kingdome.

Further, you adde, that they vent no principles, against your Church, and Government.

I answer, Indeede, if they should never open a mouth to speake, yet their practise makes them different from you, both in worship and government; and yet it may be upon better considerations, they may draw neerer to the rule hereafter; but for my part I leave them, as being partly ignorant of their practise.

But you say, they will not admit your people to be members of their Congregations.

Answer, Indeede I doe not know that ever they have refused any; but this much I know; that some English people, that have the French, and Dutch tongue, have, and doe goe thither to heare; but that any should desire to goe thither to heare, that have not the language, were very absurd.

Sixthly, There, is (say you) a great reason, and necessity, of allowing them Churches and places to preach, and be by themselves, and the reasons you yeeld, are (1) because many of them understand not English at all, and (2) for the benefit of strangers of their owne Religion.

To which I answer, The very same may be said concerning the English Churches in Holland.

But further you adde, that they may well be allowed some Discipline among themselves, in respect they maintaine all their owne poore.

Methinks (Mr. Edwards) there should be much more reason, that the English Protestants, or Separates, should be tolerated, for the same cause, for they maintaine all their owne poore also. And furthermore, they maintaine the poore of the Church of England; yea, in every parish where their dwelling houses stand, they pay to the poore weekely, as well as any other man.

They also pay their money for the maintenance of the Visited Houses in the Parishes where they dwell.

Nay, furthermore, they pay also their mony for the maintenance of the Priests of England, (the more is the pitty) and so I feare the Dutch and French doe also, yea though the Priests are as Popish as they were in Queene Maries time. And this is well knowne to all Landlords that doe let them houses, for if they know them to be Separates, and that they will not, have to doe with the Priests in the pay ment of that they call dues, they make their Tenant pay the more rent, for if the Tenant will not the Landlord must. And by this you may see, their burthens are double to other mens; in that they must maintaine their owne poore and their owne Ministers, and the Church of Englands also.

And by this you may see, that you have not (in the least) altered the state of the case, betweene the Dutch, and French, and us, in the causes before mentioned.

Therefore this their first reason for toleration lies yet unanswered by you.

FOr answer to their second Reason, which (you say) is that they seeke no more then is granted them, in Holland; your answer to it is this,

That if that be a good ground, then Jewes and Anabaptists may have a toleration also.

To this I answer, For my part I speake for my selfe, and I suppose, that they may say as much for themselves (in these late respects, which you have mentioned) as the Separates doe, for they maintaine their poore, and their Ministers, and the poore, and the Priests of the Church of England, as well as we. And I thinke they are persecuted and hunted also; but I will leave them to pleade for themselves.

Further, you adde, That such a Toleration is not fit, neither in Divinity, nor in policie.

I answer, I know no true Divinitie that teacheth men to be Lords over the conscience; and I thinke it is no part of Godly policie, to drive the Kings subjects out of the land, because they desire free liberty to worship God in the Land according to his will; the States of Holland are counted politicke, and yet they esteeme it the Strength of their Kingdome, to grant free libertie of conscience.

Secondly, you say, there may be a toleration for us in Holland, with much more safety to the government established, then can be here, because the people understand not our language; and also have little, or no relation to us of kindred and friendship, &c.

I answer, I must say to you, as I have said already, that there was never any danger to a Kingdome, to suffer the Lords people to live quietly, and enjoy their liberty.

Thirdly, you say, The people of the Holenders are generally industrious, and mind their businesse, and keeping to what is established by their Lawes, not troubling their heads so much with other points of Religion.

By this one may easily perceive your minde (Mr. Edwards) with the rest of your fellowes, and also know, that you are naturally derived from Rome, in that you would have all men, to content themselves, with an implicit faith; and to take for granted, what government your Lawes alloweth, and what worship your inventions have hatcht; and not to search the the Scripture at all.

Further you add here, that the people in England are not so, especially in this city of London and great Townes, you say many of the professors, are more idle, and busie bodies, tatlers also, as it is said, 1 Tim. 5. 13. very wanton also in their wits, affecting novelties in Religion, &c.

Now truly (Mr. Edwards) if you were of my mind, and were a member of such a Church, that had such members in it; you woulde be so farre from fearing, of being beguilded of them, that you would be very glad to have such birds taken out of your nest. But you are so farre from observing the rule of Christ (Matth. 18. 15.) that is to tell your brother of his fault betweene him and you that you rather walke with slanders and elamours, vilifying your owne mothers sonnes; so that every good man may be ashamed of you.

Fourthly, you say, that Holland tolerates us and many others, but it is more upon grounds and necessitie of worldly respects, because of the benifite of exsise towards the maintenance of warre.

Now (Mr. Edwards) you have utterly overthrowne your owne Argument, laid downe in the beginning of your answer to this their second Reason, for then you said, it was against the rule of policie; but now you say it is their policie.

And whereas you would make the case different betweene England and Holland.

I answer, It is not different at all; for England hath the Subjects purses to maintaine warres as well as Holland; and though it be not in exsise for victuals, yet it is in some other wayes from which the subjects of Holland are freed.

The next thing you affirme, is; That your riches and strength, standeth in one way of Religion.

To which I answer, I thinke (if I could understand your minde herein) you meane the riches and strength of the Priests: for I am sure the riches, and strength of the Kingdome, may stand best with Toleration, as it may appeare, partly by what hath been said already, for you have heard that the Lords people (whom you thus persecute) maintaine their owne poore.

And it will also be made appeare, that they pay Scot, and Lot, in the Kingdome, in all civill respects, and are all as true subjects to the Kings Majesty, and are ready to doe him all faithfull service with their bodies, and estates, as any in the Kingdome.

But I confesse that toleration would be neither riches nor strength to the Priests, for it is fore against the peoples will, that they pay them any thing now; and it will be no wonder when it shall be made to appeare, what the Priests wages is,* but that shall be done hereafter.

THeir third Reason you say is, That if they have not liberty to erect some Congregations, it will force them to leave the Kingdome.

For answer whereof, you doe affirme (in the first place) that there is no neede of a toleration for them; neither that they should leave the Kingdome for conference, and that you say will appeare by the Reasons and principles which they doe agree to, which you say are these;

First, that they hold your Churches true, your Ministers true, Ordinances true: Further you say they can partake with you in your Congregations in all Ordinances, even to the Lords Supper.

To which I answer, Indeede here you would make the Readers beleeve, that they had opened a wide gappe, (if they should take your affirmation, without your provisall) but you come to helpe your selfe handsomely, in that you say their condition was, that it must first be provided, that scandalous and ignorant persons must be kept backe, and Ceremonies must be removed.

Methinks, this is a mighty great mountaine, that stands between them and you, and therefore you have small cause, to aske them wherefore they should desire, to set up Churches? for till this mountaine be removed, they may be true to their own principles, and not go from their word, and yet never communicate with you, either in worship, or government.

For first, If you keepe out all scandalous persons, out of all the Churches in England, from the Sacraments, and all ignorant persons; truely then your Churches will be as emptie as ours.

Secondly, If you should remove away all your Ceremonies, (which is the second part of your reformation,) you could not tell how to worship; for your whole forme and manner of worship is made of invented Ceremonies.

But if you can procure such a reformation, to have your Church all consist of persons of knowledge, fearing God, and hating covetousnesse, & void of all other scandalls (so far as we can judge by the Scripture) and that the Ceremonies may be removed, and we enjoy (as you bragge) all Gods Ordinances with you, as well as in our owne Churches, then you shall heare, what I will say to you, as well as the Independant men.

But till all this be done, you see there is still good reason, for good men, either to desire liberty, or to leave the Kingdome.

Further, you say, some of them could take the charge of Parochiall Churches amongst you, upon the Reformation.

I Answer, Indeede such a Reformation, which you have formerly mentioned, will hardly stand with Parochiall Churches.

But you say, they could yeeld to Presbyteriall Government, by Classes and Synods; so they might not be injoyned to submit to it, as Jure Divino.

To which I answer. It seemes (by your owne confession) that they doe deny the Presbyteriall government by Classes, and Synods, to be from God, as it appeares, in that you say, they will not submit to it, as Iure Divino, and therefore you have overthrowne your selfe (in all this your reasoning) with your Synods and Classes also; so that still there remaines good grounds to seeke a Toleration, that the Saints may grow into bodies even in this Land.

But to grow into one body with you (as you would have them) while your Churches body is like a Leopard, and all bespotted (as appeares by your words) were very absurd; for you doe affirme, that the best of your members, even the Professors, especially of London, and of the great Townes in England; are very foule; yet I hope you will confesse, that they are the best of your members; then if it be true (as you say) that you must remove in your Reformation, all ignorant and scandalous persons: by your grounds, you should have but a very few to make a Church of as well as wee. For you must remove also all your Professors, which you say are so scandalous.

Therefore, I should rather counsell you to repent of all your evills that you have done, and be reconciled to God the Father, and Christ his Sonne, and separate your selves from all your wickednesse, and even come and grow up into one body with us.

Secondly, you say, Seeing your Churches, Ministers, and Ordinances be true, the erecting of new, and withdrawing from such Congregations, can never be answered to God.

I answer, Here you take for granted that which you cannot prove, and it is your wisdome so to doe, for by that meanes; you may make simple people beleeve, that you are very right, except a few defects, which no man shall be freed from, while he is in this life.

But now to the point; and first, touching your Churches and Ministers, which you say be true, and you also say, the Independant men would grant them to be true, upon a Reformation, such as the Word requires.

I tell you for answer, that this your juggling will not helpe you, for no man is bound to take your bare word, therefore it is good you make proofe of that which you have said.

But before you goe to prove your Churches true, declare unto me what Churches you meane? for I ever tooke the whole Land of England to be but one Church, (as it stands established by the Canon Laws) and that all the Parishes in the Land make up but one entire body, therefore what is amisse in one Parish, all the whole are guilty of, and it will be laid to the charge of the Archbishops, who are the Metropolitanes, or chiefe Priests over the Church of the Land. Seeing it is so, you must stand out to maintaine your Church, and you neede not to trouble your selfe about your Church-es for I know no dependancie you have upon any, except it be Rome, according as I have told you before in the conclusion of my answer to your first tenth Reason against Independencie. Therefore this is the Church that you must maintaine, even the Church of England, established by the Canon Laws, consisting of Archbishops, Diocesan Bishops, with all the rest of that crew; for this is indeed both your Church and Ministry, which doth appeare by your owne ground, because you affirme, that in this part lieth all the power: but (by your owne grounds) the whole body of the Land (I meane of the Laitie (as you call them) hath no power at all to reforme any abuse: therefore this Clergy must needs be your Church; and thus you make your selves the head, and body, and all the rest of the Land the eayle to follow after you.

Now if you can prove this to be a true Church, which hath neither ground, nor footing in Christs Testament, you will worke wonders: but indeede such wonders have been wrought by you; for all the world hath wondered, and runne after the beast, saying, Who is like unto him? and who is able to make warre with him?Rev. 13. as you may plainely see in the 13. of the Reveation. Therefore they that doe justifie such a Church, are such as have beene deceived by her false miracles, even by the fire which she hath made to come downe from heaven.

I pray you did not fire come downe from heaven in Queene Maries time, and devour the Saints in Smithfield; if you understand heaven in that place, as I understand it (to be the seate of the Magistrate) you must grant the same, for they are called Gods, and the children of the most high.

For your forefathers did (as Pilat did) wash their hands from the blood of the Saints, and of the innocent, and turned them over, for their sentence of condemnation, to the Secular power, which you made your hornes, and your heads pushed them forward to execute your bloody cruelty; and thus you may see that fire came downe from heaven, in the sight or apprehension of men for most that beheld it thought it was just, because it was the sentence of the Magistrate.

And by this all men may see, that you of the Clergie are the Church of England and that this Clergy came from Rome,Whence the Church of England is derived. Whence the Church of Rome is derived. and that therefore your Church is derived from Rome.

Now if you would know whence the Church of Rome was derived; I conceive that her power was derived from the beast with seven heads, which rose up out of the sea, as you may read of in the thirteenth of the Revelations, for there both those beasts are mentioned, and also the Image of the first beast, which the second beast hath caused to be made, which is even here in England amongst us; and you may see I have proved unto you already what it is; as you may also read in the 15. verse of that Chapter, it was that to whom the beast gave a spirit, and also he gave it power that it should speake, and cause as many as would not worship the Image of the beast, to be killed, and hath not this Image caused aboundance to be killed in England, and hath not he caused all to receive his marke, or his name, or the number of his name; and they that have it not, may neither buy nor sell, as it is apparant by the testimonie of the Scripture it selfe, and wofull experience.

And is not this Image the Church that now you pleade for? which consisteth of all the Priests of England;What the Image of the first beast is. if it be not, I pray you tell me what it is?

But if this be it (as it appeares it is) then these are your Ministers also; and then it hath beene proved plainely, whence this your Church and Ministry came. And that any of understanding should grant this Church, and Ministry to be a true Church and Ministery, would bewray great ignorance in them.

Further you adde, that they acknowledge the Ordinances to be true.

In this I doe beleeve you upon your bareword, for it is a truth, if you meane Gods Ordinances which you have amongst you.

As first, you have the Scripture but you wring it and wrest it, according to your owne devices, and make of it a nose of waxe, and a leaden rule to leane which way your minde leadeth you; and though you ought to take that reede or rod in your hand, at all times (if you were Gods messengers) to measure both the Temple and the Altar and the worshippers, (Rev. 11 2, yet you have not learned that skill, (for your Church and Ministrie holdeth no correspondencie with that measuring line.) but contrariwise you have taken that golden cup, and filled it full of abominations; may, you have hacked it and mangled it to peeces, and made it into little lessons, which you call your Epistles and Gospells & they are Dedicated to your Saints, upon your Saints-Dayes; and thus you may see though you have the Scriptures (which is the Word of God) and take upon you to unfold the mysteries thereof, yet in stead of that, you darken the truth by false glosses.

Secondly, you have the Sacraments, even baptisme, and breaking of breade: but you pervert them both, to your owne destruction; neverthelesse they still remaine Gods Ordinances, even as the golden vessells, were Gods vessels, when they were in Babel though Belshazar made them his quassing boules, yet still they remained to be Gods vessels. Even so did Circumcision remaine Gods Ordinance, though it was with Ierobeam. The like may be said of Baptisme; in still remaines Gods Ordinance, though it be carried away with backesliding Antichristians (even the Apostate fallen stats) and so you may read in the eleventh of the Revelation, ver. 2. that the court must be left out, and be unmeasured; and the reason was because it was given to the Gentiles, even to them that should tread downe the holy citie for 42. monethes; this court we know belonged to the Temple (as you may read in the 42. of Ezekiel) and had in it the Ordinances belonging to the people. And although you have Baptisme, and the Lords Supper they will not sanctifie you; though they may be sanctified to the use of them amongst you which are Gods people, according to the election of grace.

And though you have some of Gods Ordinances, amongst you; yet you have added unto them many Ordinances of your owne devising, which doth utterly debarre the Lords people, which have knowledge of them, from communicating with you in any worship.

As for example,

How shall any man partake with you of the word preached in your assemblies, but he must needs partake also with the false calling of the Priest, by which it is preached, for none else are suffered to preach amongst you, (by your leave or approbation,) but they that preach by that false power.

And who shall receive the Sacraments with you, and not justifie your devised Service-booke? for all your things are administred by that. And as all the Lords Ordinances ought to be sanctified by the Word of God and prayer: So on the contrarie you labour to sanctifie your things, by the stinted service-booke; and therefore the withdrawing from you, may be answered to God.

Further, you beare the world in hand, that you have but something amongst you wanting yet, that were to be desired, and therefore you say there is no cause to leave the Kingdome, nor for private men to set up true Churches.

Answer, Indeed If your Church & Ministers could be proved true (which you see is a thing unpossible) then it had beene needlesse (as you say) to leave the Land; but neither is your Church nor Ministers true, nor can the Ordinances be had amongst you without sinne: and that this is the judgement of the Independant men, is plaine by your former confession; Where you affirne, they will not heare of growing into one body (or communicating) with you before a Reformation; neither submit to your Classes or Presbyters, as Jure Divino.

But in the next place you say, the setting up of devided Churches, would be to the scandall of all the Churches, and not the giving of scandall to one brother, but to tenue thousands of Congregations.

Truely (Mr. Edwards) you overshoote your selfe (in that you make your selfe such an apparant dissembler) for you would make men beleeve, that you desire to keepe your Church and brethren unspotted, and yet you your selfe with your owne tongue, have most soulely scandalized the chiefe members of your Church, making them so soule a people, that they ought not to be communicated with.*

Further, your words imply that so long as a man is not put upon the practise of that which is unlawfull, be may beare.

I tell you againe, that your whole manner is unlawfull and therefore all the Lords people, as they desire to be blessed and to be sound walking in Gods waves have cause to separate from your Church, and to practise Gods Ordinances among themselves, as well as they who are separated already, (which you here you call Brownists) and the grounds and causes be so great, that they may well be justified.

But you would have conscious men to consider Mr. Robinson, concerning circumstantiall corruptions; you say, he shewes it is not an intolerable evill, for evill men be suffered in the Church, &c. yet you confesse be affirmes it to be an evill.

Two things are here to be minded.

First, that you would still please your selfe with this, that you have a true Church (though corrupted) which hath beene proved contrary.

Secondly, that you would justifie your Church by the sinnes of others.

But you know what Mr. Robinson saith, That the government instituted by Christ is not onely neglected or violated in the Church of England, but the plaine contrarie to it is established by Law.

But you say, now supposing your Reformation, it will be otherwise with England, then when he writ.

But (you may see) it is verie plaine that the crueltie, and wickednesse, of the Church of England hath increased ever since that time.

You say there is but something neglected, and you would make it the want of some Law to suppresse evill men.

To which I answer, That your Canon Lawes be evill Lawes, and your Lawmakers evill men, and therefore it could not stand with their principles to make Lawes to suppresse evill men.

Thirdly, you say, that they (whom you call Independant) live in and are members of such Churches, and yet they thinke it unlawfull, to forsake them.

I pray you, have any of them told you, that their Churches be like the Church of England? you must make proofe thereof, for in this I will not take you upon your bare word.

Further, you say they want some parts of Government and Officers, appointed by Christ, more materially than will be in your Church, upon a Reformation.

I answer, I have plainely proved to you: that Christs Church hath his Government, and Officers; but your Church hath neither Christs Government nor Officers. But what it will be upon the Reformation. I cannot tell.

But you say, they must want the Ordinances, or else they must have them with instruments, without ordination.

I answer, This is untrue as hath beene proved at large, in the answers to one of your former Reasons against Independancie.

But you say you would have them beare with the defects in your Church, and waite till God give you more light.

I answer, I know none that interrupteth you, for wee will neither meddle with your Idols, nor with your Gods: if you would but suffer us to worship our God, after the way that you call boresie.

The next thing you say is that they tell you that something may be omitted for a time, and that affirmatives binde not alwayes and that the exercise of Discipline may be forborne for a time, when it will not be for edification to the Church, but for destruction; and therefore you question them for not incorporating themselves into your Church, though something were more there to be desired, yet you say, there will be nothing contrary put upon them (nor quite another thing.)

Now that something may be omitted for a time, that may plainely appeare; for a man that hath brought his gift to the Altar, and there remembreth that his brother hath ought against him, must leave the offering of his gift, and goe and be reconciled to his brother, Matth. 5. 23. 24.

Now that affirmatives binde not alwayes, is plaine; for they binde not alwayes in cases of impossibility, but in such cases God accepteth the will for the deede.

Further, whereas you say, the excellencie of discipline may be forborne for a time, when it is not for Edification of the Church, but for destruction;

I say, true discipline, (being rightly used) is alwayes for the edification of the Church, and never for destruction.

And whereas you affirme, that there is nothing contrary put upon us by you, (or quite another thing;)

I answer, wee know you have none of Gods Ordinances, without some other thing to accompany them.

Fourthly, you say, that they may safely be members of your Church in the Reformation of you.

I answer, You might well have spared this your vaine repetition till you had obtained a Reformation.

But the Reason you have heard alleadged for their first going away granted in a letter from Rotterdam. that reason still remaines (though you say it is ceased) and will remaine till the Reformation, you have formerly promised,

But say you, that practise they judge themselves tied to, is founded upon a false principle (namely) that the power of government is given by Christ to the body of the Congregation.

I answer, I have told you before, (in the reply to the second part of this your answer to their third Reason) & I now tell you againe, that you make your Priests the head and body both; but Christ hath given the power to the Church which is his body, by whose power every Officer, and member thereof, doth move, and doe their severall Offices.

Fifthly, There is, say you a medium, between persecution and a publike Toleration; a middle way, say you, betweene not suffering them to live in the Land, and granting them liberty.

I Answer, This is a very true thing, for Pharaoh would have beene willing, that the children of Israel, should have stayed in Egypt, and made him bricke, but he would not suffer them to goe into the wildernesse, to offer sacrifice. But if Pharoah had beene willing to have succoured the children of Israel, he would have commanded his taskemasters not to lay burthens upon them, that they could not beare; but he did not doe so, and therefore their bricke-making turned to persecution, even as your injunctions and penall Lawes doe here in England, and you binde them up with a pretence of his Majesties command, which makes the burthen very mighty.

By this it is plaine, that no good man can live in England without persecution, even at this day.

But you would have them to have a third way, for you say persons may live in the Land, and injoy their Lands and liberties, and not be compelled to professe, and practise, things against their conscience.

I pray you (Mr. Edwards) bethinke your selfe now, how untruly you speake and whether you doe not looke one day to give an account, for your words, for you know that no man can live in this land, and enjoy his lands and liberty, but he shall be forced to worship according to the custome of the Nation. Nay, children that be but sixteene yeares of age, though ignorant, and scandalous in their lives, are forced to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though it be to their utter condemnation.

Further you adde, that if upon petition to the Parliament, the Papists should have the Statutes repeated, which injoyne them to come to your Church, yet say you, the granting the Papists a publike toleration, for their Religion, would be quite another thing, in as much as you say though the Papists were the first in petitioning for the former, yet they move not for the latter.

For answer to this, I tell you;

First, That for granting the Papists publike exercises will not much crosse your principles, for they and you are naturall brethren.

Secondly, for that they move not for the latter (as you say:) They neede not for they injoy it without moving, and till this Parliament, none hath disturbed them for many yeares.

But further, you addr, that so you judge that the Independant men may live in the land freely and injoy their liberties and estates, (but you have your clause whereby you still crosse all your own tale; your clause is that it must be) by comming to your Churches, and enjoying the Ordinances.

Whereas you say so you judge, it presupposeth that the Papists doe come to your Churches, by what comes after, that it must be by comming to your Churches, and enjoying the Ordinances.

Indeede the Papists may come to your Churches, and injoy your Ordinances, for first they were their Ordinances, for when you apostated from Rome, you carried the Romish traditions with you, even as your forefathers in their apostacie from Christ Iesus, carried some of his Ordinances with them: so you retaine something of Gods to make your owne ware passe in sale, and have patched you up a bundle of worship borrowing also some lewish and He &illegible; Ceremonies to make up your packe; and will you be so kinde to suffer men to live in the land, if they will but submit to this worship, and promise them they shall never be compelled, to professe or practise any more? Indeede you are very liberall but it hath beene often said already, (and you have said it your selfe) that the Independant men, cannot of conscience communicate with you before a Reformation: Therefore if this be the medium you have (betweene leaving the Land and toleration.) even that they must submit to your worship, you might have bequeathed this Legacie to some that would accept of it, and give you thankes, for the Lord hath bequeathed liberty to his &illegible; and Servants, and hath purchased it at a deare price; even that they should be freed from all Egyptian bondage; and hath commanded them to stand fast in than liberty, wherein he hath made them free: and whether they must obey Gods commands, or your counsell be judge your selfe.

Sixtly, you say, If the former answers will not satisfie, but that they must needs be in a Church fellowship, as now they are then (you say) you you will shew them a way, according to their owne principles of a visible Church.

For answer whereof I must tell you, that fallacies, and false conclusions upon mens words, (without bringing their conditions) can satisfie no man concerning the matter in hand; but it may satisfie all men of your evill minde, that you still labour to turne away the truth as it may appeare; by the way you here have chalked them out, to walke in; which is

That because it is their principle (say you) that a few Saints joyned together in a Covenant, have power; therefore you imply that there should never neede a greater addition to them.*

This you may know crosseth the whole Scripture as the very prophesies of the Church under the New Testament that is to say, that a little one shall become a thousand, and a great one a strong Nation, Esay 60. 22. and that they should grow up as the Calves of the stall,Rev. 7. Mal. 4. 2. not onely in greatnesse, but also in number: and especially when the Lambe overcommeth, that is even when the Saints overcome,Rev. 12. 11. by the blood of the Lambe, and the word of their testimony, not esteeming their lives to the death.

Therefore you might have saved your schollership, when you went about to teach them, to make Churches in houses, and also to come to your Church, to the Word, Prayer, and Sacraments, for they have not so learned Christ; to come one part of the day to worship before the Idols, and to stand another part before God, for if they should doe so, the Lord saith, (Ezek. 44. 13.) they should not come neere him, neither to doe the office of the Priest, nor to come neare the holy things, but that they should beare their shame, and their abomination.

Further, you might have saved your labour in teaching them, to make family Churches: for God hath directed them what to doe in their Families.

And it is not the practise of Gods people, to shut out from their prayers, and holy duties, them that are of their Family: for God gave his Law to Abraham for another end (namely) that he should teach it his Family, and by so doing, traine up members in his family, for Christs Family.

Further, you might have spared your care taken to shew a way for maintenance, for those men among us, that are schollers bred, for if you can find no better maintenance for them, then to come and be Lecturers amongst you (as you would have them) and to live in hope of the gifts of the dead; that is no good provision: for, for want of those shooes men may goe long barefooted seeing they cannot (by your owne confession) doe that of conscience till there be a Reformation. But you might rather have perswaded your Parish Priests to have bequeathed some of their large revenewes unto them: for whether they have Parsonage or Vicarage their pole-money comes in so thicke to them and their followers, that it would make any sober minded man or woman to wonder how they can consume it: for besides their ordinary tithes or maintenance; which is the principall, they have many other petty dues, which they require of every one of the Kings subjects, & they are not so reasonable as his Majestie, which is contended with pole-money from his subjects, from 16. yeares old, and upward, but they will have a share out of him that is borne without life; as it will plainely be proved) for if a dead child be borne into the world, they will be paid for reading a dirge over it, before it shall be laid in the earth, and they will be apt to inferre, that that their deere brother is departed in the faith, though it be the childe of theeves and murderers, and the like.

Further, they will yet have another patrimony for the birth of that childe, for before the mother dare goe abroade, shee must have their blessing; that the Sun shall not smite her by day, nor the Moone by night; for which blessing of theirs, they must have an offering, and the like they require for all the children that be borne into this world, though there live not one of sixe to be men or women.

But for as many of them as doe live, they enlarge their Revenewes. for, if they live to come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, then they must pay their offerings yearely to the Priest, though the bread and wine be provided at the parishes charge.

Further, if they live to enter into the state of Matrimony, then they must be joyned together by a Priest, for which worke of his he must have a large Offering.

And these men be not content to take money where there is money (as the King is) but they will have these (which they call dues) of him that liveth of the very almes of the Parish, whereas the King taketh not a penny of any that receive almes.

Then if we consider their exaltion how they oppresse the people, by their cruell forcing of them to pay so much as they demand, (though it be contrary to all Law or equity) it will cause us to wonder at the hardnesse of their hearts for rather then they will abate any thing of what they demand they will force poore people even to pawne their cloathes; for I am able to prove that they doe demand of poore people before they can have a childe (that is but fourteene, or fifteene yeares of age) buried in one of the out-Church-yards of the great Parishes (which land is the free gift of the dead, for the helpe of the poore, even as Creplegates new Church-yard, or Algates, Rosemary lane, or White Chappell; Mile-in greene, (or others the like;) before (I say) they can have such a child buried there, it will cost the poorest parent, seven or eight shillings: Nay, I have knowne when they have distrusted paiment, that they have affirmed, that they would not bury them, except they had their money paid before hand: Nay, when any poore man bringeth out of the remote places of the city any Corps to Bedlam (which is the cheapest place that I know) ye when all things else is discharged, even as, Bearers Wages, Graveaggers Wages, and the ground paied for also; yet they must be constrained to have a twelve-penny Priest, to say something over the grave, and he will grudge if he have not more than a shilling (though he say but a few words without the booke) when (perhaps) all the people that be left alive in the Family, be not worth a shilling.

Furthermore, If any poore man have a necessitie to worke, upon one of their Saints-dayes, then Mr. Paritor must come, and have a grote, for citing him to the Court, but if he appeare not, he must be Presented, and for not paying Fees, he shall be Excommunicated, and he shall never be blessed in again, but (though he be the poorest man in the Kingdome) the price of his blessing will be a noble at the least: but if he happen to die an Excommunicant, then his friends must give money to absolve him after he is dead, or else he shall not be buried in the consecrated Earth: but if his friends will goe to the Office, and give but a matter of five pound for his Absolution, after he is dead; then he shall be buried in the Consecrated ground; and they will also affirme he died in the Faith of Christ, ye though he were excommunicated for notorious sinne, and lived and died, obstinately in it.

It is a plaine case therefore, that these men are a greater plague to this Land, then the naturall Locusts of Egypt, for they ate up the greene things, but these eate up both greene and dry.

Nay, further. I conceive they are more prejudiciall to the Common wealth, than the Frogges that came up upon the Land of Egypt, for they entred into the Oven, and into the Kneading Trough: and wee reade not that they ascended higher than the Kings bed, and the beds of his Servants; but these are exalted above the Chimney tops, to catch a Smoke-penny from every poore mans house.

Thus you see the mighty Revenewes of the Priests: If I had but time to tell you of the things which I know (even of the extent of their Revenewes) what is gained unto the generality of Priests, by granting of Licenses to Midwives, and to Schoolemasters, with divers of their own Officers, such as Paritors, Sumners, & Pursevants, with a number of that Ranke, which have strange names that I know not, It would (as I said before) make all men wonder, how it is devoured: for they must be freed from all taxations, and have their houses rent free, and many times eate their bread at other mens tables, and yet (for the most part) they die poore men, and farre in debt, and leave behinde them, both wives and children, destitute of Calling and Maintenance, which is a plaine case to me, that the hand of God is upon this Generation, in cursing that which they would have blessed. And therfore I will confesse that I was overseene (in the entrance into this Discourse) when I moved you to perswade these men to bequeath some thing to their brethren, (that are Schollers bred;) for I did not consider, that though they received much, yet they had but little to give, because it is not blessed for increase: but I should rather have comforted you, with giving you knowledge, that God hath provided maintenance for his Ministers; as well as for his People, that they neede not bow to you for a morsell of bread; for God taught his Apostles to worke with their hands, as Paul saith, that his hands ministred to his necessities, and those that were with him; Acts 20. 34. not that Paul might not receive of the people carnall things, for he declareth the contrary in another Scripture, and I hope, all the Lords people will confesse that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and that it is their duty to make them partakers of their carnall things, of whom they receive spirituall things.

Further, you are carefull to have them sober, and peaceable, and not to preach and speake against what is established by Law.*

Indeede (I must tell you) in my judgement, no man can make way for a true Reformation, except hee declare what is evill, before he shew what is good.

Further you say, you suppose subscriptions will not be injoyned to formes of Government and Discipline.

Here you seeme to yeeld that your formes of Government and Discipline be not of God; then if there be no injunction, none will obey, but if injunctions, none will obey for conscience; for what good man can yeeld to an injuction that is not of God, so then, (you may see) your injunctions have beene the way and meanes to breed and bring forth a world of hypocrites, as one may easily see by the Time servers of your Church.

But you say, that without a toleration we may injoy in a secret way our Church fellowship.

Indeede (M. Edwards) we have learned that lesson already, for Christ hath taught us, that we shall fly into the Wildernesse,* and that the earth shall helpe us* but sometimes it proves to the danger of our lives, and alwayes to the danger of our liberty; as it may appeare by the practise herein London, for though wee meete never so privately, and peaceably, yet such Cattle as your selfe, are alwayes bleeting in the eares of your Parish Officers, and Constables, with your other Officers, even till you move the Lord Major himself to be your drudge, and as your horne, which you push forward, for the destruction of our bodies, when he hath laid violent hands on them, for it is evident that it hath beene to the losse of some of their lives; and this is the liberty we have in this Kingdome and all through the instigation of you Priests.

But you say, though some of the more sober and conscientious Ministers and people could use it better, yet the Brownists and Anabaptists, and weake brethren would be apt to scandall: and therefore to avoid scandall, you would insinuate that we are bound to neglect the whole forme of Church worship.

I told you before, and I tell you now, that you are afraid to have your owne glory ecclipsed and by this all men may see, (and by all your formers answers also) that you would have us to enjoy in this Kingdome, neither Ordinances, nor conscience.

The next thing you lay downe, is the judgement of an antient Father; But indeede he is as sound in the faith as your selfe, for hee would have men to joyne to Churches that have no power.*

And this being the sixth answer that you have given to their third reason, you entreat them to lay all your sixe together, and to consider &illegible; whether God require, unlesse they have a toleration to leave the Kingdome to roome many hazards, and dangers, when as they may enjoy, so much at home, without a Toleration, as you say you have opened to these sixe answers.

To wch I answer, when they are laid all six together, they make but a peece of an answer to one of their Reasons, and this piece of your answer is stuffed full of falicies, as hath beene already proved, and may further appeare, by the conclusion of all here, when you say they may have so much at home, for it hath beene proved already, that they can have nothing at home, either in respect of liberty, or worship; (but what they must have by stealth;) for when they would injoy the Ordinances of God, which are lewels, which you would have none to have but your selves, that so you might seeme glorious; If any (I say) will presume to borow the lewels, and carry them away, you will pursue after them; and you know it was the practise of the Egyptians of old, for they would have suffered the Israelites to have gone away empty, and left their cattle behinde them, so that they might have had nothing with them to have offered sacrifice withall; and I pray you were not the Southsayers the cause of this? by withstanding Moses and Aaron, against the children of Israel, even by the false Figures which they cast before the eyes of Pharaoh, to harden Pharoahs heart, even as you Priests doe at this day.

And thus I have laid together your sixe Reasons, and weighed them; but one truth is sufficient to overweigh them all.

But yet you have also a seventh Answer which is by it selfe: and it is this, That if they will not be satisfied (say you) without setting up Churches; it is better they should get out of the Kingdome.

Besides, you would have all others that be of this minde, to leave the Land, and goe to New-England, that cannot be satisfied, but that they must erect Churches to the disturbing of the peace of three Kingdomes.

Truely (Mr. Edwards) you shew your selfe a bloody minded man, that would have the Innocent suffer for the faults of them that are guilty. Was not the sending of your Masse-bookes into Scotland the cause of the disturbance? and hath it not appeared plaine enough to the Parliament and to the Scots, before the Parliament sate, that the Bishops and Priests were the cause of the disturbance? I doubt not but you have read both the Scotish Intentions, and their Demands, with their Dedarations, which have plainely manifested, who and what was the cause of the disturbance, it was not the meeting of a handfull of the Lordspeople, which ever sought and do seeke the good and wellfare of the three Kingdomes, with the life & happy reigne of their Soveraigne Lord the King, who alwayes sue unto God for the peace of the Kingdome, in whose peace they may enjoy peace: but contrariwise, it plainely appeares, that it was you and your Fathers house which caused this variance.

But say you, it will be no great harme for many of them to goe away.

I answer, It is like you apprehend the Judgements of God comming upon you, and you thinke to be eased, by driving out the Lords people in haste.

Further, you say, you would rather goe to the uttermost parts of the earth to live in a meane and hard condition, rather than you would disturbe the peace or good of three Kingdomes.

For Answer, to this I must tell you, I would you had considered this before you had done it. But now seeing God of his mercy hath reconciled them againe, it may be the wisedome of you and your fellowes, to depart unto Rome, that Gods true Religion may be set up here in England without Popish Injunctions, that so the last errour be not worse than the first; for you say, It is better that one perish than Vnity; therefore (in my judgement) it is better that they should runne the hazard, who have occasioned the strife.

Further, you plead for your selfe and for hundreds of your brethren, that you have borne the brunt of the times, and yet you doe professe that you will submit to what is established by Law, because you hope it will be blessed and glorious.

I tell you, you are even like Isachers Asse and so are the rest of your fellowes, even willing to stoope downe between two burdens, because ease is good: for the Law indeede makes every thing seeme glorious; but for any brunt that you have borne in these last times; I thinke it hath not over-loaded you; for I have not heard that you have beene at two pence cost, to maintaine the Lords people in prison; and therefore you are very unlike to Obadiah, for instead of hiding of the Lords people, you cry out upon the Parliament to have them hunted; and this is a great brunt indeed, (if it be well considered) and it is doubt it will cost you deare, (by that time you have paid your reckoning) except God give you repentance.

But you further expresse, that you would not set up true Churches against a true Church.

I answer, neither would these Independant men, I hope, for those things which God teacheth his servants to doe, be not against the truth, but for the truth, neither can they be any cause of Divisions, or heart-burnings, betweene either Ministers or People.

And thus you may see, and behold, that your seventh Answer (to their third Reason) that you have now left alone, is a Noune Adjective in respect of proving any thing that you brought it for.

YOu say their fourth Reason is, that if the Ministers and Churches be not tolerated, they are afraid that in time they shall draw most of the good people out of the Land after them.

And for answer to this, you say, you suppose they rather hope than feare it; and that, (say you) plainely sheweth, they have a good conceit of themselves, and of their owne way.

For answer to you, I say, that this your Answer is but a Supposition, neither do I know whether it be their Reason, for methinks it sounds somewhat like Nonsense, but your Supposition will not prove them to have a good conceit of themselves, neither of any way of their owne; for it is the way of the Lord Iesus Christ, that they plead for.

Secondly, you say, you feare too, but not as they doe, but your feare is, least toleration should draw away many good people.

I pray you trouble not your selfe, too much, for if there be no toleration, the good people will flye from you, and stand a farre off, and waite for the Reformation which you have all this while promised.

But now at last you seeme to make a doubt of any Reformation at all, when you say, If the Ceremonies and Liturgie stand in full force* which presupposeth,Pag. 48. lin. 14. that you conceive they will stand still; but no doubt, but if they be setled by Law, they will seeme glorious to you, although they are in themselves Romish Traditions.

Further, you adde, if these stand in force, and Churches tolerated; they will make brave worke in a short time.

I answer, you are so fearefull least the Lords people should enter into the citie of promise, that it is very like you never intend to enter in your selfe; and that makes you gather up your hopes, in the midst of all your feares: setting a worke your confidence, that God will preserve many judicious, and advised Christians from your way; and therefore you counsell them, to whom you speake, to let them be well shipped, and a Reformation in Government and Ministers; and then you say your feare will be over.

Truely methinkes you patch your matter together very disorderly: for you have many times said, that upon a Reformation they would communicate with you.

But now you would have them well shipt,Pag. 48. lin. 20. which I thinke is the Reformation which you desire: as may appeare by the confused speech which you make afterwards; for you say; When there is a Reformation amongst you in Government and Ministers, that feare is over with you; and your Reason is, because when that which first bred these men* is taken away, which (say you) was the violent pressing of Ceremonies, and the casting out of good Ministers; and many notorious persons being suffered in the Church of England without all censures, shall be removed; many (say you) will not be bred, and others will be satisfied, and some godly painefull Ministers of the Church of England would out-preach them, and out-live them.

To this I answer, you seemed in the beginning of your Answer, to make them proud persons, or conceited of themselves But now methinkes, I heare you boast very much of your selfe, and others of your Church.

But I thinke it may be very true: for you cannot chuse but out-preach them, if you preach them out of the Kingdome.

And it is very like you may out-live them also; if you can but banish them into some hard country, or else get them into some stinking prison, as you and the rest of your Fathers house have done very lately.

But further you adde, that you and your fellowes, will compare with them for all excellencies and abilities.

Me thinkes it had beene more credit for you to have given your neighbours leave to speake.

But now you have advanced your selfe, you labour to cast them downe, for you say, you knew many of them long before they fell to this way, but you have not seene any of them better, nor more profitable, for you say, whilst they were in the Church of England, they preached often, and now seldome.

I Answer, it is very like they dare not tell such as you when they preach, that cry out to the Parliament to disturbe their meetings.

Further, you say, they goe looser in their apparell and haire.

I answer, I know some indeede that have beene constrained to change their apparell for feare of persecution and (it may be) the haire you were offended at, might be some Perriwigge, which some of them have beene constrained through feare to put on, to blinde the eyes of the Bishops Blood-hounds, when they have come to take them.

Further, you exclaime against them, that they take lesse care for publike things that concerne the glory of God, and the salvation of mens soules.

I answer, if their care be so little, you may wonder, what makes them to take this paines, and care, to travell out of a farre countrey, to sue to the Parliament, by humble petition, for freedome of conscience, and liberty for Gods publike worship, which are things most concerning the glory of God, and the salvation of mens soules.

Further, you accuse them, that their spirits are growne narrow, like their Churches, and that they grow strange, reserved, and subtill; further, you say, in a word, they minde little else, but the propagation of their Independant way.

For answer whereof I say to you, that it is no marvell though their spirits grow narrow, towards such an Adversarie as your selfe, and great cause they have to be strange towards you, and reserved and subtill also.

But whereas you say their Churches be narrow:

I say they are even like the way to heaven or the gate that leadeth unto life, which is so narrow, that such as you can hardly enter in thereat.

But if their greatest care be (as you say) to set up the Independant way* (which is the way of God:) This still crosseth your former slander of them, that they little minde the publike good, and salvation of mens soules. But that this is true (namely, that they minde little else but the propagation of their Independant way) you bring the Protestation Protested to witnesse, which Testimony maketh them peaceable men, because they desire to meddle with no mans businesse but their owne.

And if they minde little else but to set up the Independant way, then it will also crosse your following speech, (which you say, you speak from your conscience and experience) that never any of them, bad so large a spirit for good, after they fell into that way, nor tooke such care (you say) for the propagation of the Gospell, and preaching the Word to men without.

I tell you, indeede if they did not take care to preach the Word to men without, they would never come to preach amongst you, much lesse would they then sue for libertie so to doe, (as the Welsh Ministers have done) if they had not a desire to informe the ignorant, in those truths that God hath revealed to them.

And therefore you may see in your accusations against them, you are proved a very slanderer, and have taken upon you the office of Sathan, the old accuser of the Brethren.

But you conceive God never honoured them so much afterward.

But seeing it is but your conception, it matters not; for if they were active for God, and did famously and worthily before they entred into the way of God, I am sure they could not but be more active afterwards; for when a man is in a Journey (especially if he know or conceive himselfe to be out of the way) he goeth on heavily till he meeteth with some directer, either to informe him that he is in the right way, or to direct him how he shall get into it; and being setled in his right way, hee goeth on more cheerefully, and actively than hee could doe in the time of his doubting; even so it must needs be with these men, as I said before.

Againe, you say, that the men that hold those principles of Separation, God did never honour much.

I answer, it seemes you thinke Gods thoughts are as your thoughts, and because you seeke for the praise of men and have it, and a few men honour them: and because Christs flocke is a little flocke, therefore you imagine they are not honoured of God, which is very carnall reasoning.

But as you have slandered the men all this while; so now you here slander their way (and principles) which way is the way of God, and whose principles are Gods truthes; yet (you say) there is such a malignitie eleaves to it, even as doth to the Episcopacie.

This is a very great slander, to compare Godswayes to the wayes of Sathan, in saying there is such a malignity cleaving to it, which alters mens spirits, and makes their hearts worse; and yet you here confesse, that many of them continue good in the maine.

Thus much for your Fourth Reason.

YOu say, their fifth Reason is, That this is no other but envy in the Ministers, that makes them against Toleration, because they feare their people will desert from them, and come to us, being so pure in Ordinances, and Churches; and thus you say the Protestation Protested speakes.

Your answer to this Reason is,

1. That it is not out of envie, but you hold their practise sinfull and unwarrantable to separate from your Churches, and to erect such Congregations, and therefore you say, you speake against it, and that you here promise to make good in a following Discourse.

For answer to this, I must tell you, that it is not your denying it to be out of Envie, that will cleare you, for there is nothing appeares more plainer, than that envie against the truth, and the Professors thereof, was the cause of your writing against Toleration.

And that it is through feare your people will desert, is plaine, by your owne confession in your Fourth Reason; where you say, that if the Liturgie, and Ceremonies, stand in force, and Toleration be granted, they will make brave worke in a short time and yet you hope some judicious Christians (as you say) will be kept from their way.

But in that you here say, you bold the practise sinfull and unwarrantable.

You have made that part of your judgement knowne already before; but your judgement was grounded upon no true Principle; and therefore it hath beene already proved to be emoneous.

And whereas you say, you will make it good to be sinfull in a following Discourse:

I answer, If you can but make men beleeve this, you will worke a wonder. But I know it is impossible, for you to make good your promise, and therefore I cannot expect performance.

Now to cleare your selfe.

2. You say, it cannot be counted envie in Ministers, to be unwilling to have their flocks, and people fall from them.

I answer, By so saving, you rather confirme their Reason than remove it, (namely) that it was your feare of the deserting of your people.

But for you to insinuate, that the people that be called out of a way of sinne, and brought into the way of grace, and liberty, be stollen away, and tempted away by strangers (as you would make it) concluding that it is as tolerable for children to for sake their parents, renouncing the ascribe that bare them, and the pappes that gave them sucke; throwing dirt in the face of father and mother, as it is for a man to forsake Idolatrous worship; this is an unjust comparison, and crosseth the whole tenor of the Scripture.

Now you would make this your owne case, for you allude to your spirituall children, who (say you) are the fruit of your labours.

I pray you, how can you count the Parish of St. Elens your spirituall children, seeing you are there but an hireling; and as you have not begotten them to the Faith, so you have not taken the charge of them, to watch over them as a Spirituall. Father, and you will onely preach to them so long as any will pay you wages, but no longer; how then have you converted them to God? from what have you converted them? or what have you converted them too? have you turned them from serving dumbe Idols, to serve the living God? I have heard of no great change of them, nor of any other where you have preached; you found them in the Church of England, and you found them Christians, (in your owne judgement) and you know they were baptized, when you came to them; and in the same Church where you found them, there you leave them; I pray you, how have you begotten them to God? you found them under a false power, submitting to a false worship, and you justifie them as men begotten to God, and you justifie their standing there. Thus doe you sow pillowes of flatteries under their elbowes.

But you neede not to feare any mans comming to steale your Disciples away by night, as the Jewes gave out falsely of Christs naturall body, for that was but a lie; therefore let no man presume to lie by their example.

But you say therefore you ought to watch against us, (and ought not to sleepe) least they should be stolne* away.

I answer, so did the Jewes watch the naturall body of Christ and yet he by his power raised himselfe, and also departed from them; even so by the same power will he raise from the death of sinne, many that are amongst you, and will cause them to separate themselves from your false worshipping, and from you that are false worshippers, and he will tell them where he feedeth his sheepe, and causeth them to lie downe at noone.*

Neither can you cleare your selfe by saying, you fitty them, and love them, and would not have such a sword as a toleration put into their hands (as you are pleased to say) to hurt them, though some amongst them (say you) might perhaps use it better.

I pray you feare not this, (which you here call an error on the right hand) but rather feare your Church, if (as you say) your Liturgie and Ceremonies stand still in force, which (you say) were the causes that bred the Separates.*

I tell you, if the same cause remaine you may justly feare, it will take the same effect; you have also as great cause to feare the prophanenesse and Atheisme, which is feared in the hearts of most of your people, but onely that you blesse your selfe, in hope that all ignorant and scandalous persons shall be driven out. But I pray you tell me, whither doe you intend to drive them? if you leave them any where in the Land, they will be still of your Church: except you will make you a new Church: But if you should drive them out of the Land, you would leave many places of the Land uninhabited; for the generalitie of the people (in most parts) be ignorant, and prophane; and thus you may see your selfe in a great streight, and therefore you have great cause to feare.

Further, you say, the Author would intimate that the honest soules are with them, and would be for their way; but as for those that are against their way and Toleration, they are not such honest soules.

If this Author be the Protestation Protested, you have wrested his words, for he hath not said they are not such honest soules neither hath he entred into judgement against any.

But further, (you say) you would have them know that the honest soules are not onely with them: for in the Church of England (say you) there ever have beene, and are honest Ministers and people, that have rejected our way, and any that fell to it, nay the greatest Nonconformists, and most able in that way (you say) have written the most against our way, and laboured upon all occasions to preserve the people from falling to us.

For answer whereof, I must tell you, that the Ministers, and people, were never the honester for rejecting of that way, (which hath beene proved to be the way of God) though they were the greatest Nonconformists in the world: for it is not our way properly, but the gift of the Father, which he hath given us, to walke in; and surely, it is no signe of honesty to commend the Saints in their infirmities, or to condemne them in their workes of pietie; I say, it is no signe of an honest soule to speak evill of such a holy way: I tell you, I take Hugh Latimer to be an honest soule, though he have declared both by word and writing against such as you; and affirmed, that a lay man fearing God, is much more fit to understand the holy Scripture, then a proud and arrogant Priest; yea, then the Bishop himselfe be hee never so great and glistering in all his pontificalls: and such honest soules (though they are not of the Clergie, but of those whom you call the Layetie:) are the fittest men on the earth to make Churches, and to chuse their owne Ministers (as I said before) though they be Trades-men; and such as these have dependancie upon Christ alone, whose way is properly the sincere way of God. And as for any that have writ against this way (or against those who walke uprightly in it) it will not make much for their account, for that part of their worke shall burne (as well as yours) though they may be saved: and as for these Authors which here you bring, which have beene so carefull (as you say) to keepe the people from falling into that way; I have reade some of their bookes, and found the most of them, prophesie sad things against he Church of England, except she repent.

THeir sixth Reason (you say) is, that they are good men, and men of great gifts, and therefore they should be tolerated to have such Churches, it is pitty they should leave the Land, and wee loose their prayers.

Indeede (Mr. Edwards) this may be some other, mans Reason, on their behalfe, but I hardly beleeve, that they lived so farre from good neighbours, that they must thus set forth their owne praise.

But for answer to this Reason, in the first place; you say, the better men they be, and the more able, the worse, to set up separated Churches.

To this I answer, that I ever conceived by the Scripture, that those that Christ ordained, to plant his Churches were good men, as it was said of Barnabas, that he was a good man* and the very like was said of Stephen* and therefore me thinks you are shreudly mistaken.

But further, you say, they will the more indanger the peace of the Kingdome, and make the Schismes greater.

I answer, If it be good and able men that indanger the peace of the Kingdome, you may doe well to perswade the Parliament, to keepe still in your Church, all the dumb and drunken Priests: for they are bad enough, and unable to doe good, and yet of my knowledge, they are very able to disturbe the peace, and to breed strife, and to bring Gods judgements upon the Land, which is able to make a greater Schisme than you are a ware of.

Secondly, you say, for their prayers, you have the benefit of them, as well when they are absent, as present, and some of them have said (say you) they prayed more far England when our, of it then in it.

Indeede if they did so, they did well, for that was their duty; but I suppose you (for your particular) had little benefit of those prayers, and that, because God hath hardened your heart, even against them, and all good men.

Thirdly, For these their prayers you have rewarded them with an accusation (namely) that they left the Kingdome, when it was in greatest danger, and in most neede of helpe, and provided for themselves to keepe in a whole skinne.

I answer, if they did evill in it, that evill is to be passed by; for it is very probable, that they did know that the GREAT CANONS were already made, and that they were mightily charged, and overcharged, as it may appeare by their shivering in pieces: but if they had held to have beene shot off; they might easily perceive, that they might beate holes in their owne skins, as well as in other mens, and they seeing the plague before hand, might be borne with to hide themselves.

But you say you stood without them here in the gappe, and prevailed with God.

I answer, It may be conceived, that they prevailed with God, who prayed so much for England, when they were out of it, for God will not heare sinners,* therefore you cannot expect that God should heare you, so long as you justifie the abominations of your bespotted Church; and you know Moses prevailed for Egypt, when he was out of the city.*

Exod. 9. 29. 33.But you say it is better to want their company, than to buy it at so deare a rate as a toleration, and you say you question not, but the Kingdome will doe well enough without them.

Is it possible, that you should enjoy the benefite of the prayers of those that you so much sleight, and set so little by their company, that rather then they shall have liberty, to worship God in a peaceable way (by your will) they should depare the Kingdome, when it is proved, by the Word of God that Gods servants are the strength & glory of the Kingdome: for even as the Prophets were the Charets and Horsemen of Israel, so are they that feare the Lord, a support to the Kingdome and Common-wealth wherein they live.

But as for your Kingdome of Priests, it shall neither stand without them, nor with them, for though the Prophets sought to heale Babel, yet it could not be healed, for your hornes shall be knocked off, and methinks I heare the decree gone forth, that your Kingdome is devided, and therefore you have neede, to set downe your resolution, that it shall not long stand, but the Kingdome of England may safely stand with Toleration.

Fourthly, you say for this Objection, of being good men, you will answer it at large in another Tractate, wherein (you say) you shall minde men of many dangers that may arise to them from good and eminent men; and further, you say you will fully shew what little strength is in that Reason, and cleare also many things in reference to that Objection.

I answer when I see this performed, I will take it into consideration, and then you may heare more of my minde; in the meane while, I rest in the Scriptures; which satisfie me, that good men ever bring a blessing.

The next thing you bring is this question (namely) whether conscientious men,Pag 52. who agree with you in the maine in points of Doctrine, and practise, may be tolerated and spared, in some things wherein they differ from that which is commonly received.

Indeede you have made divers answers to this already for it was before your owne question, in some of your Reasons alledged against them, where you affirme, that you iustifie much, both bearing and forbearing, and have also see the Counsell of ancient Fathers before them, to teach them to heare with others both in points of Doctrine and practise, wherein they may something differ from that which is commonly received.

But here further, you adde a more large answer, That you still say it is your judgement that there should be bearing in many differences of opinions and practise, so as Christians ought not to judge nor censure one another, nor refuse commotion and fellowship, by not admitting men into their Churches, and to the Ordinances.

You have seemed (all this while) to be afraid least they should admit too many into their Churches, and now you seeme to say, it is the fault of the Independant Churches to deny communion to many Saints for some differences in judgment, about Church-Government and Orders. Now if this be true (as you say it is) they are so farre from stealing away your members that they will not receive them into fellowship, if there be differences in judgment,* for which you here seeme to blame them, and therefore I think you would have them open the mouthes of their Churches wider, even as wide as yours. But the Scripture hath declared, that the gates of the holy city, are of an equall widenesse, for they are never shut, Rev. 21. 25 and yet they are so well watched by the Angels of God, even the Ministers of Christ Jesus, that there shall be no uncleane thing suffered to enter in thereat, &c.* Here you may see if any of you attempt to come in (who are so ignorant and scandalous and spotted (as you say they be) they shall not be suffered amonst us; for indeede they are fit for no society, but the society of your Fathers house: yet (I say) if any of these doe creepe in, it is through the neglect of the Portor, which the Lord hath set to watch, or else it must needs be by their cunning transfiguring themselves to be that which they are not.

But (you say) you would not have men forced to change their mindes, and opinions, by casting them violently out of the Ministry and Church, which (you say) was the practise of many in these late times, and hath caused,Pag. 52. so many Schismes and strifes amongst you.

Well, here all men may take notice, that it was the cruelty of the Clergie, that caused the Shismes and strifes, by forcing men to change their mindes, and not the practise of the Separation (as you here acknowledge) therefore in this confession you have crossed the tenor of many of your other arguments, as that the Separates have caused strife in the three Kingdomes, and that they had made the rents and Schismes, which now you acknowledge to be done by them (that force men to change their mindes) which are the Clergie of England.

Further, you say, that you approve not of such practises, but desire to be a follower, and lover of the wayes of peace and communion, with any who agree in the maine, and have something of God and Christ in them.

I answer, if you approve not of such practises, I hope you will not hereafter be an occasion to move Magistrates to force men to change their mindes, and so justifie your selfe in that you condemne in others, for you confesse your selfe, that though these Independent mens spirits be growne narrow (even closed up from you) yet they continue good in the maine;* and then sure they have something of God, and of Christ in them.

You say further, that the practise of the antient Fathers, that pleaded for bearing, are infinitely pleasing to you.

I answer, if they be infinitely pleasing to you, I hope you will never be unpleased againe, with any of the Lords servants, about keeping of dayes, which you say was the difference betweene these Fathers*

Moreover, you seeme to inferre, that because Siprian (whom you confesse, erred in the point of rebaptizing) would not condemne them, who were of a contrary opinion: that therefore men may be tolerated in their differences of opinions.

But here you have brought an erring Father (by your owne confession) to perswade us to keepe communion with those that are contrary minded but the Apostle exhorteth us to labour to be of one minde, that we may walke by one rule, but if any be otherwise minded, we ought to waite till God reveile further, and not to force him to be of our minde, till he hath faith in himselfe, grounded upon the Word of God. But that ground which you have (that men should be tolerated in their differences of opinions) is built upon the sayings of this Father Ciprian.

But presently you come with your provisall, which hath quite altered the Case, your provisall is (they may be tolerated) so long as they keepe communion with the Church, and submit to the Discipline and orders, and be peaceable, and not speake against what is established by common consent nor practise to the scandall and contempt of the Magistrate and Church.

I answer, this is but even a crossing of your owne speech againe, for this constraining of men to yeeld to whatsoever is established by common consent, is but a forcing of men to change their minds; which you said before, was the cause of Schisines and strifes, and though you approve not of it in others, yet (it seemes) you could freely practise it your selfe, as may plainely appeare by what you speake hereafter, which is the very same thing which you have often spoke already; that is, If a few men (halfe a dozen, or halfe a score) refuse communion with your Church, and vent opinions every where, to the disturbing of the Kingdome, and drawing disciples after them, though they were Ministers of gold, and had the tongues of men and Angels, they should not be tolerated.

Now you have strucke up the stroke, but it will not serve your turne; for this your vaine insinuation (that they disturbe the Kingdome and draw Disciples after them,) hath beene many a time disproved already, because it hath beene oftentimes repeated by you, to fill up your matter; nay your owne words have disproved your selfe, where you say, they will not receive them into fellowship except they be of their mindes.*

But further (you say) you would have us to reade Calvin upon that subject, in his last Epistle to Felerius: The matter you say is this, that if He would not be reduced into order, the Ministers should tell him, that he is not to be accounted as a brother, because he disturbed the common discipline.

What the Disciscipline was that he disturbed I cannot tell, but you say it was a Discipline that was common, which makes it appeare to mee, that it was like your Booke-worship, or your Common Prayer-booke, which is common as farre as the Pope hath any preheminence or jurisdiction; and that you confesse this Common Discipline, was not the Discipline of God, neither a Discipline that you approve of, appeares by your owne words.

That you judge it not of God, appeares here in your following words; where you grant this to be the authority of men, and that it is not to be sought after it: &c. and you know the things that they decreed was, that he that would not submit to the Synod must be put out of his place; and you say, that you would not have any cast out of the Ministery, or Church, because it breedeth Schismes* and by this it appeares, that you allow not of this manner of Discipline, and by this one may also plainely see, that you are made all of contradictions, as it may plainely appeare in the very next words following, where you conclude, that the authority of men is not to be sought, when the Spirit of God pronounceth of such, &c. and here you quote the 1 Cor. 11. 19. where you would make Paul an author of casting men out of their places, because they would not yeeld to the Synod. I pray you hath Paul in this Chapter discoursed of any such thing? was not the controversie here about long haire, about which Paul saith the Church hath no such custome of contention; and doth not Paul himselfe put the thing to be judged by the Church? in the thirteenth verse, where he saith, Iudge in your selves, Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? and further, in the 14th. verse, Doth not nature it selfe teach us, that if a man have long haire it is a shame unto him? and was not this Doctrine grounded in the Law and Prophets, and confirmed and established by God long before the Apostles time? yes surely it was, and therefore it will not serve your turne, to prove that Synods may decree Customes, for the Church of God? but it will serve your turne to prove what you desire, that is, a dependancie between Rome and England, and that the Bishops of Rome and England by their Synods, should make all their shavelings to crouch and submit, and bow to their injunctions; for your owne practises prove it, by your very submitting, be it never so contrary to the Law of God, and of Nature it selfe, if it be but confirmed by a Synod; and therefore it appeares that it is your malignity of spirit, which causeth you to write as you doe.

But you say you doe it from a zeale;

But I tell you, it is a zeale against Gods glory and the good of his Church, and against the preservation of puritie of Doctrine, and holinesse of life, even at the best like unto the zeale which Paul had, before hee knew Christ, when he went with Letters from the high Priest, to persecute the Church of God, and when he was their Pursevant, to enter into houses, and to hale men and women to prison* if Paul should have said for himselfe, as you would now pleade for your selfe, that peace could not stand with toleration, and therefore it was meete to disturbe their meetings, it would not have served his turne, for if God had not stricken him downe in the way he should never have seene the Lord Jesus (but to his confusion) though he was a man every way as well informed as your selfe.

Yea, be might have pleaded as well as you, that he did it not out of passion, but that he had thoughts of the Church way before; for you may know that Paul was a member of the Church of the Jewes, which was erected by God, and was zealous for the Law, and mighty in knowledge being brought up at the feete of Gamaliel,* and also a free borne Roman,* and yet he neither knew Christ,* nor what Christ would have him to doe,* but hee thought other wayes of himselfe, or else he would not have persecuted the professors of the truth, but that hee imagined there was evill in the practise of the truth; even as you say you apprehend evill in the practise of Independancie, though they see it not that practise it, because (say you) they are ingaged in it, but it was ignorance in Paul, so to thinke, and so (at the best) it is ignorance in you. Therefore you have no neede to say, that you see more evill in it, then the Independants can doe, but you should rather have said you seeme to see, for you cannot see an evill where none is.

But you wish that the Independant Ministers, would consider what hath beene written.

I answer, Indeede (for my part) if their considerations be as mine, and though they consider it as I doe, without partialitie, yet they will finde nothing in it, to perswade them to lay aside all thoughts of setting up separated Assemblies (which hath beene plainely proved to be the way of God) much lesse that they should come, and grow into one body, and joyne in one way with you, so long as you have so foule a body (which you confesse you have) and your way so contrary to the way of Christ, being indeede away of your owne devising.

And touching the counsell of Mr Calvin to this purpose.

I say, If he should counsell, as you counsell, it would be to me but a as blast of breath; for we are to take the councell of the holy Ghost, by the mouth of Paul, which bids us follow him, as hee followes Christ.*

But you would have us to consider, what Paul requires in a Pastor, of which things you say, this is not the least, that hee ought not to be selfe-willed; that is (say you) to be adicted to his owne proper judgement.

I answer, I have considered this text already, and doe conceive, that this rule of Paul is broken by the Pope of Rome, and the Popes of England, which are adicted to their owne wills, and set up their own proper judgements for a Law; which evill and error Paul saw in his time, when he said, the mystery of iniquitie began then to worke.*

Moreover, I do acknowledge that it is a vertue in a good Pastor from his heart to feare contentions, and not to differ from his brethren, unlesse it be in cases greatly necessary, but what is all this which you have said to the matter in hand, you know Paul spake to the Churches planted in the order of Christs Gospell, and not by the order of the man of Sin, and therefore it will not help you to call them againe, to consider what they may enjoy in your Church, for I have proved it plainely before in my reply to your Answer to their third Reason, that a Saint of God can injoy no thing in your Church without sinne, and therefore what you thinke you have shewed before in your three first Reasons is nothing at all; for though you say it is but some circumstances that be wanting, about the manner and forme of Discipline. I tell you you want the substance, even Christ to be the head of your Churche, and have made you a head of Archbishops and Lord Bishops, which head is full of leprosic.

But here you have brought Mr. Calvin to crosse you shrewdly, and you would have us to beleeve him; and indeed with my heart I beleeve it, whether Mr. Calvin speake it or no; you say he affirmes that the Scriptures expresse the substance of discipline; this is very true; but in another place you say, that Calvin said, there is no expresse precept concerning this matter:* And the like you rehearse presently in your next words for you say he affirmeth, that the forme of exercising it, must be ordained by the Ministers for edification, because it is not prescribed by the Lord.

Doth not Clavin and you both crosse your selves here? hath Christ indeede written in his Word the substance of Discipline and not the forme? you would make (indeed) the substance of discipline without forme, and voide, even as the earth it selfe was, when darkenes was upon the face of the deepe: so you would have men conceive there is a substance, but they must have no rule to know where to finde it; for you say, the forme of exercising it, is not prescribed. Here you would make Christ wanting to his owne house, for we know that Moses had the forme of the house, as well as the substance of the house, and the forme of every Ordinance, with every, circumstance that was to be used, in and about Gods worship, and the forme was given unto Moses by God himselfe and Moses had not power to alter any thing in the forme, neither had any of the Ministers which came after him: but the wicked Priests did alter the forme, and Apostated from the truth of those Ordinances taught by Moses; even so the wicked Antichristians apostated from the forme of wholsome words given by Paul, which was to follow him as he followed Christ.

And also from the rule of our Saviour Christ given to all his Apostles, that they should teach the people what he commanded them, (Matth, 28. 20.) And this (you may see) was not onely in substance but in forme also, for Paul expresseth to the Corinthians, the very forme of breaking of bread, which he had received of the Lord Jesus;* and by this you may see you have given the holy Ghost the lie, even as Calvin also, affirming, that the forme of exercising it, is not presribed by the Lord; and therefore I would have you, (Mr. Edwards) to take the Counsell your selfe, that you give unto others, for it is very good counsell.

First, that you please not your selfe in your owne Opinions.

Secondly, that you be not so adicted to your owne judgement, but remember the danger that Calvin laies downe here, that a man being wedded to his owne Judgement, so soone as ever an Ocation offers it self, will be a Schismaticke; and I have told you already, that this was the first occasion of Schisme and Apostacie, from the truth of the Gospels worship, that being darke in their mindes, and judgeing the substance of Gods worship to be without forme; and as they them selves (so presuming) tooke upon them to prescribe a forme themselves, so they being wedded to their owne judgement, did Schisme from the truth of the Scripture.

Thus you say you have delivered your owne soule.

But to whom, or from what you have delivered it, I cannot tell.

But you say further: you hope the brethren, will withdraw their petitions, that they may not be reade in the honourable house of Commons, but, if they should be read (you say) you hope the House will cast them out.*

I Answer, That they should withdraw their Petitions, is but one of your vaine hopes, for they had more neede now to petion then ever they had, both to God and men, seeing such a Goliah as you, musters up so many forces against them.

But the later of these your vaine hopes, doth manifest the malice of your heart, in that you hope the house will cast their petitions out.

Are you so void of true piety towards that Honourable House? or judge you that House so void of common Reason? being as they are indeede the very Eyes of the whole land; the Eares of the whole land, and the Tongue of the whole land; yea the hand and power of the whole land: being so as I conceive in my simplicity, would you have them, I say to be blinde of one eye? and to looke upon the Petitions and complaints of some of the people of the land, and not upon all? would you have them so partiall? would you have them also deafe of one care? that they should not hearken to the cries and petitions, and complaints of all the Kings subjects, one as well as another? would you have them also so defective in their tongue, that they should not be for the praise of them that doe well, as well as for the punishment of evill doers? nay, seeing they are called Gods,* would you have their hands so shortned, that they should not once stretch them forth, to support and helpe the poore afflicted members of Jesus Christ? Then indeede you would have them very unlike unto Moses, even as unlike as your selves are unto Aaron.

Would you have this House to exercise their power upon persons before they have made due triall of the cause? (by hearing witnesses speake on both sides: truely (Mr. Edwards) if you would (as it appeareth plaine it is your minde,) then I will submit to the judgement of both the Houses of Parliament, whether you be not a man void of common Reason; for he is a foole that judgeth a matter before he know it.

And you are not onely void of Reason your selfe, but you would have the Parliament to be like you; for if the Parliament should judge a man before they heare his cause, they would be like the Court at Lambeth, which were used to sit in the high Priests Hall, judgeing matters without due triall.

Further, you say you are perswaded, that it will never be said of this Parliament, that they opened a doore for Toleration.

For Answer to this, I must tell you, that I conceive, they may receive a Petition, and yet not open a doore for Toleration; I meane for such a Toleration as you here speake of, for setting up Churches against Churches, for that is not the Toleration that we pleade for, but your evill conclusion.

And therefore you may pray, if you will, that that doore maybe kept shut.

And we will pray also that all doores may be kept shut, that will let any evills into the Kingdome in processe of time, least that any succeeding generations, should have cause to write in their Chronicles of this Parliament, as it was written of Naaman the Syrian; that is (as you say, (it will be said of them) but they granted a Toleration.

Moreover, we desire nothing at their hands, that may cast a darke shadow upon their glorious light.

But that which we desire, is liberty of conscience to practise Gods true worship in the land wherein we were borne, which will be no blemish to any Christian Magistrate to grant, nor for any Counsell of state to establish.

And therefore you should not have concluded this your Discourse against independancie, and against Toleration, before you had offered it to the triall before some lawfull Committee chosen by the Parliament, to heare both you and them; and then if you could have maintained your Churche of England (which you plead for) with your Synods, and Counsells, Ceremonies, and Booke-worship, Canons, and Sensures, Citations, Degradations, and Excommunications, with your Absolutions, to be founded upon the substance of that Worship and Discipline, which you say Calvin affirmeth, is expressed in the Scriptures, then you might with the more shew of honesty have admoninished the Parliament, to have cast out their Petitions, but till then you may lay your hand upon your mouth, and never for shame affirme, that the granting of Toleration unto us (to worship God, without molestation) will be setting up Churches against Churches.

Neither ought you to have concluded against them, before you had proved their way of worship to be contrary to the word of God, or not to have footing in his word (as yours hath not) for except you had done this, you have small cause to rejoyce in your thoughts, in respect of the accounts that you are to give about this contraversie; for your contraversie can be conceived at the best, to be but, the contraversie that Paul had, when he went unto Damascus which was a Contraversie against Christ* though Christ in his rich grace pardoned him, when hee had smitten him downe, and driven him out of himselfe, and made him to confesse, that he knew not Christ, in these words (where hee saith,) LORD WHO ART THOV, and further acknowledged that he knew not the will of Christ? by asking him (with these words) WHAT WILT THOV HAVE ME TO DOE? thus you may see, though the controversie was against Christ, yet Paul was reconciled to God the Father, by Iesus Christ the Sonne, and endued with the holy Ghost, which made him a Minister of the New Testament, which all his humane learning could not doe.

And Paul might have boasted that he was stirred up by the Spirit of God, against the way of Christ, as you boast, that you are stirred up by Gods Spirit against the way of Separation. But that would not have justified Paul, much lesse shall it justifie you; for Paul did that hee did out of a zeale to maintaine the Law of God. But yours is to maintaine the Law of Sinne, even the Law of Sathan. Paul persecuted those that he did conceive to be evill; but you persecute those that you acknowledge good men, and such as have beene active and famous for God.

And therefore you have no neede to boast of the Spirits enabling you all along, and that above your owne strength (as you declare) for it may plainely appeare (unto all men of understanding) that it was the very spirit of delusion.

And therefore, you may justly expect Censures and Reproaches (as you say you doe) because your way in this action was not pleasing to God.

But for my part, instead of censuring you, I would rather reprove you; and admonish you, rather than reproach you, and pray that God might turne you. And if God would be pleased to give you that reward of your labour, which hee gave unto Paul, even to strike you downe, and to make you to heare his voyce, and learne to know him, and what he would have you to doe; then it would turne much to the praise of God, and to the comfort of your poore soule, if you be a chosen vessell unto him, (which is the thing you pretend you aime at) and then you shall be sure to gaine truth, and love and peace, and holinesse in all your after discourses, when you shall speake with a new tongue, and expresse the language of Canaan.

And now (Mr. Edwards) for conclusion of the whole, I doe here affirme, that if upon the sight of this Booke, you shall conceive that I have either misconstrued your words, or accused you without ground (necessarily drawne from your owne speeches) or that I have mistaken the sence of any Scripture, that I have quoted in this Booke, or that I have not answered you directly to the point (by any oversight) Then chuse you sixe men, (or more, if you please) and I will chuse as many, and if you will we will agree upon a Moderator; and trie it out in a faire discourse, & peradventure save you a labour from publishing your large Tractates, which you say you intend to put out in Print against the whole way of Separation; and if it can be made appeare that (in any of these particulars) I have missed it, I will willingly submit, But if you overcome me, your conquest will not be great, for I am a poore worrne, and unmeete to deale with you.

But if you doe give another onset, before you accept of a parse, (seeing I have offered you conditions of peace) the world will judge you an unreasonable man, and you shall never have the day.

But if you will (say your quarrell is only against those Ministers, that justifie your Church and Ministry, and worship) and can prove that the Minsters of Holland and New England doe generally justifie the Church of England, and the Ministery of the Church of England, and the worship instituted by the Church of England: I say if they thus far justifie you (as I have here specified) then will I freely acknowledge (when I heare them speak it) that I was mistaken concerning them (yet the case in controversie stands still to be tried between you and me) but I do otherwise conceive of them for the present, because I am credibly informed, that they doe, generally and publikely, renounce the power by which they were called to their office of Ministry, in and by the Church of England; some of them affirming that they have stood Ministers too long under such a false power; others confessing here in publike, that it was their sinne, that they had not revealed so much to the people before they went away, with many the like expressions, which I can prove, if wee come face to face, which maketh it appeare to me (for the present) that though they preach in the Assemblies met together by publike authority, yet they judge themselves to be Ministers sent of God to separate the precious from the vile, and that though they have not an outward mediate calling (seeing they have cast it off, because it was false) yet they have an inward immediate calling, as all the Ministers of God had in former time, which were able to unfould the Misteries of the Scripture, though they had neither calling by man, nor by the will of man but by the holy Ghost.

And I hope these men, (of whom I speake) will never returne to serve God before the Idols, nor preach for wages, as Balaam did, but still stand fast in the liberty wherein Christ hath set them; Seeing they cave bast off the grievous yoke of Antichrist, separating betweene the precious and the vile, sitting men for the Lords building, that so they may goe up to Ierusalem by troupes.

This is my charity towards them, though I know them not by face, and I thinke I may boldly say that none of them knowes me.

Esay 41. 21. Stand to your cause, saith the Lord, bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.

Esay 5-8. Take counsell together, yet it shall be brought to nought, pronounce a Decree, yet it shall not stand, for GOD is with us.



 [* ] Deut. 32, &illegible; 2 King. 8. 53.

 [* ] Gen. 4. 14. 15. 16.

 [c ] Gen. 4. 3.

 [d ] Mat. 24. 38. 39. 1 Pet. 3. 20.

 [e ] Gen. 7. 1.

 [f ] Ver. 21, 22, 23.

 [g ] Gen. 12. 1.

 [h ] Exo. 3. 7. 8. 9. 10. Chap. 6. 26. 27.

 [i ] And 12. 42.

 [k ] Num 16. 12, 13, 14.

 [l ] Ver. 21. 24, 25, 26.

 [m ] Ver. 35.

 [n ] Ver. 31, 32, 33.

 [* ] Ver. 5.

 [* ] Deut. 28. 9. 10.

 [p ] Ier. 51. 6.

 [q ] Ier. 3. 12. Hos. 11, 7.

 [r ] Rev. 1. 3.

 [s ] Rev. 18. 4.

 [* ] Amos 7. 12. 13.

 [* ] Gen. 10, 8, 9.

 [* ] Eester 3. 8. 6. 6.

 [* ] Neh. 6.

 [a ] Tit 3. 10.

 [b ] Rev. 1. 20.

 [c ] 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15. 16. 17.

 [d ] Rev. 14. 9, 10, 11. 12.

 [e ] Chap. 18. 4.

 [* ] 1 Tim. 6.

 [* ] For this see the Reply to his Answer to their third Reason for Toleration.

 [* ] For this see his Book pag. 5. 5.

 [* ] Esay 4. 2. 8.

 [b ] 1 Tim. 2. 1. 2.

 [c ] Pro. 15. 8.

 [* ] &illegible; 4. 5.

 [* ] Matth. 6. 5.

 [* ] Ver. 7. 8.

 [c ] Rom. 8. 15.

 [d ] Ioh. 14. 26.

 [* ] For this see the third part of his Answer to their second Reason against Toleration, pag. 30.

 [* ] 2 Tim. 3. 5.

 [* ] For this see his fift Reason against Toleration. pag. 28. lin. 12. 13.

 [* ] Pag. 34.

 [* ] Pag. 34.

 [* ] Gen. 45. 24.

 [* ] Pro. 18. 19.

 [* ] Gen. 50. 20.

 [* ] 1 Ioh. 2. 19.

 [* ] Ioh. 6. 66. 67.

 [* ] I pray thee (good Reader) take notice, that here I acknowledge an oversight (in taking Mr. Edwards his eleventh Reason, to be a second tenth Reason) it was through my neglect, in not looking into his Errata.

 [* ] For this reade the Answer to his third Reason against Independancie.

 [* ] See the Reply to the sixth part of his Answer to this their following Reason.

 [* ] In the Second Part of his second Reason against toleration, pag. 24. In his sixth Reason against toleration pag. 29. and the third part of his Answer to their second Reason for toleration.

 [* ] Pag. 43. lin. 16. 17.

 [* ] Pag. 45.

 [* ] Rev. 12. 14

 [* ] Verse 16.

 [* ] Pag. 46. E. &illegible;

 [* ] What it is that bred the Separates.

 [* ] Pag. 49. &illegible; 9. 10.

 [* ] Pag. 50. lin 23. to lin. 29.

 [* ] Cant. 1. 7.

 [* ] Pag. 48. l. 23. 24.

 [* ] Acts 11. 24.

 [* ] Acts 6. 5. 8. 10.

 [* ] Ioh. 9. 31.

 [* ] When Stephen Gardiner harped upon unitie, unitie: yea Sir (said Latimer) but in Veritie, not in Popery: better is a Diversities &illegible; Veritie in Popery.

 [* ] Rev. 21. 19.

 [* ] Pag. 49. lin. 31. 2.

 [* ] Pag. 52. lin. 33. 34.

 [* ] For this see his eigth Reason against Toleration. pag. 32. lin. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

 [* ] Pag. 26.

 [* ] Acts 8. 3.

 [* ] Act. 21. &illegible;

 [* ] Ver. 28.

 [* ] Ver. 8.

 [* ] Ver. 10.

 [* ] Cor. 11. 1.

 [* ] Thes. 2. 7.

 [* ] For this see Reasons against Independancie, pag. 5. lin. 12. &illegible;

 [* ] 1 Cor. &illegible; 23.

 [* ] For this see his Book pag. 55.

 [* ] Psal. &illegible; 1. 6.

 [* ] Acts 9. 4. 5.


8.5. John Hare, The Marine Mercury (6 January, 1642)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

John Hare, The Marine Mercury. Or a true relation of the strange appearance of a Man-Fish about three miles within the River of Thames, having a Musket in one hand, and a Petititon in the other. Credibly Reported by six Saylors, who both saw and talkt with the Monster, whose names here following are inserted. Whereunto is added a Relation how Sir Simon Heartley with the Company gave battell to a company of Rebels, and slew 500, tooke 4. Colours, and routed 1500 more: this being performed on the 6. of Ianuary. 1641. The Saylors names. Nicholas Truderow. Humfrey Hearnshaw. Sim. Seamanlt. Iosias Otter. Alexander Watarrat. Tim Bywater. Written by John Hare, Gent. Printed in the yeare, 1642.

Estimated date of publication

6 January, 1642.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 60; Thomason E. 131. (26.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

The strange Relation of the appearance of a Man-fish armed, comming towards London.

Reported by six Saylors, who conversed with him the best part of an houre.

THere is scarce any man of noble and generous quality, (if they would strive to be compleat in the highest degree) but may be perfected by travell, which is the true salt and season of a Gentleman. Now there is none so qualified, and hath seen the wonders of the deep, that can thinke this story impossible, for there are not so many strange creatures by land, but there are sarre stranger by water; nor any resemblance of any beast upon earth, but the sea produces the like for shape and lineaments, which cannot admit of the least contradiction, but to the ignorant, and those that will beleeve no further then their weake fight can discerne.

This story was written by a Gentleman from the mouthes of these men, which certainly could not be deluded by any shadow or phantasme, being hardy and spiritfull persons, though of a coorse and rough conversation; the sense and truth of the relation is not altered: as they did deliver it, it is here set downe, onely drest in better language for the delight of the Reader: which was thus.

The third day after the guarding of the worthy Members to Westminster, being the 14. of this instant month, after the City by land, and the Sailors by water had expressed their deare affection to the noblest of Assemblies, the Saylors comming off with good approbation, and having satisfaction in the businesse they expected, departed to their severall employments. Now six of them being in a shipboat some league and a half within the mouth of the river of Thames, this Monster appeared. At the first sight they were much dismayd, but afterward they taking heart (some of them having beene at seasights) made them the more adventurous: for the approach of this Monster was very terrible; having broad fiery eyes, haire blacke and curled, his brest armed with shining skales, so that by the reflection of the Sunne they became so blinde and dazled, that hee might have taken or slaine every man of them, he having a musket in one hand, and a large paper in the other hand, which seemed to them a Petition.

By which posture they did imagine that what he could not get by intreaty, he would by force or fear attaine, but after they had passed some words with this man-fish, he seemed rather an Angel sent to guard this Kingdome, then an enemy to hurt us, for he shewed himselfe so debonarie and full of curtesie as if he had beene tutored in the absolutest Court in Christendome; telling them he came inspired by providence for the good and flourishing estate of this Kingdome, and the armed hand he advanced, was to put us in minde of our security, which hath beene the overthrow of the famous Monarchies, and in the other hand was the intelligence of all the dangers and plots of forraine Princes against us; they being illiterate men could not understand many other high expressions that hee pleased to deliver himselfe in, which here is lost because they understood not bracagraphy, yet they humbly confessed their ignorance, and withall their occupation, and told him they were sailors, but they humbly intreated him to keepe on his course towards London, with his Embassy to the Worthies of the land, for they did not thinke themselves worthy to give him audience; he with a serene and cheerfull humility answered, we are all Courtiers to Naptune, and as the cavalleers to land Princes do ride great horses to shew the generosity of their spirit, and activity of body, so doe we mount the equatick beast of our elements, as the whale, sword-fish and thrasher, which last are kept on purpose to ride our lea stages; at which word (by the motion of his lower parts) he sprang from them with that violence, that no artificiall motion could bee so swift, for by some strange fish he was carried under water which they could not perceive, he went from them about a league, and returned in lesse then two minutes, telling them that our barbarey Roebuck and Hart were but meer Dromedaries to that hee rode on, and that within halfe an houre he could be in the remotest parts of the Ocean for the discovery of the most intricate designes that were in agitation: they being all of them in a deep silence, did not know what to say or thinke of him, whether he were a deity or a mortall creature, he perceived them astonished, gently lifted up himselfe, and with a smiling countenance, said he would deliver us something for our instruction, then he read to them out of his paper this newes.

That within six minutes he came from the narrow feas from the French fleet which was intended for Catalonia in the Spanish dominions, but they had rather come for little England if once these botches of distractions would run and burst into confusion.

He told them also of a letter he had to shew from the French Generall, to the King of France, of his hopes of the enterprise, with the doubts & encoragements, but because it was in the originall, and they no linguists, he spared his further relation till his comming to London.

That a mighty fleet of Turkes had lately met with a Spanish fleet that came for Ireland, which had beaten the Spaniard, and hindred them in that expedition; so that if a timely aid be sent, the kingdome may be easily recovered from those bloudy rebells.

Having ended this newes, he sprang from us as before, steering his course directly towards London.

A Relation how Sir Simon Heartly with his Company, gave battell to a company of Rebels and slew 500. tooke 4. Colours, and routed 1500. more, this being performed on the 6. of Ian. 1641.

ON our Epiphany last, being 6. Ian. 1641. Sir Simon Heartley with his company chasing a parcel of Rebells neare Monno, his spies giving him intelligence no aid could suddenly assist them, set upon the Rebells, where for foure houres there was a hot skirmish, and on both sides many men fell; but Sir Simon so bravely behaved himselfe that day, that his men plaid so hot on the Rebells having the advantage of the winde, that in the end they forced the Rebells to leave their workes, and at that time there war 500. of the Rebells slaine and taken, and about the number of 1500. utterly routed, also 4. of the Rebells Colours taken in this fight; this by the providence of God was performed to the damage of the Rebells, and the encouragement of the Protestants.



8.6. Anon., A Question Answered (21 April, 1642)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

Anon., A Question Answered: How Laws are to be understood, and obedience yeelded? Necessary for the present state of things, Touching the Militia. Printed for the good of the Commonweale.

Estimated date of publication

21 April, 1642.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 101; Thomason 669.f.6 (7.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

Necessary for the present state of things, Touching the Militia.


NOw in our extreame distractions, when forraigne forces threaten, and probably are invited, and a malignant and Popish party at home offended? The Devill hath cast a bone, and rais’d a contestation between the King and Parliament touching the Militia, His Majestie claimes the disposing of it to be in him by right of Law; The Parliament saith rebus sic stantibus, and nolenti Rege, the Ordering of it is in them?


WHich Question, may receive its solution by this distinction. That there is in Laws an equitable, and a litterall sence. His Majesty (let it be granted) is intrusted by Law with the Militia, but it’s for the good and preservation of the Republique, against Forraigne Invasions or domesticke rebellions. For it cannot be supposed that the Parliament would ever by Law intrust the King with the Militia against themselves, or the Commonwealth, that intrusts them to provide for their weale, not for their woe. So that when there is certain appearance or grounded suspition, that the Letter of the Law shall be improved against the equity of it (that is, the publicke good, whether of the body reall or representative) then the Commander going against its equity, gives liberty to the Commanded to refuse obedience to the Letter: for the Law taken abstract from its originall reason and end, is made a shell without a kernell, a shadow without a substance, and a body without a soule. It is the execution of Laws according to their equity and reason, which (as I may say) is the spirit that gives life to Authority, the Letter kills.

Nor need this equity be expressed in the Law, being so naturally implyed and supposed in all Laws that are not meerely Imperiall, from that analogie which all bodies Politicke hold with the Naturall; whence all government and Governours borrow a proportionable respect; And therfore when the Militia of an Army is committed to the Generall, it is not with any expresse condition, that he shall not turn the mouths of his Cannons against his own Souldiers, for that is so naturally and necessarily implyed, that its needlesse to be expressed, insomuch as if he did attempt or command such a thing against the nature of his trust and place, it did ipso facto estate the Army, in a right of disobedience, except we thinke that obedience binds Men to cut their owne throats, or at least their companions.

And indeed if this distinction be not allowed, then the legall and mixt Monarchy is the greatest Tiranny, for if Laws invest the King in an absolute power, and the letter be not controled by the equity, then whereas Other Kings that are absolute Monarcks and rule by will, and not by Law, are Tyrants perforce. Those that rule by Law and not by will, have hereby a Tiranny confer’d upon them legally, and so the very end of Laws, which is to give bounds and limits to the exorbitant wills of Princes, is by the Lawes themselves disapointed, for they hereby give corrobaration (and much more Iustification to an arbitrary Tyranny, by making it legall, not assumed; which Laws are ordained to crosse nor countenance: and therefore is the letter (where it seems absolute) alwaies to receive quallification from the equity, else the foresaid absurdity must follow.

Printed for the good of the Commonweale.


8.7. John Marsh, The Great Question concerning the Militia (30 September, 1642)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

John Marsh, AN ARGUMENT OR, DEBATE IN LAW: OF THE GREAT QVESTION CONCERNING THE MILITIA; As it is now settled by ORDINANCE of both the HOUSES of PARLIAMENT. By which, it is endeavoured, to prove the Legalitie of it, and to make it warrantable by the fundamentall Laws of the Land. In which, Answer is also given to all Objections that do arise, either directly, or collaterally concerning the same. All which is referred to the judicious Reader. By J. Marsh C. L.
LONDON: Printed by Tho. Paine, and M. Simmons, for Tho. Underhill, at the Bible in Wood-street, 1642.

Estimated date of publication

30 September, 1642.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 175; Thomason E. 119 (13.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet


Courteous Reader,

THat which I framed for my own private satisfaction onely, in these distracted times, in which every man (that resolves not to stand Neuter) ought to have his conscience poysed by good grounds and principles, lost that it suffer shipwrack in the conclusion; I do here (though unwillingly) present to the publique view; in which weak and poore indeavour, I have borrowed some of the Parliaments grounds to exspatiate my self upon, that I might the better convince thy iudgement, and mine own: but the greater part are mine; which I hope will not blast the rest, nor make it unfruitfull to thee; but rather more fully inform, satisfie and convince thee of the truth of the Parliaments assertions: and to this end I have not used any affected style, but have (to the utmost of my endeavour) invested the Law with its own plainnesse and integrity: for I have alwayes raised this conclusion to my self, that where I look for words, there I expect least Law, which is confirmed unto thee, as a truth, in these dayes. Now Reader, shortly to conclude this, (for the Work doth not deserve a Preface or Epistle) if happily there may be any thing in it, that may merit thy more serious consideration, and make thee a true Subiect to the King, by being faithfull to the Parliament; I shall expect no greater a reward of my labour, then that, confidently beleeving that the issue of it will be, thine, and my happinesse, Farewell.

Thine to love and serve thee,

J. Marsh.

AN ARGVMENT IN MAINTENANCE OF THE MILITIA, Setled by Ordinance of Parliament.

THe generall Question is but shortly this; Whether the Militia, as it is now setled by both the Houses of Parliament, be warrantable by Law, or not?

The Case, with the Circumstances, upon which this generall Question is stated, depends upon these two Quæres.

1. Whether the King by his Prerogative hath the sole and onely power of ordering and disposing of the Militia of his Kingdome or not? Admitting that he hath: then the next and maine scruple is:

2. Whether both the Houses of Parliament, in time of imminent danger, (the King refusing to settle the Militia for the defence and securitie of his people) may by an Ordinance of Parliament, without his Majesties consent, settle the Militia, and put the Kingdome into a posture of defence or not?

1. For the first point, I conceive very clearly, that the King by his Prerogative, warrantable by the Lawes of the Land, performing the trust reposed in him, hath the onely power of disposing of the Militia of this Kingdome; and therefore I shall not debate this, so much out of scruple or doubt, as to give satisfaction to the unlearned; and I shall prove it in reason thus: The King is Caput Reipublicæ, & pater patriæ, that is, the head of the Common-wealth, and Father of his Countrey; and hath this great trust committed to him by God, and his people, of governing of them in peace and happinesse, by maintaining and defending of their Religion, Lawes, and Liberties; which, that he may be the more obliged to doe, he taketh a solemne Oath at his Coronation, that he will doe and performe this, according to the trust reposed in him; the due execution whereof, being of so high consequence to this Kingdome, and of so great difficultie to himselfe, and therefore not to be executed without great care, circumspection, and trouble; the Lawes and Constitutions of this Realme, hath in favour and ayde of his Majestie (who is intended alwayes to be imployed and negotiated Circa ardua regni, about the high things of the Kingdome) allowed unto him, many prerogatives, priviledges, and exemptions, above all his Subjects. Among which, I take this in our Case to be one; for as our Religion, Lawes, and Liberties, are committed in trust to the King, so are our lives also: which he is bound to defend aswell by the materall sword, if occasion be, as by the sword of Justice, and therefore as it is well knowne, all prosecutions by way of Indictment against any man, for the taking away of the life of another, are at the suite of the King, and the King onely can pardon the offence, and no other. For he alone hath the charge of the lives of his Subjects committed to him, and this is such an inseperable trust, that the King cannot grant this over to another, as it is resolved in 20.&illegible; H. 7. fo. 8. a. H. 7. where it is said, That a grant of power to pardon Felons, by the King to another, is not good, for that it is a prerogative annexed to the Crowne, and cannot be severed: But here it is not to be understood that no prerogative of the King can be severed from the Crowne, for some may, as I shall afterwards shew, and that by grant of the King too: but that this among others, is such a prerogative as cannot be severed, and the reason of this, is, as I conceive, for that the life of a man is of so high and puissant nature, that none lesse then God, or the King, ought to have interest and power in; and though the Common-wealth loose a member, it is the King onely who looseth a Subject, and therefore the killing of a man, is said in the Indictment to be against his Crowne and dignitie, and not against the Common-wealth; for though mediately it be an offence against the Common-wealth too: yet it is a more neare and immediate offence against the King: for that he is intrusted with the lives of his Subjects.

Now as the King is bound to defend his Subjects by the Law, so in like manner he is bound to defend and protect them by the Sword, if occasion be, as I have said before, from all danger, both of forraigne and domesticke enemies. And therefore, as there is a Leigeance, that is, a faithfull and true obedience of the Subject due to his Soveraigne, as it is interpreted in the 7.Rep. Calvins Rep. Calvines case: So there is a protection due from the Soveraigne to the Subject; for he ought not onely regere, to rule, but also Protegere subditos suos, to protect his Subjects.20. H. 7. 8. So as betweene the Soveraigne and Subject, there is Duplex & reciprocum ligamen, that is, a double and reciprocall bond; Quia sicut subditus regi tenetur, ad obedientiam,10. R. 2. ca. &illegible; it a Rex subdito tenetur ad protectionem, for as the Subject is bound to obey the King, so the King is bound to protect his Subject; and therefore in 20. H. 7. it is holden, that there is a Liege or Leigeance betweene the King and the Subject:11. R. 2. ca. &illegible; and Fortescue cap. 13. saith, Rex ad tutelam legis, corporum & bonorum erectus est, that is, he is erected King, to defend the Law, the bodies, and goods of his Subjects: and in the Acts of Parliament of 10. R. 2. 11. R. 2. and 14. H. 8. &c. Subjects are called Leige people. And in the Acts of Parliament of 34. H. 8. and 35. H. 8. &c. the King is called the Liege Lord of his Subjects;14. H. 8. ca. &illegible; and with this agreeth Master Skene in his Booke de expositione verborum, that Leigeance is the mutuall bond & obligation betwixt the King and his Subjects, by which Subjects are called his leige Subjects,34. H. 8. ca. &illegible; for that they are bound to obey and serve him: and he is called their Leige Lord, for that he ought to maintaine and defend them: Wherefore it is truely said, that Protectio trahit subjectionem, & subjectio protectionem,35. H. 8. ca. &illegible; Protection draweth subjection, and subjection protection.

By all which it is manifest, as also by the Oath of the King, taken at his Coronation, lately published by the Parliament, that the King is bound to protect the lives & liberties of his Subjects, so long as the Subject is obedient to the King; for protection and leigeance are relatives, and have a necessary and reciprocall dependance the one upon the other: and this is the reason that we say that a man outlawed, is out of the protection of the King; so that heretofore a man outlawed was said to have Caput Lupinum, that is, a Wolses head: so that any man might then have killed him, as Fleta saith, and other old Books:Fleta. lib. &illegible; cap. 27. because that by his disobedience to the King, he had deprived himselfe of the benefit of the regall and legall protection. I doe not say, that if the King withdraw his regall protection from his Subjects, that his Subjects may withhold their obedience from their Soveraigne: yet I am certaine, that the Books before cited imply as much. Besides, reason will arme every man thus farre, as to conclude, that the cause and ground of his obedience, is his Soveraignes protection, and therefore if his Soveraigne withdraw the one, he may deny the other. Againe, denying to protect his Subjects, is a plaine refusall to be ruled by Law, and this, as Bracton saith, makes him a Tyrant no King, and my obedience is due to him, as a King, not as a Tyrant. But I passe this over, as a matter of so great consequence at this time, considering the bad principles of many men, that I had rather offend in withholding of my judgement, then in publishing of it.

But yet more fully, that the King is bound to protect his Subjects, F. N. B. is expresse.F. N. B. fo. 232. Nota, saith the Booke, that the King is bound of right by the Lawes, to defend his Subjects, and their goods and chattels, lands and tenements, and therefore by the Law, every lawfull Subject is taken to be within the protection of the King, and if he be put out of protection for his offence, then every man may doe with him as with an enemy of the King: Here note, that the Subject cannot loose his protection due to him by his Soveraigne, but by his owne default.

F. N. B. fo. 113. a.And in F. N. B. fol. 113. a. it is there said, that the King ought of right to save and defend his Realme, as well against the Sea, as against enemies, that it be not surrounded or wasted: and to provide remedy for it; and also to provide that his Subjects have their passage throughout the Realme by all high wayes in safeguard. And this is warranted by the Commission of Sewers, which is directed by the King to Commissioners, to inquire of, &c. and to heare and determine all faults and breaches of Walls, Ditches, &c. Sea-bankes, &c. in the beginning of which Commission, the fractions of the Walls, or Sea-bankes, is cited, and in the body of it, the King saith, Nos pro eo quod ratione dignitatis nostræ regiæ ad providendum salvationi regni nostri circumquaque sumus astrcti, volentes in &illegible; parte congruum & festinum remedium adhiberi, assignavimiu vos, &c. Here the King himselfe saith expressely, in this Commission, that he is every way bound, by reason of his royall function, and Kingly office, Providere salvationi regni sui, that is, to provide safety for his Kingdome. And is the Law thus, that the King is bound to protect and defend his Subjects, Per mare, per terras? By the Sea, from all Pyrates and Robbers, as also from the invasions of forraigne enemies: and by the Land, from any domesticke dangers, either by inbred rebellions, or civill Commotions? Why then the Conclusion that I raise upon these premisses, is but this; That it is consonant and agreeable to all reason, that the King executing of the trust reposed in him, should not be denied the means by which he may respond that great confidence placed in him, by his owne care and fidelitie: and God forbid, that we should require the due execution of this great function, of his Majesties part, and yet that we should withdraw from him the meanes, by which he should performe it; for if so, to be a King, would be sarre worse, then an Ægyptian servitude.

Wherefore I conceive that it stands with all the justice and equity in the world, that the King (who hath so great a charge upon him, that greater cannot be, by which, he, as Vicarius Dei, that is, Gods Vicar, as Bracton speaketh, is obliged to defend the persons and property of his Subjects) should have all the Castles, Forts and strong holds, and all the Ports and Havens at his rule and disposition, and that generally he should have the ordering of the Militia throughout the Realm: so that by this means he may be inabled to discharge that great trust that is committed to him (without which he cannot be) and at the last to render a just account to God, of his Stewardship.

And this certainly Bracton li. 2. de acquirendo rerum dominio,Bract. l. 2. c. 2. &illegible; intends, when he saith, that the King, Habes ea quæ sunt pacis, ut populus sibi traditus, in pace sileat & quiescat, &c. that is, he hath those things, which belong to peace, that he may govern his people committed to his charge in peace and quietnesse. For as the King hath ordinariam jurisdictionem, that is, ordinary jurisdiction, as Bracton saith before, and this to govern his Subjects according to Law and right: so, Habet ea quæ pacis sunt; that is, not onely the Law to maintain peace among his Subjects: but also, Ea quæ belli sunt, all those things, which conduce to the protecting and defending of his Subjects from any forrein invasion, or domesticke danger, or otherwise he could not possibly maintain peace according to the saying of Bracton, and as by his Oath he is bound.

The King by the Law hath this Prerogative allowed unto him, that he onely may proclaime warre, and he onely can establish peace among his people, as the 7. Rep. is: why then I argue thus,7. Rep. fo. 25. &illegible; It is a greater prerogative to have power to proclaim warre: then it is, to have the onely means to maintain it: and therefore it is not to be conceived, that the Law, that would allow the King the greater power, would deny him the lesse. For, Qui majora concedit, minor a non denegabit: He that granteth the greater, will not deny the lesse. Again, to allow the King power to proclaime warre, and to deny him the means to maintain warre, were absurd, and the Law will not admit of any absurditie. Wherefore I conceive, for these reasons also, that the King by the Law, hath likewise this prerogative of the sole ordering and disposing of the Militia of the Kingdom.

Now to conclude this point, I shall paralell this case, to one case onely in the Law,4. Rep. fo. 3. &illegible; Mittons &illegible; and that is to Mittons case in the 4. Rep. where the case is thus: Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents under the great Sçal, granted the Office of the Clerk of the County Court of the County of Somerset, to Mitton, with all Fees, &c. for terme of his life: and after the Queen constituted Arthur Hopton Esquire Sheriffe of the same County, who interrupted Mitton, claiming this Office, as incident to his Office of Sheriffe, and upon this he appointed a Clerk himself of the County Court; and here the sole question was, whether this grant by the Queen, were good, or not? And it was adjudged upon solemne debate, that it was not, and the principall reason given wherefore the grant was nought, was, because that great inconveniences might follow to Sheriffes, who are great and ancient Officers and Ministers of Justice, if such grants should be of validity, for that there is great trust reposed in them, for which they are responsible, as it is there said: whereupon it is concluded, that Law, and reason requires, that Sheriffes who are publick Officers and Ministers of justice, and who have an office of so great eminencie, confidence, perill and charge, that they ought to have all rights appertaining to their office. And in this case there is cited another case, to this purpose, Mich. 39. & 40. of the Queen resolved by all the Judges of England, as my Lord Coke saith, that the grants of the custodies of Goales, of the Counties, either by King H. 8. or afterwards, were utterly void: and the like reason is given in this case, at in Mittons case: for that custodies of Goales belong to the office of Sheriffe, who being immediate Officer to the Courts of the King, must answer for escapes, and shall be subject to amerciaments, if he hath not the body in Court upon processe to him directed, &c. and therefore it is reason, that he should put in such keepers of the said Goals; for whom he should answer,&illegible; 4. E. 3. c. 10. according to the purvieu of the Act of 14. E. 3. For otherwise against the rule of reason and equitie, Alius offendes, alius plectitur: that is, one man should offend, another should be punished. Now if the Law be thus, in these cases, that you shall not take away these offices from the Sheriffe, who is an Officer of trust, and onely chargeable for any misdemeanor, in the executing of the same; for that by this means, you should disable him to execute his Office, according to the confidence reposed in him, and yet should punish him for the not doing of his duty; which should be against all reason: à fortiori, I say in this case, you shall not deny the King, who hath the greatest Office of trust, and charge, that can be, the means and way to perform this trust, and to undergo this charge, which cannot be otherwise done, then by allowing of the King this prerogative (so long as he doth perform the trust that runs along with it) of having the sole disposing and ordering of the Militia of his Kingdom.

And without question Bracton when he saith, that the King hath Gladium materiale, that is, the materiall sword, can intend nothing else by this, but Gladium belli, which is the Militia, and gladium by a Synecdoche, may well comprehend and be set pro omnibus rebus milititaribus, that is, for all things military; And it is usuall in holy Writ, when God threatens the heavy judgement of warre upon any Nation, to do it under the notion and expression of a sword, by this intending, Bellum, that is, warre, with all its sad effects. Wherefore I conclude this point, that the King hath this prerogative allowed unto him by the Law: for these preceding reasons. 1. For that it were inconvenient for the King, who by the Law is bound to protect and defend his subjects, if he should not have this power. 2. For that the Law hath given unto him a greater prerogatiue, and therefore will not deny him the lesse: and thirdly and lastly, for that it would be absurd, that the King should have power to proclaime warre, but not to maintain it.

For the second question, which is, as I conceive, much more difficult,Second part. then the former, and which is the great doubt and dilemma of the time, which is but thus: whether the two Houses of Parliament, the Kingdom being in imminent danger, and the King refusing to put it into a posture of defence, may by their Ordinance, without the consent of the King, settle the Militia, and put the Kingdom into a posture of defence, or not?

And I do conceive, under favour, in some clearnesse, that they may, and that in so doing, they have done no more then what is warrantable by the Law. And this I ground in the first place upon the imminent danger, and extreame necessity, that the kingdom is in: and therefore though it should be admitted, that they could not do it, at another time, yet I conceive that by reason of the necessity, it is warranted by the Law for them to do it at this time.

It is a rule in our Law, first cited in Bracton,Bract. fo. 247. a. 10. Rep. fo. 61. a. and remembred in the 10. Rep. that illud quod alias licitum non est, necessitas facit licitum, & necessitas inducit privilegium, quod jure privatur. In time of necessitie, illegall acts, are made legall: and things utterly against Law, justifiable; Upon this rule I might multiply cases, but because I do not affect, via srita obambulare, to go in the common road, therefore I shall onely put some of the most materiall cases, which I find to this purpose, and the others I shall omit.

In Pl. Com. it is said, that when Laws or Statutes are made,Pl. Com. fo. 13. b. yet there are some things, which are excepted, and forseprised out of the provision of them, by the Law of reason, though that they are not expressed by words. As breaking of a prison is Felony in a prisoner himself by the Statute De frangentibus prisonam: yet if the prison be burnt, and they which are in, break the prison for salvation of their lives, this shall be excused by the Law of reason, and yet the words of the Statute are against it.

And 14. H. 7. Jurors who were sworn upon the issue,14. H. 7. fo. 29. and by the Law ought not to depart, untill they are agreed of their Verdict, for fear of a great tempest departed, and severed themselves: and it was there held that they should not be amerced, and that their verdict afterwards was good. And this was thus holden (saith the book) for the necessity of the chance; but otherwise they should have been grievously punished. So by the Law, for the salvation of my own life, I may kill another. And as the Law makes that lawfull, in case of necessity, which otherwise would not be lawfull, when it concerns any mans private: so à fortiori,&illegible; H. 8 Dyer. &illegible; 36. b. 8. E &illegible; 23. Br &illegible; 45. when it concerneth the Common-weal, and therefore as the book is in 29. H. 8. Dyer, a man may justifie the making of Bulwarks, in another mans soyl, without licence; and the razing of a house which burns, for safeguard of the houses of the neighbours. So it is if the Sheriffe pursue a Felon to a house, and for to have the Felon, he breaketh the doore of the house, this is justifiable. So in 13. H. 8. the inhabitants of a Citie in time of warre, if they conceive that the Suburbs may endanger the taking thereof, may lawfully burn or destroy the suburbs,13. H. 8. 16. &illegible; E. 4. 35 b. for the Towns or Cities preservation, and the common safetie. And in these cases, necessity, and the good of the republick, maketh that lawfull, which otherwise would not be lawfull.

It is a certain rule, that all Laws ought to receive an equitable and favourable construction, according as opportunitie and the necessity of the case, administers occasion: for, Summum jus, est summa injuria: that is, over strict observance of the Law, may sometimes be unlawfull. And à fortiori, they shall receive such a construction, where it concerns the Common-wealth: and accordingly the Judges in all ages, as they ought, so they have alwayes made such interpretation and declaration of the Laws, that the Common-wealth should not be prejudiced. And this is the reason of these cases, which have been often adjudged, that if a man bind himself, that he will not exercise his trade, or that he will not manure his land, or that he will not marry, that the Obligation in these cases is void, for that it is against the weal publike.

And this is the reason also, that hath made the Judges alwayes to adjudge all the Grants of the King, of Monopolies, or Impositions upon the Subject, without Act of Parliament, to be against the Law, for that they were against the good of the Common-wealth,&illegible; H. 3. ca. 29. and libertie of the Subject. And this is grounded upon Magna Charta, which saith, Quod nullus libor. homo, &c. that no free-man shall be taken and imprisoned, or be disseised of his Free-hold or liberties, but by lawfull judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.

And if the Law he such, that the King by such grants, which are against Law, and the weal publick, cannot take away my free-hold or livelihood from me, but that such grants shall rather be adjudged to be void, (against the opinion of Bracton who saith, De chartis Regiis & factis regum, non di bent,Bract. fo. 34. &illegible; b. 2. nec possunt justiciarii, nec privatæ personæ disturbare: that is, of the Kings Charters, and his deeds, neither Justices, not private persons, may, or ought to dispute: which clearly is against the known and established Law at this day) why then certainly, it will follow, that if the King, either by action, or omission, go about to endanger the weal publick, and endeavour the destruction of it, which ex consequenti, must of necessity bring ruine to every individuall person of it: that in such case, those who are intrusted with the common good, (as the Parliament at this time is) may by all meanes possible, indeavour the preservation of it: but I doe not here intend by violent opposing or deposing of his sacred Majestie, of which I shall speake a word afterwards, but by setling of the Kingdome, into such a state and condition, as our sage Parliament hath now done, that it may be able to defend his sacred Person, and it selfe, against any forraigne or domesticke surprise or invasion.

It is a true Rule, that Interest Reipublicæ, ne suare, quis malè utabur, a man (contrary to the opinion of the vulgar) may not doe with his propertie as he pleaseth; for that the Common-wealth hath an interest peramount the propertie of any private man, and there is no Subject, but that, either more or lesse, according to his Talent, or place, that God hath put him in, either in Church, or State, is intrusted with the common good: and therefore if he doth contrary to his trust, use his Talent or place, against that end for which it was given unto him, he is punishable by the Law for it.

And therefore if a man will destroy his woods, cast his money into the Sea, burne his Corn upon the Land, or in his Barnes, or the like, cleerely by the Law he is punishable for it: and agreeing with this Trin.Jac. many were indicted of a Riot in the Starre-chamber, for putting in of their Beasts into Corne, claiming their Common there, and in this case, the Lord Chancellor said, that though they had good title to the Common, yet that they should be here punished, for that they had destroyed the Corne, which is against the weale publique.

And without question, the rigour of all Lawes, ought to receive such qualification, and equitable construction, that the Common-wealth doe not suffer or be indamaged. The Law was made to support the common good, and therefore that Law is against Law, that is against the common good. Nemo sibi nascitur, no man was borne for himselfe; all men both Rulers and people, were borne to this end, to contribute, and conferre some good to the Republique: and therefore Qui sibi solum vivit, he that lives to himselfe onely, doth not live to that end, for which he was created, much lesse he, which makes construction of the Law against that end, for that were to destroy both Law, and government, which every man was borne to defend.

It is a Rule in the Law, that Judges ought alwayes to make such construction of the Deeds of men, and of their Grants, Ut res magis valeat, quàm pereat, that is, that they should rather take effect, then perish: so I say, it may well be taken for a Rule, that the Judges should not so construe the Law, that the Law should destroy it selfe, which will necessarily follow in the destruction of the Common-wealth; but that they should so interpret it, Ve respublica magis valeat & floreat, quàm preat & destruatur, that the Common-wealth should rather flourish, then perish, and be destroyed.

I agree, that in the case in question, by the strict Rule and Law of Prerogative, the governing and disposing of the Militia of the Kingdome is onely in the King, and that he onely may proclaime warre, and he alone establish peace amongst his people: yet we ought not so to construe this Law, that it is so in the King, that it cannot be severed from him, and that no other can intermeddle with it, without the consent of the King though that it be for the Weale publique, and for the securing of the Kingdome, being in imminent danger, the King refusing to settle it, as in right he ought, upon the prayer of his people, represented in the desires of the Parliament. For to make such a construction were utterly to confound, and destroy, both Law, & Common wealth, as I have said before, and therefore ought not to be admitted.

The King hath this Prerogative allowed him by the Law, that he shall not be bound by any Statute, except that he be expressely named in the Statute,&illegible; Rep. fo. 14. b. yet it is resolved in the 5. Rep. that all Statutes, which are made to suppresse wrong, to take away fraud, or to prevent the decay of Religion, shall binde the King, though he be not named in them; for, saith the Booke, Religion, Justice, and Truth, are the sure Supporters of the Crownes and Diadems of Kings. So I say in this case, the King by his Prerogative (as I have said before) ought to have the sole disposing of the Militia: But if in imminent danger, he refuse to settle this for the safetie of himselfe, and his Kingdome, according to the trust reposed in him, his Prerogative ought then to give way for the securing of his Crowne, that those who are intrusted with the Weale publique, as the Parliament is, may settle this for the defence of the King, and Kingdome, according, as in truth, they are bound, as I shall afterwards shew.

It is a Rule in our Law, That the King can doe no wrong; and with this accords Bracton,Bracton fo. 107. Nihil aliud potest Rex in terris, cum sit Dei minister & vicarius, nisi id solum quod de jure potest, nec quod principi placet, legis habet vigorem, the King can doe nothing upon earth, seeing that he is Gods minister and Vicar, but that onely which of right he ought to doe, neither ought the Kings will, to have the force and vigour of a Law. Here note, that the will of the King, ought to subscribe to the Law; and not the Law to the will of the King.

&illegible; Com. fo. 246.And in Pl. Com. 1. Rep. & 5. Rep. it is said, That the King cannot doe a wrong, neither will his Prerogative be any Warrant to him to doe injurie to another: and if the King cannot injure one single person, without question, he cannot injure all the Common-wealth,&illegible; Rep. fo. 44. b. which he should doe in this case, if both the Houses of Parliament, in this time of imminent danger, the King refusing to joyn with them, should not have this power of setling the Militia, in defence of the Kingdome, without his consent.Rep. fo. 55. b.

I agree with Bracton, that the King, Parem non habet in regno, nec superiorem, He hath no equall, nor superiour in his Kingdome; but that is to be understood, that there is no man above or equall with his Majestie; for he saith afterwards; Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo, & sub lege,Bracton fo. &illegible; that the King ought not to be under man, but under God, and under the Law: and after fo. 34. a, he saith, Rex habet superiorem, Deum, scilicet, item legem, per quam factus est Rex, item &illegible; suam, viz. Comites Barones, &c.Bracton fo. &illegible; the King hath a superiour, to wit, God, in like manner, the Law, which made him King, and also his Court, to wit, the Earles, Barons, &c. which cannot be understood of any other, then the high Court of Parliament. And in the places before cited, he saith, Quod non est Rex, ubi dominatur voluntas, non Lex, He is not King, when his will rules, not the Law. Then if it be thus, as Bracton saith, that the Law, and the two Houses of Parliament, are above the King: and that the King is as no King, when he doth not submit to the Law, (which will of necessitie follow, for that the same Law, which made him King, injoynes and obliges him also to defend his people committed to his charge; and without doubt, the one as just as the other, and if he refuse to protect his people, which is a dispising, and a depressing of that Law which gave him this Soveraigntie: certainly, the Law will not defend him in this his tyranny) I conceive, that in this case, the Law will in its own defence, and in default of the King, who ought to have maintained the Law, inable the two Houses of Parliament, to put the Kingdome into a posture of warre, in defence of the King, his Lawes and Subjects.

But now the great Question is, What, and where is the ground of our feares, and jealousies, and where is the imminent danger; for, many say, that they cannot see it, and then it not being visible, and obvious to every eye: a Question as great in shew as the former, arises upon this, Who is, or may be the proper Judge of this imminent danger. To the first, I answer, that our feare, and the imminent danger pretended, is no Phantasme or Chimerâ, as some would have it, but it is a reall and visible cause of feare,Instit. fo. 253. Et talis metus qui cadere potest in virum constantem, such a feare, as may befall a constant man, as my Lord Cooke describeth a feare, that may possesse a generous and settled spirit. And that it is thus, I appeale to the conscience of any wise & indifferent man, whether that the Commune incendium, the common sice, or calamitie in our neighbour Nation of Ireland, clothed with these three circumstances, as I shall set it forth, will not cause, and justly too, a wise man to feare, and doubt, what the event will be.

As first, that they are our Neighbours, and when my Neighbours house is on fire: will any man adjudge this to be a phantasme or an esseminate feare in me, to provide for the securing of my person and estate, from perishing in the common ruine?

Secondly, It is Religion, that these cruell, barbarous, and unheard of Tyrants, make for a ground of their horrid Rebellion: and what stronger ingagement can there be, then this, for to incourage and spurre men forward, in any desperate designe? Especially, those of the Popish faction, who may have a pardon before-hand, for the act they shall commit, be it never so desperate: And doe we not thinke, that this will be a strong incitement to men, who conceive themselves tyed in conscience to undertake that which they doe, to wade through any misery, for the accomplishment of their desired end, knowing before hand, that they have a pardon for the most horrid act or attempt that they can doe, conducing to the perfecting of the same? And then as this obligeth all Nations besides, of the Popish partie, ought not we to thinke, and beleeve, that such an opportunitie, must of necessitie, stimulate them forward, to be ayding and assisting to such a designe, which will infallibly at the last, merit either Heaven or Hell? I am confident (and it stands with all reason that it should be so, for that they have not for a long time, praysed be God, had the like opportunitie) that the Pope, with all his adherents, are now plotting, and contriving, with their holy Father the Devill, to operate the ruine of the Protestant Religion: and shall this ingage them to fight against God, under a pretence of being on his side? And shall it not invite us, who fight for God, and his truth, which we have so long time, happily & peaceably through Gods goodnesse enjoyed, to prepare our selves, and all that we have, for the defence of the same? To conclude this, we who have the greatest part of the world our enemies, may justly feare, that they are now plotting and contriving that for England, that is already acted in Ireland. And let us not say, that they are at enmitie one with another, and therefore, are not at leisure, to harme us: for we may be sure, that they will shake hands, to doe us a mischiefe:Duke 23. 12. according to that in holy Writ, of Pilate and Herod, who though they were utter enemies one to another, yet they were made friends, to combine against Christ.

Thirdly, and lastly, who is able to say, that either he, or his children, shall live to see an end of that bloudy persecution and rebellion, and what the successe of it will be? True it is, that God hath hitherto gone forth with our Armies, and hath in an exceeding measure, and above all expectation, blessed their endeavours, and crowned their actions with a happie successe, God be praised for it, but yet who knoweth, whether they shall ever be able to root out this rebellious Tribe? I speak not this out of any diffidence of Gods continued favour and goodnesse towards us, or to make others mistrust; but onely to demonstrate, that there is a just cause of feare; for who can divine what the event of warre will be: Exitus belli incertus, that is, the issue of warre is uncertain. Besides (and which brings me to my second ground of our just and dreadfull feares) if the distractions of this Kingdome continue, which God defend, what ayde can they expect from us, who are like to be surrounded with the like misery: so that their necessitie, may cutt them short of their hopes, and by this much adde to our feares.

Secondly, having shewed our just cause of fear, which riseth ab extra, from our deplorable brethren, and neighbours; now I shall shew, our cause of fear, that ariseth ab intra: from the unhappy distractions, which are risen amongst our selves. Who is it, that doth not see, the sad divisions and generall sidings throughout the Realm? which hath grown upon this unhappy division of the King and Parliament; which when it will be reconciled, God knoweth. And if this (which adds much to our miserie) had not happened, we could not before have been secure, without a just cause of fear: for what divellish plots, and fearfull designes, have been discovered through Gods mercy, and the vigilant eye of the Parliament; tending to the destruction of our best birth-right and inheritance, the priviledges and freedome of Parliaments? Without the continuance of which, that which is nearest and dearest unto thee, whether it be thy Religion, life, or liberty: what ever it be, that thou most blessest thy self withall, will then depend upon the Arbitrary will of thy Soveraign; so that thou mayest not then, stile ought that God hath given thee, thy own: which heavy judgement I beseech God to divert from this sinfull Land and Nation; for we may truly acknowledge, that it were just upon us, that we who have so much abused Gods blessings, should now be deprived of them: and that we, who have so much abused the freedome of conscience, of our laws, lives, liberties, and estates, should now be subjected to a perpetuall slavery. Now to conclude this likewise, divide the Kingdom into foure parts, and I am confident, that the Papist. Newter, and Cavalier (I might adde likewise the domineering proud Clergy, who would fain reduce all things to their late condition) who lie perdue, and wait for an opportunitie, for to bring a speedie destruction upon this Common-wealth, will make two parts, I think I might, without any imputation, or prejudice to judgement, say three &illegible; of the foure, and now put all these things together, and I beleeve, that no indifferent understanding man, but will be forced to confesse, that there was, and still is, a just cause of fear, and of putting of the Kingdom, into a posture of warre. And then the imminent danger being pregnant, and demonstrable to all the world: the last question is taken away.

But admitting that it were not prospicuous, and visible to all, then the question is, who is the proper Judge of this imminent danger, and I conceive plainly, under favour, that the Parliament ought to be,&illegible; Rep. 106. b. &illegible; 2. and no other: and my first reason is grounded upon the rule of Law, viz. that the Parliament can do no wrong, which is warranted by the 9. Rep. the 6. Rep. and many other books. And in Pl. Com. it is said, that the Parliament is a Court of thrice great honour and justice, of which none ought to imagine a dishonourable thing.&illegible; Rep. 27. b. &illegible; 2. And this I conceive to be grounded upon the Writ of Summons to Parliament, which wils, that the elections should be De gravioribus & discretioribus viris, &c. of the most grave and discreet men. And Fortescue speaking of the Parliament, saith, We ought necessarily to think, that the Statutes of this Realm are made with great wisdom and prudence,Pl. Com. fo. 398 &illegible; ca. 18. Dum non unins aut centum solum consultorum virorum, sed plus quam trecentorum electorum hominum, quali numero olim Senatus Romanorum regebatur, ipsa sunt edita. For that they are not made by one, or an hundred onely of sage judicious men, but by more then three hundred of chosen men: by such a number, as in times past, the Senate of Rome was used to be ruled.

Object.But here it will be objected, that this Ordinance is not setled by Parliament, for that the King and many of his Nobles, were not there, nor never consented to it; and therefore that we ought not to estreme, or account, some few Scismaticall and factious persons (who seek their own ends, and not the common good) to be the Parliament: and therefore you mistake in giving of them the Style of the Parliament.

Answ,A strange, unheard of, and illegall objection, a pretty trick and wilde to mask illegall slanders, under illegall objections. It is a wonder to hear such strange, and as unparalelld, as unwarrantable, invectives, against the Parliament, which are published in the Kings name, and under his protection, and patronage: while in the mean time, the King (whose distance of place, or affection, cannot divide from his Parliament, as I shall afterwards shew) suffers in those very obloquies, and dishonourable detractions, which are coyned for his honorable Assembly of Parliament.

For, as all our books agree, the Parliament is as one body: and the chief or head of this body, is the King: and with this agreeth, Dyer, fo. 60. 2. who saith,Dyer, fo. 60. 2. that the Estate of Parliament consists of three parts: viz. of the King, as the chief Head; and of the Lords, the chief and principall Members of the Body; and of the Commons, Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, the inferiour Members: and these make the body of the Parliament. Now if it be thus, that the King, Lords and Commons make but one body, and that the King is the Head of this body, as in truth the Law is: then it will thus in reason follow, that no more then you can divide the head from the naturall body, and yet preserve the body alive, can you divide the King from the Parliament, and yet have the Parliament continue, as in truth it doth: and I hope that there is none so void of reason, as to think, that the Kings dividing of himself from his Parliament, (for the case is utterly mistaken, to say that the Parliament, severs the King from them) shall destroy his Parliament, though I suppose, that many, who dare not bring their actions to the teste, would have it so.

Now if it be so, that, notwithstanding this unhappy division, the Parliament doth vertually, and actually continue, (which, God defend it should be otherwise, for then Parliament, and no Parliament would be all one) then, of necessity, it must follow, that the King, who is the head of this great body, is not divided in Law, though he be in distance, for if so it must needs be, that the body would be destroyed, for that a Body (as I have said before) cannot subsist without a Head. And it must likewise follow, that they usurp no honour or power to themselves, more then by the Law is due, to stile themselves the Parliament. And therefore whatsoever imputations, or dishonourable invectives (things too common in the mouthes of many, who have not common reason, much lesse Law, to discover a truth) are imposed and cast upon the two Houses of Parliament, reflect upon the honour of the King, and are a great stain and blemish to it.

Then if it be thus, that the Parliament, in judgement of Law, can do no wrong, and that no dishonorable thing ought to be imagined of them; certainly, they are the most proper Judges of this imminent danger. But to this it will be objected that the King likewise, in judgement of Law, can do no wrong, and therefore he notwithstanding this reason, may be as proper a Judge of the imminent danger, as any one, and upon this ground his judgement ought rather to be received then the judgement of any, yea of the Parliament it self; & he tels us, that there is no imminent danger, what then meanes this great contention about the Militia? To this I answer, that it is true, the rule of Law likewise is, That the King can doe no wrong; but the reason of this is, for that it is presumed, that what the King doth, he doth upon the advice, & reducement of evill Counsellors, who with a spetious shew, pretend nothing more then the good of the Common-wealth; whereas in truth, they intend nothing lesse. And hath it not been frequent, for Kings, seduced by wicked and malignant Counsellors, to do those things which have been a dishonour to themselves, and a great gravamen and prejudice to the publique: and if so, my conclusion is, that I would as willing a man should doe me injury, upon his owne principles, as by the advice of others; for though happily the wrong may not be so great, as to himselfe, yet the damage is all one to me. But now on the other side, who can tell, or what Story is able to relate, that ever a Parliament did doe that thing, that was prejudiciall to the Common-wealth? Why then if this position hold true, That Kings seduced, may injure the Common-wealth, but that Parliaments cannot: I conclude, notwithstanding this objection, that the Parliament, for this reason, are the most proper Judges of this imminent danger.

Againe, they are the most proper Judges of an imminent danger, who in probabilitie may have the best cognisance, and information of it: but the Parliament (which is the representative body of the whole Realme, and the eyes of all the Kingdome) must of necessitie have the best cognisance and information of any imminent and approaching danger: Ergo, they are the best and most competent Judges of it.

Last of all, the Parliament are the most proper Judges of an imminent danger; for that they are those, whom the Common-wealth hath intrusted with its future happinesse, they are our Judges, those whose judgement we have bound our selves by our owne free Election, to stand to, and therefore we cannot now recede from it, or see with other eyes then they see; if they say, that they see an imminent and approaching danger, we ought not to say, that there is no such matter; and if they say, that the Militia is well and legally settled, we cannot, nor ought not to say, that it is against the Law; for that our judgement is bound up in, and superseded by theirs. But to this it will be said, that this were a kinde of implicite faith, or if I may so speake, a kinde of Heresie in Law; for a man to be tide to subscribe to other mens judgements, and to beleeve that whatsoever they doe, is lawfull: To this I answer shortly, that there is a great difference, between a subscription of compulsion, and a subscription of consent; for volenti non fit injuria, that is, he that cõsents to the doing of a thing, is not injured by the thing done. Againe, the Parliament would not have us to pinne our faith upon their judgements, to beleeve without reason; for, as it is well knowne, they have published the justice and integritie of their cause, to the whole world, and have left their proceedings to the judgement and determination of every private conscience; so that cleerely this objection holds not.

Then if the judgement of Parliament, be our judgement; what else doe they then oppose their own judgement, who dare oppose the judgement of Parliament, which is folly? and what else doe they but preferre their proper and private judgement, before the judgement of the whole Parliament? which is an extreame insolency; for that they represent the whole Kingdome: and are the most worthy part of it, and for that, we have, as I have said before, bound our selves by our owne consent and election, to stand to their judgement and determination. Wherefore, for all these preceding reasons, I conclude this point, that admitting the imminent danger were not perspicuous and manifest to every eye, that the Parliament as they are the most proper Judges, so they ought to be the onely Judges of it, and no other person whatsoever.

Now for the Objection, that many of the Lords and Commons, did never consent to the Ordinance of Parliament, for that they were with his Majestie, and that therefore this should make their determination invalid, and ineffectuall: This is a more strange objection then the other, for that it is against the rule of Law, that any man should take advantage of his owne wrong; and it is cleare, that after the Parliament is once begunne, their personall attendance is so necessary, and of such importance to the Parliament, that they ought not by the Law, for any businesse whatsoever, to be absent, and so is Dyer.Dyer. fo. &illegible; 6. H. 8. ca. &illegible; 3. E. 2. &illegible; Corone 61 &illegible; Crompt. &illegible; Courts. fo. &illegible; And by the Stat. of 6. H. 8. it is enacted, that no Knight, Citizen, or Burges, absent himselfe, without licence of the Speakes and Commons, under the paine of the losse of their wages. And in 3. E. 2. Fitz: Corone 61. cited in Crompton Jur. the Bishop of Winton was arraigned in the Kings Bench, for that he came to the Parliament, and departed without licence. Why then is it so, that their withdrawing of themselves, is a crime in them? Shall they then take advantage of this offence and neglect of theirs, of the Weale publique; for the good of which, they were called and assembled together, to avise? certainly not. Besides, if this objection might hold, who is it that doth not see, what the inconvenience might be, Et argumentum ab inconvenienti est bonum in lege, an argument drawne from inconvenience, is good in Law. For by this invention, the conclusions and determinations of those who are present, intending the Weale publique, (as in dutie they are bound) should be all frustrated, and annihilated, by the absence of those, who voluntarily and against Law, withdraw themselves; which would be destructive to all Parliaments.

For posito that all the Lords or all the Commons, should voluntarily and out of an indisposednesse to the common good, withdraw themselves, and utterly refuse to performe that trust, which is reposed in them, of counselling and consenting to such Lawes, which might establish peace, and a settled condition in Church and State: will any man thinke, that if in this time of dissertion of the Lords or Commons, there be an apparent & imminent danger, threatning ruine to the Common-wealth, if it be not in an opportune and seasonable time prevented, that in this case, it lies not in the power of the King and Lords, or of the King & Commons onely, as the case is, by way of Ordinance, to settle the Kingdom in such a state and temper, as may prevent any approaching misery? Without question it doth, or otherwise this conclusion (as I have said before) would be destructive to all Parliaments.

I agree, that an Act of Parliament cannot be made, by which a new Law should be enacted,H. 7. 18. that should be obligatory to the Subject for ever, (I meane untill it were repealed by another Act) but by the consent of the King, Lords, and Commons; and with this accords the Books, 4. H. 7 there an Act was made by the King and Lords, but nothing was spoken of the Commons; and by all the Judges, this is no act of Parliament.H. 7. 14. 7 H. 7. No Statute except that the Lords and Commons assent to it. And 18. H. 7. it is no act of Parliament, except it be made by the King Lords, and Commons. By this it is manifest, that all the three Estates ought to joyne in the making of an act of Parliament: and this is so cleare, that I need not cite any other authoritie in proofe of it, for our Books are plentifull in this point.H. 7. 27. Onely I shall remember one remarkable case, which I finde in our Law, to prove that the Books which say, That an Act of Parliament cannot be made, without the consent of the Lords, that this ought to be intended of the Lords Temporall onely, and not of the Lords Spirituall: and therefore it is resolved by the Judges in 7. H. 8. Keilway.H. 8. Keilway. fo. 184. b. that the King may well hold his Parliament, by him, his Temporall Lords & Commons, without the Spirituall Lords: so that by this it was manifest, that they were not essentially necessary to a Parliament; for that the King might have holden a Parliament without them: and therefore it is not now so much to be wondred at, that they are totally excluded by Act of Parliament.

But now on the other side, I conceive as clearely, under favour, that if the King do utterly forsake them, and decline their advice and counsell, to which he ought to adhere during Parliament, that in such case they may (as I have said before) make such Ordinances, without him, for the securing of the Kingdome, in case of exigency and extremitie, as shall be obligatory to all the Realme, pending Parliament: for otherwise, they should have the name of a Parliament onely, & not the power and vertue of it.

But now it may be objected, that the King by his Prerogative, may call a Parliament when he pleaseth, and also adjourne and dissolve it when he pleaseth: and that the power given by the Writ of Summons, of the Lords to Parliament, is onely ad tractandum & consulendum, &c. and therefore it will be concluded, that by the same power the King may command his Counsellors whither he pleaseth. To this I answer, and agree, that the King may call or dissolve a Parliament when he pleaseth, and so totally toll their power; but yet under favour, pending Parliament, unadjourned, the King can neither retarde their proceedings, nor take away their persons: and that I shall prove thus: the King, as sons Justitiæ, the fountaine of Justice, from whom all Judiciary power is derived, may likewise make, whom he pleaseth, to be a Judge, to dispence the Lawes in justice and equitie unto his people; but will it therefore follow, that when he hath made such and such to be his Judges, that he may either retarde their proceedings, or countermand their judgements, under favour, nothing lesse. Againe, as I have shewed before, they are punishable by the Law, for withdrawing of themselves: and it were hard, that the King should have power to command me that act, which being done, subjects me to a severe punishment. Now for that part of the objection, that they are but his Counsellors, and not his Judges: to that I shall give, as I hope, a full and satisfactory answer afterwards.

And now I shall conclude this first ground or reason, with another answer to the objection, against the imminent danger, and this I ground upon the words in the Kings Writ, by which he summons the Lords to Parliament; in the body of which Writ he saith, Mandamus quod consideratis dictorum negotiorum ardultate & periculis imminentibus, cessante excusatione quacunque, dictis die & loco personalitèr intersitis nobiscum, &c. that is, we command you, that considering the greatnesse of the businesse, and the imminent dangers, laying aside all excuse, you be personally with us, the said day and place, &c. Here the King by his Writ saith expressely, that at the time of the calling of this Parliament, there was an imminent danger; and as now it should be dishonourable for the King to contradict himselfe, so I doe not conceive, that he shall be received to deny that extrajudicially, which he hath confessed by his Writ judicially.

But to this it will be said, that the Writ, Est breve formatum, that is, it is a formed Writ, or a Writ of course, and that there is no other, and that from this there is no varying; so that be the occasion of calling of the Parliament, what it will, the same form ought to be pursued, and no other; and therefore it is no concluding reason, that there is an imminent danger, because the Writ saith so. To this I answer, that we ought not to presume, that the King will speak any thing in a judiciall way, as here he doth, which should be vain and superfluous; besides, if you consider the time in which this Parliament was called, when that the Scottish Army was in England, and at which time such distractions, and rumours of warres, did I say rumours of warres? I might have said Warre it self; was amongst us: when that the extreme insolencie and pride of the Clergie; together with the darknesse of superstition and Popery, had almost overwhelmed this Nation with imminent destruction and misery: the fear of which doth yet cloud the face of the poore Commonalty, I say, these things considered, we may justly conclude, that the King, at that time, spake as he intended, and therefore certainly now, he shall not be received to contradict it. Wherefore I conclude this first reason, that by reason of the imminent danger which threatens the Common-wealth, the King refusing to settle the Militia, the Parliament may well do it.

2.Secondly, I hold that the Parliament may do it; for that the King by his refusall hath made a breach of that trust that is committed to him, by God, and his people, that there is a trust committed to him, and that the greatest also, that any one under God can have. I have in part demonstrated it before; for I have shewn how that he is bound by the Law to defend and protect his people, their lives, liberties, and estates, from any forrein or domestick danger; and saith Fortescue, ca. 13. cited before,&illegible; ca. 13. Rex ad tutelem legis, corporum, & honorum, erectus est: he is erected King, for this purpose, and intent, to defend the Law, the bodies and goods of his Subjects. And he saith himself (as I have likewise shewed before) in the Commission directed to Commissioners of Sewers, that by reason of his royall dignity, Astrictus est ad providendum salvationi regni sui; He is bound to secure his kingdom. And this he is bound to do by the Law, and Justice: for he ought to rule according to Law, and for this purpose he is intrusted with the Law also: and therefore in 8. H. 7. it is said,&illegible; 7. fo. 1. a. that the King is conservator of the Law, the which is the Common-weal. As if it had been said, the Common-weal, depends upon the Kings well keeping, and observing, of the Law. And in many places of Bracton, amongst which, this is one: fo. 55. b. he saith, Sciendum quod ipse Dominus Rex, ordinariam habet jurisdictionem, & dignitatem, & potestatem, super omnes, qui in regno suo sunt, habet enim omnia jura in manu sua quæ ad Coronam, & laicam pertinent potestatem, & materialem gladium, qui pertinet ad regni gubernaculum, habet etiam iustitiam & iudicium, quæ sunt iurisdictiones, us ex iurisdictione sua, sicut Dei Minister, tribuat unicuique quod suum fuerit: that is,&illegible; fo. 55. b. we must know, that the King hath ordinary jurisdiction, and dignitie, and power, above all which are in his kingdom; for he hath all the Laws in his hand, which do pertain to the Crown, and lay power; and the materiall sword, which belongeth to the government of his kingdom; he hath also justice, and judgement, which are jurisdictions, that by his jurisdiction, as Gods Minister, he may give to every one, that which is his own. Here you may see, that the King is intrusted, with the Laws, and Justice, as also with the materiall Sword, to this end, that he may defend his people committed to his charge, as well by force, if occasion be, as by righteous judgement. And to this also he is bound by his Oath, as I have said before, which I find in Bracton,Bract. fo. 107. a. ca. 9. fo. 107. by which he sweareth that In omnibus iudiciis aquitatem præcipiet, &c. ut per justitiam suam firma gaudent pace universi: that is, that he will use equitie in all his judgements, that all men may injoy a firm peace, by his justice. And there he further saith, that ad hoc creatus est & electus, ut iustitiam faciat universis, &c. & quod iustè iudicaverit, sustineat, & defendet, &c. He is created, and elected King, for this purpose, and intent, to do justice to all men, and that he should judge justly, sustain and defend them. And with this accords 6. H. 7. where it is said,6. H. 7. 16. that the King is bound for to do right to parties. And as he ought to rule according to Law, so he himself, ought to be governed by the Law, as I have shewed before.Bract. fo. 5. b. And as Bracton saith, fol. 5. b. Ipse autem Rex, non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo, & sub Lege, quia Lexfacit Legem: The King ought not to be under man, but under God, and the Law. Now I conceive that it is manifest, that the King is intrusted with the Laws, lives, liberties, and estates of his Subjects, all which he of right ought to defend in peace and tranquillity, as he also by his Oath is bound; and therefore Bracton saith, Est Corona Regis facere iustitiam, & iudicium, & tenere pacem,Bract. fo. 55. &illegible; sine quibus corona consistere non potest nec tenere: It is the Crown of the King to do justice, and judgement, and to maintain peace; without which, his Crown cannot stand and continue: as if he had said, it is so essentiall to the King to do justice and judgement; and to maintain peace, that you destroy the Crown, if you take away these.

Now I shall prove, that the King hath made a breach of this great trust committed to him, foure wayes. First, by denying of his Protection to his people. Secondly, by not supporting of the Laws, and the Priviledges of Parliament. Thirdly, by not endeavouring to maintain peace amongst his people. And fourthly and lastly, by denying of Justice; and in all these particulars I shall prove, that the King hath broken the trust committed to him.

And first, he hath broken the trust committed to him by denying of his protection, and this he hath done three wayes.The following marginalia text is unreadable and Liberty Fund has made no effort to partially transcribe it. 1. By denying of his legall protection, that is, in not protecting of his people according to Law: and this he hath done, by denying to settle the Militia, by the advise of his great Counsell, according to Law: by whom onely, during Parliament, he ought to be advised, for during the continuance of this great Counsell, all inferiour Counsels ought to cease: and therfore the Counsell of others neither can, nor ought to countermand theirs: but of this I shall speak more fully afterwards. 2. The King hath denied his Royall protection to his people, in taking up of Arms against his Parliament, who is the representative Body of the whole Kingdom: and this is the most strong refusall of his protection, of all others, for by this he doth not refuse onely to protect them, but he goes about to destroy them, whom, by the Law, and his Oath, he is bound to preserve and defend. And thirdly and lastly, he hath denied his royall protection to his people in this, that in time of imminent danger to the Kingdom, he hath denied to settle the Militia; and he that denies the means, denies the end. For it is a rule with us in our Law, that Qui tollit medium, tollit quoque finem: He that takes away the means, takes away the end. And it is all one in effect, to deny a thing, as to deny the means per quod pervenitur ad illud: by which you may come to the thing. Now it is clear, that the sole means, under God, to defend this kingdom, in time of imminent danger, from its enemies, either forrain or domestick, is, by settling of the Militia, and by putting of the Forts, and Magazine of the kingdom, into faithfull and true hands, such as may be confided in, being a matter of so great consequence, and of so high importance to the whole Common-weal. Now the King refusing to do this, doth he not in effect, deny his protection to his people? for denying of the means, it is all one as if he had denied the end: so that I conceive, for these reasons, the King hath denied to protect his people, as by the Law he is bound, and therefore hath made a breach of the trust that is reposed in him.

2.Secondly, I conceive, that the King hath broken this great trust, in not supporting of the Laws, and the priviledges of Parliament; that he hath not maintained the Law appeareth plainly, by that, that I have said before, for that he hath refused to be ruled by it, as he ought: for though that he is not sub homine, under man; yet he is sub Lege, under the Law, as I have shewed before, and therefore ought to be governed by it. And what is this but a refusing to be ruled by Law, when he refuseth upon the prayer of his Parliament to settle the Militia for the defence of his Kingdom, and people, according to Law? And that the King hath broken the Priviledges of Parliament, what more plain? I might instance in many things, but I shall instance in onely one or two: And here I appeal to all the world, whether his withdrawing of himself from his Parliament; and not onely so, but his endeavouring, by his many detractions and imputations laid upon his Parliament, to withdraw all the hearts of his people from them likewise: and, which is yet worse, his supporting and maintaining of such men, and keeping of them from justice and their condigne punishment, who are Delinquents in a high nature, against his Parliament: I say, that I appeal to all the world, whether these be not great breaches of the Priviledges of Parliament? and what greater breach of the priviledges of Parliament can there be? then to protect and defend them, without any colour of Law, or justice, who indeavour nothing, but the ruine of Parliament, and in this, of our Laws, lives, and liberties: so I conceive, that this also is a breach of that great trust which is reposed in his Majestie, by God, his people, and the Laws of the Land.

Thirdly, I conceive that the King hath infringed this great trust,3. by not indeavouring to maintaine peace: and this two wayes, by his commission, and omission; by his commission, in taking up of Armes against his people, as I have said before, and then by his omission, and not onely so, but by an absolute refusall, in this time of imminent danger, to settle the Kingdome in a posture of defence, the sole meanes, under God, as I have said, to maintaine peace and tranquillitie amongst us: and this is against his Oath also, which the King himselfe was pleased of late to publish to his people: which I finde likewise expressely in Bracton,Bract. fo. 107. &illegible; that the King first sweareth, Se esse pracepturum, & pro viribus opem impensurum ut Ecelesiæ Dei & omni populo Christiano, vera pax, omni suo tempore, observetur, that is, that he will indeavour to the utmost of his power, that true peace may be kept & observed, to the Church of God, and to all Christian people, all his dayes.

Fourthly, and lastly, I conceive that the King hath broken his trust,4. by denying of justice: and this he hath done two wayes; first, by denying to surrender up Delinquents to the Justice of the Law: and secondly, by denying to settle the Militia, by and according to the advise of his great Counsell the Parliament. Now that the King is obliged to doe Justice, it is without question, for his very Oath (as I have shewed before) ties him expressely to it, and so is 6. H. 7. cited before,Bracton fo. &illegible; and Bracton, fo. 107. a. where he saith, that Ad hoe creatus est & electus ut justicians faciat universis, &c. He is created and elected King, for this purpose and intent, that he may doe justice to all men. And what greater act of Justice can there be, then for the King to defend his people in peace? or what greater act of Justice can there be, then for the King, at the request of his people, represented by the body of Parliament, to enact such Lawes, which conduce to the maintaining of peace? Certainly none. And this Bracton seemeth to intimate,Bracton. fo. &illegible; Sinon esset qui justitiam faceret, pax de facili potest exterminari, &c. If there were not one who would doe Justice, peace might easily be extirminated. Here note, that he doth not say, that our lives, Lawes, Liberties, or Estates, for want of Justice might easily be extirminated; but our peace, by this, as it were, concentering all Justice in this act of maintaining peace: and without question, all our happinesse, under God, consists in the supporting and maintaining of peace: for, take that away, and all things fall to utter ruine and destruction. And certainly, if it be thus, that the greatest act of Justice in the King that can be, consists in maintaining of peace, and in granting of such Lawes, which conduce unto this end, without question the denying of this by the King, must needs be the greatest act of injustice in the King that can be, and by consequence, a breach of that trust, that is reposed in his Majestie. And therefore I doe conceive, that at the least in this, the King can have no negative voyce: and I doe not conceive, that the King can have any negative voyce in Parliament, in other things; for if the King, by his Oath, and the Law of the Land, be obliged to doe Justice, (as in truth he is) and if it be as great an act of Justice in the King, as can be, not onely justly to dispence the Lawes in esse, in being, to his people; but also to grant such new Lawes unto them as conduce to the well governing of them, in peace and happinesse. Why then certainly it must of necessitie follow, that the King can have no negative voyce; but is bound under this heavie sinne, of the breach of his Oath, and the Lawes of the Land, to grant such Lawes as are requested of him by his people.

But here it may be objected, that the King had this Prerogative by the Law, that he might have called a Parliament when he pleased, and there was no positive Law to the contrary, before this Parliament, in which the King hath devested himselfe of this power; and if before at the request of his people, he had not been pleased to grant them a Parliament, why, this in effect, was a denier of Justice, for that the King denied the meanes by which it might be obtained, and yet this was lawfull for him to doe; therefore it will be concluded, that by the same reason he may have a negative voyce in Parliament.Cro. Iur. fo. 7. b. And Cromp. Jur. of Courts saith expressely, that when the King doth assent to a Bill, then he writes upon the Bill, L’Roy veult, that is, the King will have it so; and if he doth not assent, then it is indorsed L’Roy advisera, that the King will advise; here it doth appeare how the King hath a negative voyce allowed him by the Law. To this I answer, and agree, these Prerogatives de facto to be in the King, but whether in truth, they be such as are compatible, and may stand with the Oath and Justice of the King: this may be questionable, and under favour, I conceive that they cannot; for that, as I have shewed, his Oath and the Lawes of the Land, ties his Majestie to doe Justice to his people, and the granting of new Laws unto them, upon their request, is an Act of Justice, and therefore he cannot denie them without breach of his Oath, and the Lawes of the Land; and by consequence, these prerogatives are not compatible, with the Oath and Justice of the King; and though peradventure the Law may dispence with it selfe, yet it cannot with the Oath of the King. Wherefore I conceive, notwithstanding this objection, that the King can have no negative voyce: but of this onely by the way.

And is it thus, that the King hath made a breach of that trust reposed in him, by God and his people? as in truth, I have cleered it unto you: then none so proper to supply this defect, in his Majestie, by the disposing of the Militia, for the defence and protection of the King & Kingdome, as the Parliament, who are at this time entrusted, under God, not onely with our esse, with our being, but with our bene esse, with our well-being also.

But here it may be objected, that the King derives his Crowne and regall power from God, and that therefore he is responsible to God alone for his actions, and not to man: To this I answer, that it is a most strange Episcopall and illegall objection; for what is this but the attributing of a power to the King above Law? and the giving of him such a prerogative that should not be subject to those Constitutions, which his predecessors before him had been, and though it should be admitted, that as all power is derived originally from God, so especially this; yet it doth not follow, that it was therefore conferred by an extraordinary and immediate hand of God, as it was upon Saul and David,1 Sam. 9. & 14. yet they likewise were confirmed and approved by the people, as you may reade in holy Writ. Besides, Saul and David, lived not under any Municipall or positive Constitutions of men, which they were bound to maintaine and observe, as the King of England doth, and therefore it must needs be, that their power must be more absolute, which was not circumscribed within the bounds and limits of any humane Lawes. But now the Kings of England having subjected themselves to the Law of the Land, and received their Crownes with that trust and tacite condition, of defending of the Lawes, lives, and liberties of their Subjects: the Law were idle and vaine, if there should be none that should have this power, for the breach of this trust by his Majestie, to interpose for the securing of him, his Lawes, and people. And if this divine prerogative, which the Bishops doe so buzze into the Kings eares, should be admitted, I would faine know what difference would be made, betwixt an absolute Monarke, and the King of England: and cleerely this was never reputed for other, nor can be (the Crowne being subject to the Law as well as the people) then a mixt Monarchy: but I shall conclude this, that they who so much defend and exalt this divine prerogative, would in the conclusion (if they might have their way) upon the same ground, advance the Miter above the Crowns. God open the Kings eyes, that he may see and acknowledge himselfe subject to the Lawes, and may rule his people accordingly: and grant that he may detest such advice, as dangerous to the State, and the suggesters of it, as Pests and Traytors to the same.

But it may be againe objected, that this was a conquered Nation, & therefore by the Law of Conquest, the Conquerour might have made what alterations in the Law, or State, he pleased; but he retaining the Law, and subjecting himselfe to it (who might have advanced himselfe above it) will it therefore follow, that in so doing, he hath subjected himselfe to his people likewise? if he transgresse it, Deum habet ulterem, God will revenge it, but it was never his intent to give his people that power.

To this I answer, that retaining of the Law, and subjecting of himselfe unto it, he is bound by it, and all his Successours after him; and it were in vaine (as I have touched it before) to establish a Law, and to give none power to put it in execution: Wherefore I conceive, that that Law that bindes the King, will for the breach of the same, authorise his Parliament, though not to instict any penalty upon his sacred person, God forbid, yet to provide for the securing of him and his Kingdome; for otherwise (as the sad consequence of it would make it good) it would be, in effect, but as a dead Letter.

But now further it may be objected; Shall they have such an arbitrary way of power, as this is, to doe any thing by way of Ordinance, without the King? If this may be suffered, they may Metamorphise and change the Law, into what shape they please, or which best agrees with their humours: so that if they order, that land shall from henceforth discend to the youngest sonne, contrary to the course of common Law, (as I thinke the case was put) if this ordinance should binde the Subject, he should here at once be deprived of a double birth-right and inheritance, viz. of his land as heire, and of the Law as a Subject; which would be very hard and unreasonable.

For that part of the objection, of their arbitrary way of proceeding, I shall in part here answer it; but more fully afterwards: for the objection, that they cannot doe it by way of Ordinance, without the King: To this I answer, that in case of imminent danger (as now) the Kingdome must needs perish, if they should not have this power, for they have no other way to ayde the Kingdome in time of imminent danger, by setling the Militia of it, but by way of Act, or Ordinance, and if the King refuse, by their advice, to settle it, by way of act (as in truth he doth now) then we must of necessitie, allow a power in the Parliament, Ne percat regnum. least that the Kingdome perish, by way of Ordinance to settle the Militia, for the defence of the same; for otherwise, the King should have power, when he pleaseth, to destroy his Kingdome, and the people should be lest naked of any abilitie, to preserve and defend themselves; which were very unreasonable, and unnaturall; for nature it selfe, hath not onely established it as a Law, that all creatures may defend themselves from unnaturall violence, but hath armed them accordingly.

And now I shall prove, that as the Parliament are the most proper and onely power, to provide for the securing of the Kingdom: and as they have no other way to do it: so they are obliged to take this way: and this they are tied to by their Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and their late Protestation; for by these they have all sworn, vowed, and protested, to defend the King, his royall person, and estate, and to be true and faithfull to him; now it is impossible for them to defend the King, and to be true and faithfull to him, if they, in time of imminent danger, do not indeavour, as much as in them lieth, to defend his kingdom; for there is such a reciprocill and dependent relation, betwixt the King and his Kingdom, that the one cannot subsist without the others for if they permit the kingdom to be destroyed, the King must of necessitie be ruined also. If the Master die, the relation of a servant must needs cease: for that relatives cannot subsist, the one, without the other. And if the kingdom fail, the King and Scepter must needs fall to the ground. And this is, in part, the reason of that pollicy of Law, in the 7. Rep. Calvins case, that the King is a body politick,7. Rep. 12. Calvins C. lest there should be an interregnum; for that a body politique never dieth.

Why then is it so, that they are bound by their Oaths to defend the kingdom, as well as the King? as in truth they are, for that the King cannot subsist without the kingdom; then the consequence must of necessity be, that the Parliament, in this time of imminent danger, hath well done in settling of the Militia, for the defence and welfare of the King and kingdom: and that in so doing, they have not onely not done more then what they might do, but they have done no more then what they were bound to do, and this under the heavie sinne of perjurie.

But here it may be objected, that this is a corrupting and dividing of the Text; for that the Oath of Supremacy doth not onely bind us to be true, and faithfull to the King, but also to defend, all Jurisdictions, Priviledges, preheminences, and authorities, granted, or belonging to his Highnesse, &c. And the having of the sole disposing of the Militia is one of the priviledges of the Crown, and appertaining to his Highnesse: and therefore we are bound likewise, by this Oath, to defend this priviledge of the Kings, against any who shall endeavour the taking it away from his Majestie.

To this I answer, and agree, that the King (as I have shewed before) hath this priviledge and prerogative given unto him, and with him intrusted by the Law for the good of the Common-wealth: but I never heard that he had it allowed him, for the destruction of the same. Again, I agree that the Oath of Supremacy obligeth every man to defend the priviledges and preheminences of the King: but I do not conceive, or beleeve, that this ought to be so construed, that any man by the Oath of Supremacy, is bound to defend the priviledges of the King, against the weal publick: for if the weal publick, and priviledges of the King, stand in competition, without question the publick interest and welfare ought to be preferred. And therefore if the King do not imploy and use his priviledges according to the trust reposed in him, but rather contrary to it: certainly this doth disoblige every man from that tie and ingagement in this particular, with which he was bound by the Oath of Supremacy. For so to construe the Oath, that I should defend the priviledges of the King, though it be in destruction of the common-wealth: were to make the Oath the most hard and unreasonable tye in the world: whereas, every Oath, amongst other qualifications, ought especially to have these two: viz. that it be explicite, I mean, without implications, or etcetera’s: and reasonable; and it would be very unreasonable for a man to swear to such a thing as would be his own destruction: but à fortiori, where it would be the destruction of the Common-wealth. And as it is said, Pereat unus, ne pereant omnes; let one perish, that all may not perish: So I say, Pereant privilegis Regis ne pereat Regnum: it were much better, that the priviledges of the King should totally cease, or at the least, be suspended for a time, then that the kingdom should be indangered.

But now I shall demand of any man an answer to this question: whether doth most stand for and defend the priviledges of the King: either he that endeavoureth to the utmost of his power to defend and support the Common-weal, in imminent danger: or he that indeavoureth the destruction and ruine of the same: this is the very difference, between the Parliament and the Malignant party: the Parliament use all means possible to defend the King and kingdom from ruine; and the malignant party use all their skill to make both for ever miserable; This question is in it self pregnant of an answer: and the very putting of the case, is a solution of the question: For, no doubt, every wise and ingenious man must needs conclude within himself, that they most defend the priviledges of the King, who most indeavour the safetie of the King and kingdom, and that is the Parliament: so that this Objection fails in the very foundation of it.

And now having answered that part of the Objection, that we ought not to defend the priviledges of the King against the Common-weal: and having likewise shewed, that he most indeavours the defence of the priviledges of the King, who seeks most the good and prosperitie of the Common-weal. I shall now answer the latter part of the Objection, that there is none that goeth about the taking away of the priviledges of the King: but onely to imploy them in defect of the King, according to the trust reposed in his Majestie. For as I have shewed before the King is tied to protect his Subjects from any forrain invasion, or domestick danger: and now the King refusing to do this, by putting of the kingdom into a posture of defence; the Parliament, according to the trust reposed in them, have, in defect of the King, and in his right, assumed to themselves this great charge, of settling of the Militia, for the securitie of the King, and people. And here I shall bid malice it self speak, whether it hath been imployed to any other end or purpose, then that for which it hath been alwayes pretended: viz. for the defence of the King and kingdom? or whether the Magazine (which is pretended to be taken from the King) wheras in truth it is imployed by the King, and for the safetie of him, and his kingdom (as I shall afterwards shew) hath been converted to any private property:4. Rep. 73. 2. or otherwise disposed of, then for the common good? and if so, certainly here is no devesting of the pretended property of the King: but that it still remaineth in statu &illegible; prius:7. Rep. 25. b. in the same state that it was at the first. But if it should be admitted, that this priviledge of the King is at this time taken from him: I conceive that it may be so, as this case is: For, as I have said before,14. H. 4. 9. it were better that the King should loose his priviledge, then that the kingdom should perish. I agree the rule of Law, that the King, regularly, cannot grant over his Prerogative; and with this accords 4. Rep. 7. Rep. 14. H. 4. 2. H. 7. 20. H. 7.2. H. 7. fo. 13. and many other books: except in some speciall cases, as in the 2. Rep. and the 5. Rep. and the difference upon the books may be this, where the Prerogative is meerly personall, and where not: where it is meerly personall, there it is not grantable;20. H. 7. fo. 8. but where it is not meerly personall, there it is: Now in our case I do conceive, and shall agree, that the ordering of the Militia of the kingdom, is a prerogative, so meerly personall in the King, that it cannot be granted over to another.2. Rep. fo. 44. 2. But it doth not therefore follow, that it can by no means be severed; especially, as in this case, when it so much concerneth the good of the Common-weal. Wherefore, I conceive clearly, that the King cannot grant this prerogative over to another,5. Rep. fo. 56. b. for that he onely is intrusted with it for the weal publick: and as we well know, parties intrusted, cannot grant their trust over: for that a trust is meerly personall, and therefore not severable. And the King can no more grant over his prerogative of protection, or power of ordering of the Militia, to another, then he can dispose of his Crown, or royall dignitie, to another: and that he cannot do,Rot. Parl. An. 40. E. 3. Nu. 8. for King John surrendred his Crown to the Pope, and this was adjudged to be void, for that it was given to him by God, and the Law, in trust, for the well governing of his people. And therefore by his own act, or grant, cannot be severed from him: For an office of trust, by the Law, is not grantable over. But on the other &illegible; we see, how that Crowns of Kings have been taken from them, by the people, as in case of R. 2. and others: I do not speak this in justification of the deposing of Princes, God forbid that I should, their persons are sacred: for that they are Gods anointed, and his Vicegerents, or Vicarii Dei, that is, Gods Vicars, as Bracton stiles them: against whom, God hath laid an inhibition, that we use not any violence, Touch not mine anointed: and therefore for my part, I conceive, that that damned opinion of the Spencers,&illegible; F. 2. called exelium Hugonis de Spencer. 1. E. &illegible; ca. 1. in the reign of E. 2. that if the King did not demean himself, by reason in the right of his Crown, that his Lieges were bound by oath to remove the King: and that if the King could not be reformed by suit of Law, that it ought to be done per aspertee, I say that, I conceive that this was justly damned, as in truth it was afterwards by two Acts of Parliament; the one in the Reign of E. 2. called Exilium Hugonis de Spencer: and the other in 1. E. 3. ca. 1.

But now, though that the King cannot grant this Prerogative over, as I have said before yet, under favour, I conceive cleerly, that it &illegible; in power of the Parliament, for the preservation of the Kingdom, in case of imminent danger, as now, to settle the Militia in hands to be confided in; for, as I have said before, the prerogative of the King must give way to the weal publique, and not the weal publique to the Prerogative of the King. For if the Prerogative of the King ought not to be advanced to the prejudice and wrong of the interest of any private man, as I have shewed before, much lesse, to the wrong and injurie of the re-publique. And with this difference ought Bracton to be understood, who saith,Bract. fo. 55. b. that, Ea quæ jurisdictionis sunt, & pacis, & ea que sunt justitiæ & paci annexa, ad nullum pertinent, nisi ad Coronam & dignitatem Regiam, nec à Corona seperari poterunt, cum faciunt ipsam Coronam. Those things that belong to jurisdiction and peace, or are annexed to them, appertain to none, but the Crown, and Royall Dignity, neither can they be severed from it, for that they make the Crown it self. Now as I have shewed before, these words of Bracton, En quæ paois sunt, &c. those things that belong to peace, must necessarily intend Ea quæ &illegible; sunt, those things that belong to warre also, for that it is impossible for the King, Absque rebus Militaribus, that is, without the Militia, to defend his people in peace and safety; And for that, that he saith, that this cannot be severed from the Crown: this ought to be understood, by his own act onely: and not that it cannot be severed from him, though in his own default, by his Parliament. For to make such a construction, were to make a Law, destructive to that, for which it was principally, and in the first place, made to preserve; and that is the Common-wealth. And the like construction and explanation of his words, Bracton &illegible; afterwards, for he saith, Ad personas, vel &illegible; transferri non poterant, nec à &illegible; persona possidori: they cannot be transferred to persons, or Tenements, nor be possessed of a private person; which cannot be otherwise intended, then of the grant of the King, for transferre, that is, to transferre, is no other then concedere, that is, to grant. And I agree with Bracton in this, that the King cannot grant over this prerogative: but this position, doth no way conclude against the power of the Parliament, as our case is.

But here Mittons case in the fourth Rep. cited before to another purpose, may be objected against me,4. Rep. Mittons case. where it is resolved, that the Queene could not take away the grant of the Office of the Clerke of the Countie Court from the Sheriffe: in which case, there is another case also cited to be adjudged by all the Judges of England, viz. that the grants of the custodies of Goals of the Counties, by the King are voyde; and the reason that is given for both these Cases, is, that the Sheriffe having these Offices appendent to his Office (as in truth they are) is by the Law responsible for all misdemeanours done in those Offices, and therefore it is against all reason, that the grant of them should be taken from him; but that he should have power, to put in such into those Offices, for whom he should answer. Now the force of the objection stands thus; if these Offices cannot be severed from the Sheriffe, because that by this he should be disabled to performe the trust reposed in him, and yet should be responsible for all misdemeanours done in those offices, which would be very unreasonable: à fortiori, you shall not take a way this priviledge from the King, for by this he should be disabled, either to protect and defend his people, as by Law he is bound, or faithfully to discharge this great trust reposed in him, as God requireth. To which I answer, that there is a great and wide difference betwixt the cases; for first, in the case of the Sheriffe, the depriving him of the grant of these Offices, concernes onely his private interest, & not the Common-weale; I meane, the Common-weale stands not in competition with the Sheriffes right, as in our case; and therefore in this, the difference is great. But, which makes the cases much more to differ: in the case of the Sheriffe, there was no act or default in him, for which to deprive him of this benefit; and it is a rule in our Law, that Quod nostrum est, sine facto, sive defectu nostro, &illegible; seu ad alium transferri, non potest; a man shall never be devested of his propertie, without his owne act, or default. But otherwise it is here in the case of the King, for, if there be no act, yet I am certaine, that there is a defect or default in the King, in refusing, in this time of imminent danger, to put the Kingdome, according to the advice of his great Counsell, in a posture of defence.

And it is no new thing, for a man to loose his interest in his own default: Upon this I might multiplie cases; but I will put onely one or two familiar and ordinary cases in our Books. If I make an estate for life, or yeares, to another, without condition expressed, yet the Lessee hath not the estate so absolute in him, but that by a tacite condition in Law, running with every such particular estate, he may, by his own default, loose his estate; and therefore if he commit wast, he subjects his estate to be evicted by the Lessor; or if he assumeth to himselfe, to grant a greater estate to another, then he himselfe hath, by this he forfeiteth his estate. But you will peradventure say, that this case doth not agree with the case in question, for that the King hath an estate of inheritance in his Crowne, which goeth in succession to his posteritie, as well as the private interest of any Subject: This I agree, but under favour, he hath this committed to him in trust; this tacite condition runneth along with it, that he use his regall power and authoritie, for the good of the publique; or if he doth not, that then his great Counsell for breach of this trust, and non-performance of this tacite condition (though that they cannot meddle with his sacred person, by dethroning of him, or devesting of him of the regall Scepter) may provide for the securing of him and his Kingdome.

Againe, it is cleare by the Law, that misuser or non-user of any Franchises, Priviledges,5. E. 4. 5. or Offices, is a forfeiture of them; but especially of any publique Offices, which concerne the administration of Justice, or the Common-wealth: and with this agreeth 5. E. 4. 8. H. 4. 20. E. 4. and my Lord Cooke in his Comment upon Littleton:8. H. 4. 18. and many other Books. Now it is as cleare, that to be a King, is an Office, though it be the greatest Office that any one, under God, can have:20. E. 4. 6. and what Office so much concerneth the administration of Justice, and the good of the Common-wealth, as this doth? and therefore, though this great office, be no more forfeitable, then it is grantable by the King:Iustit. 233. 2. for I conceive that to be regularly true in the Law, that that which is not grantable, is not forfeitable: yet, God forbid, that his great Counsell, for his misuser, or non-user of his Kingly function, should not have power, for the breach of this tacite condition, to apply themselves, by all lawfull meanes, for the securing of him and his Kingdome.

I shall compare this case, to one case onely, lately adjudged, viz. Hill. 17. Car. in the Kings Bench,Hill. 17. Car. &illegible; Banco Regli Langhams case Langhams case, where the case was thus; Langham a Citizen and free-man of London, was elected Alderman of the Citie, and being called to take his Oath, refused, for which he was committed to prison by the Court of Aldermen: upon which he prayed his Habeas corpus in the Kings Bench, and it was granted unto him: and upon the returne of the Writ, they did alledge, that they had this custome, that if any man were elected Alderman of the Citie, and refused to take the Oath, that the Court of Aldermen had used, time out of minde, to imprison the party so refusing: and then they set forth, de facto, how that Langham being a Citizen and free-man of London, was duely elected Alderman, of such a Ward; and that he being called to take the Oath, refused, and that therefore he was committed by the Court of Aldermen: and the question here was, whether the custome to imprison the body of a free-man, were a good custome, or not? and it was resolved upon solemne debate, by all the Judges of the Kings Bench, that the custome, as this case is, is a good custome: and this is the difference that was taken by them, that a custome generally for a Court of Record to imprison the body of a freeman, is no good custom, for that it is against the libertie of the Subject, and Magna Charta,9. H. 3. &illegible; by which it is enacted, Quod nullus liber homo capiatur, aut imprisonetur, &c. that is, that no free-man be taken or imprisoned; but Per legem terra, &c. by the Law of the Land. But a custome, as in this case, for to imprison the body of a freeman, for refusing to take an office upon him, which is for the support of government, and without which government cannot subsist, which by consequence, strikes at the very esse, and foundation of the Common-wealth; for that it cannot stand without government: such a custome was resolved to be a good custome. Now I shall compare this case, with the case in question: it is here resolved, that a custome for to imprison the body of a freeman, for refusing to do such a thing, which by consequence reflects upon the Common wealth, and may indanger it, that this is a good custome: now thus stands the paralell: and as the rule of Law is, Vbi eadem ratio, ibi idemjus, where there is the same reason, there ought to be the same Law. Now the same Law, that defends the Kings prerogative from violation, or separation from the Crown, doth as strongly, Et eadem jure, by the same right, defend the liberty and freedome of every private mans person from imprisonment; for, though the interest and priviledge of the King, doe farre transcend any singular and private persons, being compared with them, yet they stand in equipage, In equali jure, that is, in equall right, being compared with the Common-weale; and therefore aswell the interest of the King, as of his Subject, Debent cedere Republicæ, ought to give way to the Common-wealth: And yet we see, that as a mans person, for the good of the Common-wealth, shall be set at large, and free from imprisonment, as it is resolved in 36. & 37. H. 8. Dyer.36. & 37. Dyer. fo &illegible; &illegible; Case. Where a man was elected a Burges of Parliament, and being in execution was let at large, by a Writ of priviledge, and adjudged that his inlargement was lawfull, and that the Sheriffe was by this excused: So on the other side, a freemans person, by a private custome, contrary to Magna Charta, may for the good of the Common wealth be imprisoned: and without question, the Subject may as justly demand of the Law, the freedome of his person from imprisonment, as the King, of his prerogative, from violation, or separation; and yet no priviledge, no, not of the person it selfe, of a common person, ought to be preferred before the common good: and by the same reason, not any priviledge of the King; for, though the King be much greater, and much to be preferred, before many thousands, of individuall or particular persons; yet, without question, the universe or Common-wealth, is to be preferred before the King, or any interest or priviledge whatsoever of his: so that, for all these reasons, I conceive, that the prerogative of the King, may, as this case is, be severed from him: and therefore, that the Parliament (admitting that they have taken it from his Majesty) have done no more then what is warrantable by the Law.

But now, if all that I have as yet said, will not sufficiently justifie the Parliament in their proceedings, concerning the Militia: I shall adde a third reason to prove,&illegible; 3. that what they have done, is lawfull: and that is this; what they declare to be Law, bindes the King, by an inclusive judgement, & then their judgemennt, being the judgement of the King, and their Votes and Declarations of the Law, including the royall assent and declaration: the King cannot afterwards by a subsequent Declaration countermand his own judgement, tacitly included in theirs: and by consequence, the prerogative of the King suffers no violence; for Volenti non fit injuria, that is, a man that consents to the doing of a thing, is not injured by the thing being done. Now that their Declarations of the Law, includes the King, and shall binde him, I shall presently prove it: First, it is cleare, that the Parliament consisting of the three estates: viz. of the King,&illegible; Epist &illegible; Lords, and Commons, are a Court; and it is as cleare, that they are the greatest and highest Court in England; in which, Justice is administred by the King, in those Worthies, unto his people, in the most high and transcendent way that can be: for the King doth not appeare with that splendour and brightnesse of Justice and integritie; neither is he so true and clearely represented to his people, in those glorious rayes of his,fo. 388. &illegible; fo. 34. a. &illegible; 2. ca. 2. &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; fo. 1. 2. in any Court of Justice whatsoever, as he is, in his thrice great and honourable Court of Parliament. Now that it is a Court, and that the greatest Court in England, in the 9. Rep. Epist. ibidem, my Lord Cooke saith, that among other appellations, it is called by the name Magnæ Curiæ, &c. of the great Court, and in Pl. Com. fo. 388. the Parliament is a Court of thrice great honour and justice, &c. and Bracton 34. a. Rex habes &c. Curiamsuam, viz. Comites Barones, &c. the King hath his Court, to wit, Earles, Barons, &c. and Fleta lib. 2. ca. 2. Habes etiam Rex Curiamsuam, in Consilio suo, in Parliamentis suis, &c. the King hath his Court, in his Counsell, in his Parliaments, &c. and Crompton in his Jurisdiction of Courts, begins with the description of the high Court of Parliament, giving it the precedency in act, as well as in words: where he saith, that the said Court, is, L’treshaulte Court d’ Engliterre, that is, the thrice high Court of England: in which, saith he, the Prince himselfe sits in person, &c. And I shall conclude this with Dyer, who saith, that this Court of Parliament, is the highest Court, and hath more priviledges then any other Court of the Realme, &c. And all this is made cleare, without further saying, by this, that no appeale lyeth from this Court;Dyer fo. no reversall of their judgement, but by the judgement of a subsequent Parliament.

Then this being admitted, that the Parliament is the greatest Court in England, I shall argue thus: is the King by intendment of Law, present in all his other inferiour Courts? as in truth he is, as 21.21. H. 7. &illegible; 2. & 3. &illegible; Dyer fo. &illegible; H. 7. and 2 & 3. Eliz. Dyer. and many other books are: which certainly is the reason of the heavy judgement of these cases, of killing of a Judge upon the Bench; that that is Treason: Or of drawing of a sword to strike a Justice sitting in judgement: or of striking of a Juror in the presence of Justice, that these incurre the heavy judgement, of cutting off the right hand, perpetuall imprisonment, and the losse of lands, and goods,22. E. 3. &illegible; Fitz. &illegible; 174. as the books are, of 22. E. 3. and F. Judgement, 174. or of killing of a Messenger of the King, that goeth to execute his commandment, that this likewise is Treason, as the book is, in 22. Ass. I say, I conceive, that the reason of these cases is, for that he that offers violence to his Minister, when he is doing the service of his great Master the King: offers violence to the King himself, whose person he represents, and who by intendment of Law, is there present giving judgement: and he that strikes another in the presence of Justice, doth it as in the presence of the King himself:22. Ass. &illegible; for that what the Judge, or Minister of the King doth, in pursuance of the lawfull commands of the King, or in executing Justice, is the act or judgement of the King himself, according to that rule of Law, Qui per alium facit, per scipsum facere videtur: the act of a mans minister or servant, is the act of the Master himself.Bract. fo. &illegible; And this Bracton himself saith, treating of jurisdiction, delegated by the King, to inferiour Judges, and withall shewing and directing of those Judges Delegates, to execute righteous judgement, saith he, Tale judicium diligit honor Regis, cujus personam in judicio & judicando representant. Such a judgement the honour of the King delights in, whose person, in judgement, they represent. Why then, I say, is it thus, that the King by intendment of Law, is present in all his other Courts; and that what they do, or judge, is the act or judgement of the King himself? then certainly it must of necessity follow, (as indeed the Law is) that their judgement cannot be countermanded by the King: for this were to put Cæsar against Cæsar, the King against himself, which cannot be; for that when a Judge hath once given his judgement, he cannot afterwards countermand this judgement.

Again, is the King (as I have said) by intendment of Law present in his inferiour Courts; and is their judgement his judgement, so that by this his Majestie is estopped and concluded by his own inclusive judgement, to countermand theirs. Then, I say, à fortiori, the King, though he disunite himself from his Parliament, yet by intendment of Law, and virtually he is present in his high Court of Parliament: and therefore their judgement is his judgement: and what they declare to be Law, the King by an inclusive judgement declareth to be Law also. And if so, the conclusion must of necessity be, that the King can no more countermand their judgement, then he can the judgement of his Judges: for when Transit in rem judicatam, that is, when a thing is once adjudged, it can never after be repealed by the same judgement (as I have said) for that were a way to make judgement upon judgement, and so ad insinitum, & insinitum in iure reprobatur: the Law detests infinites. And as the King himself, cannot repeal this judgement pronounced by his Parliament: so neither can he do it, by any other advise or judgement, power, or jurisdiction whatsoever, no not by the advise, though of all the Judges of England, for that there is no power or judgement whatsoever, but is inferiour to the judgement of the high Court of Parliament; which is plain, by that, that no appeal lieth from them: and then the rule of Law binds up and supersedeth all inferiour judgements: In presentia maioris, cessat potestas minoris. In the presence of the great, the power of the lesse ceaseth. And therefore according to this rule, it is resolved in 21.Ass. Pl. 2. Ass. that because that the Kings Bench is Eier, and more then Eier: if a Commission of Eier sit in a County, and the Kings Bench cometh thither; the Eier ceaseth. And this is the reason, that when it was enacted by the Statute of 28 E. 1.&illegible; 1. ca. 5. that the Kings Bench should follow the King, that the power of the Steward of the Kings Houshold, to determine Pleas of the Crown, did cease: and that in Terme time, when the Kings Bench sits, in the same County, all Commissions cease,Rep. fo. 73. &illegible; Rep. fo. &illegible; b. as it is resolved in the 10. Rep. and in the 9. Rep. And this is the reason likewise, that when the Pope exercised jurisdiction here in England, whatsoever the Ordinary of any Diocesse might do, that the Pope, who challenged to himself supreme jurisdiction, over all Ordinaries, used to do within this Realm, as supreme Ordinary: and so he used to make Visitations, corrections, dispensations, and tolerations, within every Diocesse of this Realm, as the Ordinaries used: so he used to make Appropriations, without the Bishop: and this was held good, and was never contradicted by the Bishop, who was accounted but the inferiour Ordinary. Upon this ground, as it is said by Manwood Justice in Pl. Com.Com. fo. &illegible; In presentia maioris, cessat potestas minoris.

So I say, in the case in question, for that the high Court of Parliament, are the most supreme jurisdiction in England; what they declare to be Law, cannot be countermanded, by the judgement of any power or Counsell whatsoever: because that in the presence of the most supreme jurisdiction, the inferiour ceaseth. I do not hereby intend, that the power of the Judges, in their severall Courts, for the dispensation and execution of justice, should cease in the Terme, for that the Parliament is sitting at the same time, And the reason is obvious, for that these Courts have their proper and distinct jurisdictions, from the Parliament; and therefore cannot be superseded by it. I intend by this onely that what the Parliament hath declared to be Law, cannot, as I have said before, be countermanded by any other inferiour judgement whatsoever: for that where the powers exercise the same jurisdiction, they cannot both stand together, but the greater will cashere and suspend the lesse: so I say in our case.

But here it may be objected,Bract. fo. 55. &illegible; that the King is sons Justitiæ, that is, the fountain of Justice; and that he onely, as Bracton saith, Ordinariam habet iurisdictionem, & dignitatem & potestatem super omnes qui in regno suo sunt, habet enim omnia iurain manu sua, &c. And a little after he saith, Ea quæ iurisdictionis sunt, &c. & ea quæ sunt Justitie, &c. annexa, ad nullum pertiaent, nisi ad Coronam & dignitatem Regiam: that is, those things which appertain to jurisdiction, and justice, belong to no body, but the Crown, and royall dignity. And as all justice and jurisdiction is primarily and originally in the King, so they cannot be exercised by any other, except that they be first delegated to them by the King; And so saith Bracton a little after, Jurisdictiones, &c. non possunt à privata persona possideri, nec usus, nec executio iuris, nisi hoc datum suroit ei desuper: that is, no jurisdiction, nor execution of the Law, can be exercised by any private person, except that this power be first given unto him from the King. So Bracton treating of jurisdiction, saith; Videndum,Bract. fo. 107. &illegible; &c. quis primo & &illegible; possit & debet indicare: that is, let us see, who first, and principally, may, and ought to judge. And then he answereth, Sciendum, quod ipse Rex. & non alius, si solus ad hoc sussicere possit; cum ad hoc virtute sacramenti teneatur &illegible; that is, we must know, that the King onely, and no other, if he alone may suffice: For that he is bound to do it, by vertue of his Oath. And after in the next Chapter speaking of jurisdiction delegated, he saith,Bract. fo. 108. &illegible; Si ipse Dominus Rex ad singulas causas terminandas, non sussicias, ut levior sit illi labor, &c. he may, saith he, Constituere Justiciarios, &c. quibus referantur tam &illegible; super dubiis, quam quærimoniæ super iniuriis, &c. that is, if the King alone cannot suffise to determine all causes, that his labour may be the more easie, he may constitute Justices, to whom, as well doubts in Law may be referred, as complaints, upon injuries. And in pursuance of this, the King, not possibly sufficing to exercise all jurisdiction himself, hath in all ages, delegated power and jurisdiction to a certain number of men; and hath constituted them Judges, and dispensers of the Law under his Majestie, and in his right an &illegible; to his people.

Now all this being admitted, as in truth it cannot be denied, the force of the objection stands thus: is it so that no jurisdiction can be exercised by any, except that it be first delegated to them by the King, and that the King hath constituted certain persons, to be his Judges of the Law? why then it lieth not in the power of the two Houses of Parliament, to declare what is Law, and what not. First, because that they are not the proper Judges of it. And secondly, because that they have no such power given unto them by the King: for what power they have it is derived by their Writ, by which the King calleth them to Parliament: and this onely requireth their presence, Super dictis negotiis tractaturis: and tractare is onely to treat of or debate the Law, not to declare, or give judgement what the Law is; Besides, this word tractare is contained onely in the Writ by which the Lords are summoned to Parliament, and not in the Writ of the Commons, for by that they are called onely (as I remember the Writ is) ad faciendum & consentiendum, to do, and agree; why then they have no such power to intermeddle with the debating of the Law, much lesse to declare what the Law is.

To which I answer: That the two Houses of Parliament conjoyned (for I speak not of the power of the House of Commons distinct, and by it self) may not onely declare what the Law is, but are the best and most proper Judges of it. Are not they the ne plus ultra; that the Subject hath for redresse in matter of Law? are not they (as common experience teacheth us) the supreme Seat of Judicature? and do not they exercise a superintendent jurisdiction over all other Courts? and have not they power by a Writ of Error, brought before them, to reverse Judgements erroniously given in other Courts? Without doubt they have; witnesse that case of the Ship-money: which Judgement could not possibly have been reversed, but by the Parliament; who upon debate, declared that Judgement to be against the Law; and how miserable this Common-wealth had been: if they had not had this power, the lamentable successe, of devesting of the Subjects property, without his consent, by that damnable judgement, contrary to all Law, would have in short time, been manifested to the whole world. But to this it may be said, that in these cases, the Judges advise, who sit as assistants in Parliament, is demanded: and that in such case, the King, by his Judges, doth declare what the Law is. To this I answer, that because the Parliament may demand the advise of the Judges, who sit there to that intent, will it therefore follow that they are tied to it? or having demanded their advise: must the consequence be, that they are bound to follow it? without question nothing lesse: for this were to tie my judgement to another mans principles, which ought not to be. And it were absurd for to think, that the Parliament, who are the supreme seat of Judicature, should be tied to subscribe to the judgement of any inferiour power whatsoever. And now I shall put you one case: posite, that all the Judges of England, assembled together in the Chequer Chamber to give judgement in a point of Law, should all concurre in their judgements, and should give judgement accordingly; and after in a Writ of Error brought in Parliament, this judgement should be reversed; doe not the Parliament onely, in this case, declare what the Law is? Without question they doe; for, I suppose, that there is none so stupid, as to thinke, that the Judges advice or judgement ought or can be received in this case; for this were, upon the matter, to appeale à Cæsare, ad Cæsarem, and to reverse that Judgement (though not by the same power) yet by the same advise that gave it: which, as I conceive, by the Law ought not to be.

But here peradventure it will be againe objected,2. H. 9. 19: b. that no Writ of error can be brought in Parliament, but that the King first signes to it: and this is a consent by the King, & a giving of them power to proceed and declare what the Law is: but in our case there is no such thing, for here is nothing judicially before them, by which to authorise them to give any such judgement, and therefore they have no such power to declare what the Law is, in this case; and if they doe, their proceeding is extrajudiciall and arbitrary.

To this I answer, that true it is, that they cannot, nor ought not to take notice of any thing which concerneth any private persons, or their interest; neither can they, in any such case, give Judgement, or declare what the Law is, except they have something judicially pending before them, upon which to ground their judgement; but otherwise it is where it concerneth the Common-wealth, for there, I conceive, under favour, (especially, as in this case, in time of imminent danger) they are not tied to any legall way of proceeding, but they may, and are bound, as well by their Oaths of Alleageance, Supremacy, and their late Protostation, as by their Writ, by which they are called to Parliament, to take notice of all things, which may be obnoxious and prejudicall to the Common-wealth: and to debate, determine, and declare the Law concerning them, though that they have nothing judicially before them; for if they should, in this case, expect a complainant, the Common-wealth might perish, before that they could yeeld any ayde or assistance, for the securing of it. Now by their Oaths, they are bound to defend the King and Kingdome (as I have before said) and by their Writ they have power and authoritie given them, De imminentibus periculis tractare: and tractare, doth not onely signifie to handle, treate of, or debate; but likewise it signifieth, as the learned observe, to order, to governe, to write of, or to describe; and, without question, these words have weight, sence, and power enough in them, not onely to inable them to debate what the Law is, but also to declare what it is, after that it debated: so that I conceive, by this it is cleare, that the Parliament doe not exercise, practise, or endeavour any arbitrary way of proceeding. And the difference (as I conceive) upon the whole matter, will be this; that the two Houses of Parliament cannot (as I have shewed before) make a new Law, or alter the old Law, without the consent of the King, and this by Act of Parliament; but they may declare what the Common Law is, and this shall be obliging to his Majestie; for otherwise, this great Court, which so farre transcends all others, in other things, should be lesse in power, in this particular, then any other; Which ought not to be conceived, or imagined.

Now this being Law, which I have delivered, as I conceive it is; from hence these Conclusions may necessarily, and by consequence, be deduced; First, that the declaration of the Law,49. Ass. Pl. 8. 37. H. 8. to be otherwise by the Proclamation, or other Declaration of the King, doth not change the Law; for that it is a Rule in the Law, that the King can neither create a Law, nor alter the Law, by his Patent or Proclamation: And with this agreeth 49.Br. Pat. 100. Ass. 37. H. 8. Br. Patents 100. 11. H. 4. 10. H. 7. 5. Rep. and many other Books. Secondly, Hence a good argument may be deduced, to prove the Commission of Array, at this time illegall; for that the King,11. H. 4. 37. with the advice of his great Counsell the Parliament, hath by a tacite and inclusive consent (as I have made it good before) established the Militia; why then clearely it lieth not in his Majesties power, without their consent, to countermand this by any other Commission; for the Rule of Law is, that Eodens modo, quo, quid constatuitur, dissolvitur, that is, every thing ought to be dissolved by a matter of as high nature, as it was created: and that is the reason,10. H. 7. 23. that an Act of Parliament, cannot be repealed but by an Act of Parliament; for that no power or jurisdiction whatsoever, is so great as it selfe: and it is without question, that the Kings power or authoritie, by it selfe, is not of so high and excellent a nature, as it is joyned with his Parliament:5. Rep. fo. 55. Wherefore I doe conceive, for this reason, that the Commission of Array is absolutely unlawfull, and therefore ought not to be submitted unto. Thirdly, and lastly, Hence may be concluded, that the Kings declaration of the Law, to be contrary to what the Parliament have declared the Law to be, is Coram non Judice; that is, by one that hath not jurisdiction of the cause. First, Because (as I have said) that the King himselfe cannot declare the Law to be contrary to their judgement, for that his Majesties judgement is superseded, and bound up in theirs: and secondly, For that he cannot contradict their judgement, by any other advice or judgement, for that, that advice or judgement is inferiour to the Court of Parliament; and therefore in their presence, as to this purpose, ought to cease. And I shall compare this case, to one case onely, which is in the 10.10. Rep. fo. &illegible; the case of Marshallsea. Rep. in the case of the Marshallsea, where the case is thus; The Sheriffe who is prescribed by the Law to hold his Tourne within the Moneth after Mich, &c. held his Tourne after the Moneth, and tooke an indictment of Robbery at the same Tourne, and the Indictment being removed by a Cerciorari into the Kings Bench, by the advice of all the Justices, the partie so indicted, was discharged, for that the Indictment was utterly voyde, and Coram non Judice, because at this time the Sheriffe had no authoritie to hold his Court: so I say, in this case, the Declaration or Proclamation of the King, is Coram non Judice, for that though the King properly, and onely, ought to declare the Law, by the advice of his Judges, at another time, yet at this time he cannot, for that their judgement is estopped and superseded, by the superintendency of the high Court of Parliament: Then the Law being thus, this justifieth the proceedings of Parliament, in punishing of such, who dare adventure, against Law, to execute the Commission of Array, or to proclaime, or declare any thing in his Majesties name, against his owne judgement, and the judgement of his Parliament; for the Rule of Law is; Extra territorium jus dicenti, non paretur, impunè; he that obeys* the command of any power, out of its jurisdiction, shall be punished for it: So I conclude this point also, and conceive, that for this reason likewise, the Parliament hath done no more then what is warranted by the Lawes of the Land.

4.Fourthly, and lastly, I hold that the Parliament have done no more then what is warrantable by Law, upon this ground (which ought to be the Basia and end of all Law) viz. the common good and safetie: but of this onely a word, for that I have touched it before. That Law which is above all Law, & to which all Law ought to subscribe, is Salus Populi, the safetie of the people. True it is, that the Law was made to defend every mans private interest, as well as the Republique, but primarily and principally the Republique: it is the Rule of Law (as I have shewed before) Quod bonum publicum, private anteferri debet; that the publique good ought to be preferred before the private. And againe, we have another Rule, Quod magis dignum, &illegible; ad se quod est minus dignum, that the more worthy doth draw to it the lesse worthy: and without controversie, the magis dignum, the more worthy, is the Common-wealth; why than the minus dignum, the lesse worthy, which is every mans private concernment, must subscribe to that.

And the reason, wherefore the good and &illegible; of the &illegible; ought principally and in the first place to be maintained, and therefore is styled Suprema Lex, that is, the most supreame Law, or, if you will, a Law above all Lawes, is, for that as in the &illegible; body, if the body be in health the members must needs be well also, and if the body the sicke, the members must needs sympathise with it: so it is in the body politique, if the body be well, the members fare all the better for it, if the body be in distemper, the members own not but be distempered also; so the happinesse, or misery, of every individuall person, &illegible; upon the good or ill successe of the Common-wealth and therefore the good of the Common-wealth ought to have the first an &illegible; endeavour, of every true and faithfull member of it.

&illegible; E. 2. 27. &illegible; Rep. 139. b. &illegible; C.In 18. E. 2. which you shall &illegible; cited in the 10. Rep. Keighleyes C. a man brought an Action upon the case, against another, and the ground of the Action was, for suffering of a Wall of the Sea, that the Defendant was bound by prescription to repair, when need should be; unrepaired, so that for default of reparation; the water entred, and surrounded the lands of the Plaintiffe; The Defendant traversed the prescription, upon which they were at issue, and so was found for the Plaintiffe; and that there was a default in the wall, for not repairing, for which the Plaintiffe recovered his Damages, and a Writ was awarded to the Sheriffe, to distrain the Defendant to repair the wall, where need was hand default: Upon which my Lord Cook: maketh a speciall observation; Not a Reader, saith he, this judgement, and the reason of it, is, pro bone publico, for the common good. For, saith he, Salus populi, est suprema Lex: the safetie of the people is the most supreme Law: and therefore it is part of the judgement, in this Action, that the Defendant should be restrained to repair the wall. As if he had said, this Action is brought by the Plaintiffe, for his speciall damnification onely, and this he hath restored to him by the judgement: But yet note, for that it concerneth the weal-publiqué, the Judges considering themselves to be tied both in Law and conscience, to provide for the securing of the same, made this part of their judgement likewise, that the Defendant be compelled to repair the same; left in defect of this the Common-wealth should suffer also. Here you may see, the care that the Judges then had of the common good: It went well that this were pondered on in those dayes, in which I doubt, men are too ready and prone to prefer their own private concernment in their &illegible; I mean their honour, before the publique safetie.

Da. Rep. fo. 32. b.In Davis Reports it is &illegible; that &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; to the interest of one particular person, & yet reasonable, where it is for the benefit of the Common-wealth in generall; as a custome to make Balwarks upon the land of another for the defence of the Realm,36. H. 8. 36. H. 8. Dyer, and to raze houses in publico incendio, in a common fire, 29. H. 8. Dyer, (these cases I have remembred before) so to turn the plough up in the head-land of another, in favour of husbandry, 21. E. 4. and to &illegible; Nets upon the land of another, in favour of fishing, and navigation, 8. E. 4.Dyer fo. 60. 29. H. 8. But saith the book, a custome which is contrary to the publique good, which is the scope and generall end of all Laws (for salus populi. suprema lex) or injurious and prejudiciall to the multitude, and beneficiall onely to some particular person, such a custome is repugnant to the Law of reason, which is above all positive Laws, &c.Dyer fo. 36. 21. E. 4. 28. 8. E. 4. 28. Here note, that it is said, that the Law of reason is above all positive Laws: and no doubt but it is, for that Law, which is against reason, is rather a mystery of iniquitie, then Law: and in truth, it is no Law, which is not grounded upon the Law of reason. For as some will have it, the word (Lex) is derived, à ligando, quonian ad observandas leges, homines ligat: and no question a Law, which is unreasonable, doth not oblige men to obedience: so that it is no Law, if it be not warranted by the Law of reason. Now to apply this to the case in question; the King, by his Prerogative, ought to have the sole disposing of the Militia: the kingdom being in imminent danger, the King refuseth to settle it, by the advise of his great Counsell, for the securing of himself and his people; Now the doubt is, whether the Parliament may without the consent of the King, assume this power to themselves, for the securing of his Majestie, and his kingdom? or whether they ought to subscribe to the Prerogative of the King, though it be to the apparent destruction of the Common-weal; which of these two is the reasonable Law, is the question? Why no doubt, Salus populi, the safetie of the people: for these reasons. First, for that the Law was made for the people, and not the people for the Law. And secondly, for that the whole ought to be preferred before any part: wherefore I conclude that it is Suprema Lex; the most supreme Law, and therefore the Prerogative of the King ought to give way to this; and not this, to the Prerogative of the King: for if you preserve and maintain the common good, you preserve and maintain the Kings Majestie, his Prerogative, your Laws, and your selves; and if you do otherwise, you destroy all. And therefore I conclude all with this, Non solum conveniens est, sed necesse est, ut salus populi, sit suprema Lex: That it is not onely convenient, but necessary, that the safety of the people, should be the most supreme Law: And therefore the Parliament have done that which is agreeable both to Law and reason, in preferring of the publique safetie.



8.8. Richard Ward, The Vindication of the Parliament (15 October, 1642)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

Richard Ward, The Vindication of the Parliament And their Proceedings. OR, Their Military Designe prov’d Loyall and Legall. A Treatise, wherein these things are ingeniously and sincerely handled; to wit,
1. That the MILITIA as setled by the PARLIAMENT is lawfull.
2. That it is lawfull for us to obey it, so setled by Them.
3. That the PARLIAMENT is not by us to be deserted.
4. That in aiding the PARLIAMENT the KING is not opposed.
5. That the PARLIAMENT (as the case stands) may not confide in the King.
6. That this necessary Defensive WARRE of Theirs is indubitably justifiable.
Pulchrum pro Patria mori,

LONDON, Printed in the Yeare. MDCXLII.

Estimated date of publication

15 October, 1642.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 181; Thomason E. 122 (19.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

The Vindication of the PARLIAMENT and their PROCEEDINGS.

THe maine thing now looked upon,What is now principally enquired after. and pried into by all eyes, is the nature of this present Martiall and Military Designe undertaken by the Parliament. Now although much hath beene writien by many upon this Subject, yet divers well disposed and well affected persons, are very unsetled and unresolved, what to thinke thereof; and the Reasons hereof I conceive to bee these; to wit.

1. That compendious kind of writing which some use in laying downe onely the particular Head, by way of assertion,5. Reasons why the vulgar sort are unsatisfied in the present expedition. without either implification, application or proofe; whence he who is not informed or thorowly insighted into the truth, and nature of that which is affirmed, is ready to conclude it a fallacie, Petitio quæsiti, & dare not beleeve it upon the Authors bare word.

2. That abstruse, sublime and high stile which others use in their writings, thinking all apprehensions as quick, and judgements as profound, and understandings as cleare as ther owne; and thus not stooping to the capacity of vulgar Readers, leave them as perplexed and as much unsatisfied as they found them.

3. That confused kind of writing which some have; for as Method doth much helpe both the memory and understanding; so immethodic all discourses doe confound both understanding and judgement.

4. That sleight and superficiall kind of writing which others have, who never searching themselves into the depth, life and bottome of the point in hand, leave their Reader just so wise as they found him.

5. That timerous and halfe handling of the case in controversie, which some are guilty of; for some have taken the point in hand, but fearing Veritas odium parit, that Truth will come home with a &illegible; face, dare not say what they can, may should or ought of the point, for the full satisfaction of their Reader; having him by this means altogether without light in the most materiall things which he undertakes to instinct &illegible;

And therefore because I will never refuse to sacrifice my life, much lesse spare any paines for the welfare, safety and &illegible; of my Countrey, the preventing of these Civill wars &illegible; composing of our present distractions, and the satisfaction of &illegible; consciences, to the utmost of my ability, I have with what &illegible; sincerity, plainnesse and clearnesse possibly I could, declared unto all, whose &illegible; to be satisfied what they may conceive and imagine of the &illegible; of the present Designe of the State and condition where in &illegible; and what seemes to be intended and aimed at by both &illegible;.

I will not trouble my selfe to search Record, &illegible; &illegible; to expound, and interpret Lawes, (being no Lawyer) but only the &illegible; lawfulnesse of this Designe, as farre as the law of Nature, the Eight of &illegible; Reason, and experience, and my small knowledge in Religion, will dictate unto me.

Exceptions taken against the Parliament.Against the Parliament two things are excepted; viz. their Act, and the Effect of that Act: or, their Action and Intention.

1. Their Action is the putting of the Kingdome into a posture of defence, by settling of the Militia without the assent of the King.

2. Their Intention herein is supposed or furnised to be the strengthening of themselves against the King, and the raising of Forces against his power. Now, of both these severally.

Concerning the Militia two quare’s are ordinarily made; to wit,

The setling of the Militia lawfull.1. Whether it be lawfull for the Parliament to settle it without the Royall assent.

2. Whether it be lawfull for us to obey it, so setled by Them?

Quest. 1.First, it may be demanded, Whether was it lawfull for the Parliament to settle the Militia [which is made the cause of all our present distractions and dangers] or not, without the Kings Royall assent.

Answ. 1.First, they did it not without asking his permission and leave; for considering the necessity of putting the Kingdome into a Posture of defence, both in regard of Forreigne and Domestick Forces and Foes: they addressed themselves to his Majesty, desiring him so to order and dispose of the Militia of the Kingdome, as it was agreed upon by the wisedome of his great and grand Councell, whose counsell above all others, Kings in Parliament time, have, and ought to embrace and follow. And therefore we may imagine that to be lawfull which our best Lawyers, yea Law-makers did so earnestly sue and sollicite for.

Secondly the Parliament continuing their humble supplications unto the King,Answ. 2. his Majestie was once graciously pleased by Message sent unto them, to promise, that the Militia should be put into such hands as they should approve of, or recommend unto Him, provided that they declared [together with the Names of the Persons] the extent of their power, and the time of their continuance, both which they did, which shewes evidently; That there was nothing unlawfull in the substance of the thing desired, [His Majesty himselfe not excepting against that] but at the most, that somthing desired by them did not square with some circumstances observed in former times.

Thirdly,Answ. 3. the Parliament seeing a necessity of settling the Militia, thought that in conscience and humane reason it was much better, fafer, and more agreeable to that trust which was reposed in them by the Kingdome, That the strength of the Kingdome should rather be ordered according to the direction and advice of the Great Counsell of the Land equally intrusted by the King and Kingdome, for the managing of the great affaires thereof, then that the safety of the King, Parliament, and Kingdome, should be left at the devotion of a few unknowne Counsellours, many of them having not beene at all formerly intrusted by his Majesty in any publike office or service, nor confided in by the Common-Wealth. And therefore we may conjecture the legality of the Militia settled by the Parliament.

Fourthly,Answ. 4. the Parliament desire not to remove the Militia from the King, but from his subordinate Ministers, (who by reason of their evill counsels given unto Him, and their small love, respect, and care shewed towards Them) the Parliament dare not conside in; and therefore onely place it upon other Ministers, whom they have no cause to suspect, nor against whom, (when they were nominated to his Majestie) He did except.

Fiftly, the Parliament long since saw,Answ. 5. and still sees (as themselves affirme) the Kingdome in so evident, and imminent danger, both from enemies abroad, and a popish discontented, and disaffected party at home, that there was an urgent, and inevitable necessitie of putting the Kingdome into a posture of defence, for the safeguard both of his Majestie and people: and in all probability, and likelyhood, if the Militia at Land, and the Navy at Sea, had not been setled in sure hands when they were, we had ere this been exposed to the practises of those, who thirst after the ruine of this Kingdome, and endeavour to kindle that combustion in England, which they have in so great a measure effected already in Ireland. Now the safety of the people being the supreame Law, it must needs be lawfull for the Parliament to settle the Militia, in case of such necessitie.

Answ. 6.Sixtly, the power given to those, in whose hands the Militia is placed by the Parliament, is onely, to suppresse Rebellion, Insurrection, and forraigne Invasion. Now that this power should be put into some hands is necessary, especially in dangerous, and distracted times; and into whose hands better, and with more safety, than such as the Parliament dare confide in, and against whose persons no exception hath beene taken by his Majestie: and therefore we need not much question the Legality of the Militia.

Answ. 7.Seventhly, this is granted on all sides, to wit, That the Common-wealth intrusts the Parliament to provide for their weale, not for their woe; and that this Parliament thus intrusted by the People, did by a Law intrust the King with the Militia, to wit, for the wealt of the Common-wealth, not for the woe thereof: and that this is implyed (in that Act, or Grant) though not exprost, no Royalist, I perswade my selfe, will question, or deny. And therefore

1. If the Kings desire, and royall intention be (as we hope it is) to settle the Militia for the preservation, not perdition, for the defence, not destruction, for the strength, and safety, and not enslaming, or envassalling of his Subiests, and people; and that this likewise is the intent, and purpose of His Grand Councell, the Parliament, then the difference who shall establish the Militia, is but a kinde of λογμαχία, or contention about words, or a ceremony, or a quarrell who shall have their will, when both purpose and resolve one and the same thing: which is to weake a ground, and too triviall a cause to draw that ruine, desolation, and destruction upon us, which must inevitably fall upon, and ceaze us, if these Civill wars which threaten us, and hang over our heads, be not prevented. But

11. If (which God forbid) the King should intend, and endeavour by the setling of the Militia, to enslave us, to tirranuize over us, and to rule us (beeing so curbed, and kept under by a strong hand of Power) by his owne will, then the Parliament, and Law did never settle the Militia upon Him for that end,Answ. 8. or, to be so used: for the equitie of the Law, and not the Letter of the Law is the true Law.

Eightly, it evidently appeares, Aliquid latet, quod non pates, That neither the Militia setled by the Parliament, nor Hull kept for the King and Parliament, nor the Magazine of Hull removed by the Parliament, are the true grounds of the Warre so violently threatned against the Parliament, by the malicious, mischeivous, and malignant partie of Papists, Cavalliers, and other ill-affected persons. For

1. There were attempts made to be possessed of Hull, and the Magazine, by Captaine Leg, and the Earle of Newcastle, before ever Sir Iohn Hotham was seized of it, (much more, before he denied His Majestie entrance thereinto) and this attempt, desire, and purpose, seemes to some, (and that not improbably) to take its rise from the Lord Digbyes letter to the Queene, wherein he desires, That the King would repaire unto some place of strength, where he may safely protect his servants, that is, such as will doe him service against his Parliament, amongst whom (most disloyally he saith) Traitors beare sway.

2. The Lord Digbie promiseth in his Letter unto his Majestie before the Militia was setled to doe him service abroad, that is, (as he expresseth himself) to procure for them supplies against the Kingdome, and Parliament, with which hee said himselfe would returne (as hee did indeed in the Ship called the Providence, with store of Armes) although he had been published, and voted a Traitour.

3. Before this, the same Lord Digby endeavoured to raise forces, under the pretence of a Guard for the Kings person in winter.

4. Before the Militia was setled, there were endeavours, to incense the two Nations England, and Scotland, and to engage their Armies one against the other, that in such a confusion, as must needs have followed; the Parliament might not be able to sit, nor doe us any good. For if in this battell we had been conquered; we might have feared to have lost our selves, and all we had, to the Conquerour with whom we fought; and if we had conquered, we might have been sure to have lost our selves, and all we had, to the Malignant Party for whom we fought.

5. Before the setling of the Militia, there were endeavours to turne the English Army against the Parliament, as is abundantly proved by them.

6. By the testimony, and allegations of many, the Irish Rebellion, (which brake forth before the Militia was setled) was hatched by the popish, and disafected party in England, not to have rested there, but to have ended here.

7. Before the Militia was setled, some Members of both Houses (who were observed to be most zealous for the speedy suppression of the Irish Rebellion, which notwithstanding, was so long protracted and delayed) were unjustly charged with Treason, and after such unjust accusation, were demanded and required of the House of Commons, by His Majestie, attended with a Troope of Cavalliers, who had intended to have taken them by force, if they had not been absent. By all which it appeares, That the setling of the Militia was not the cause why warre is made upon, or against the Parliament.

And thus much may suffice for the first quare, concerning the Parliaments setling of the Militia.

Quest. 2.It may now in the next place be demanded, whether it be lawfull for us to obey this Ordinance of the Militia thus setled by Parliament.?

Answ.In case of extreame danger, and of his Majesties refusall, people are obliged, and ought to obey (by the Fundamentall Laws of this Land) the Command, and Ordinance agreed upon by both Houses, or the major part of both Houses (which is all one) for the Militia. I enlarge not this Answer, because that which followes concerning the deserting of the Parliament, may be applied hereunto.

Thus much may suffice for the first exception taken against the Parliament: viz, Their action, in putting the Kingdome into a warlike posture of defense, by setling the Militia in such hands, as they durst trust.

I proceed now unto the other Exception, (viz) the fruits, and effects of the setling of the Militia, which are affirmed to be, the opposing of the Kings precepts and proceedings.

We affirmed before, That if the Militia had not beene settled, we had beene in great danger of destruction; and now when it is setled we are neither free from feares, nor foes, enemies nor evils. Whence it may be demanded,Quest. 3. How may we be preserved from that ruine, and destruction which hangs over our heads.

Answ. 1.First, by standing upon our Guard.

Answ. 2.Secondly, by siding with and assisting of those who stand for us.

Answ. 3.Thirdly, by resisting and opposing those who withstand us.

This Question is something like Hydra’s heads, for from this little Head, foure maine ones sprout and spring up; to wit,

1. Whether the Parliament may be deserted, or ought to be assisted?

2. Whether the King may be disobeyed, or his Commands opposed?

3. Why the Parliament dare not confide in the King, seeing he promiseth as much as they can desire?

quest. 4.4. Whether this Warre undertaken by the Parliament be warrantable and lawfull? Now of all these in this order.

It may first of all (I say) be demanded, Whether we may desert the Parliament in this time of danger, or is it our duty to obey, assist, aide and stick to them.

First, whatsoever is said of this Subject, in that Treatise called,Answ. 1. Reasons why this Kingdome ought to adhere to the Parliament, I wholy omitt; as also many Reasons which might have beene drawne, from a Tractate, which by many solide arguments justifies the Scottish Subjects for their defensive Warres.

Secondly, our Saviours rule is here worthy observation,Answ. 2. Whatsoever you would, that others should do unto you, doe so unto them. Make the case ours, by supposing us in their places, and they in ours, that is, We Parliament men, and they private persons; and looke what aide, and assistance we would expect, and desire from them, if we were in such danger, as now they are, the same we should now affoord unto them.

Thirdly, I dare not say,Answ. 3. that with a blind obedience we should actively obey them in whatsoever they command: for as Councels in Divinity, so Parliaments in Policy, may erre: and therefore inquisition, disquisition, examination, and conference are not forbidden us in any Acts or Statutes.

Fourthly, the Members of the Parliament, are chosen by us,Answ. 4. and stand for us, yea, are sent thither, intrusted by us with all we have, (viz) our estates, liberties, lives, and the life of our lives, our Religion, and the safety of the Kings Person, and Honour: and therefore in equity, and conscience they ought not to be forsaken of us.

Fiftly the Parliament men are no other then our selves,Answ. 5. and therefore we cannot desert them, except we desert our selves, the safety of the Commons, and Common-wealth being wrapped up in the safety of the Parliament. As the Wolves desired the sheepe to put away the dogs, and then they would enter into a League with them, but when they had by so doing stript themselves of their best friends, and laid themselves open to their fiercest foes, they were then devoured without pity: even so may we feare it will be with us, if we should be so sottish as reject, and desert the great, grave, and grand Councell of the Land, (which consists of as wise, faithfull, meeke, moderate, sincere, just, upright, understanding, zealous, and pious Patriots, as ever any Parliament in this Land was possessed, and consisted of) and submit our selves to the protection, and care, of obscure, and unknowne, yea malignant, and malicious Counsellours, who would glory so much in nothing as in our misery, and Ruine, as appeares by their deeds wheresoever they come, if they can but prevaile.

Sixtly the Kings Majestie hath promised (in His-Message. January,Answ. 6. 12. 1641.) That He will be as carefull of his Parliament, and of the priviledges thereof, as of his Life, and Crowne, and therefore if He assure them so of His adhering unto, and care of them, then much more should we encourage them, by Promising to assist them (so long as they stand for us, and our Lawes) with our estates, and them.

Answ. 7.Seventhly, we ought to obey, and assist them in any thing which is lawfull, and we ought not to suspect, that they will enjoyne, or command us any thing as lawfull, which is unlawfull. The opposition betweene the Kings Majestie and His Parliament, seemes to be about law, He affirming that to be lawfull, which they denie, and they affirming that to be lawfull, which He proclaimes illegall. Now the King is pleased to professe, That he is no Expounder of Law, that belonging neither to His Person, nor Office; and therefore concerning the legality, and illegallity of things. He will be guided by the judgement and counsell of others: And whose, or what counsell (in all probability, and reason) can be better, sounder, sincerer, and more worthy to be followed, then that of his Grand Councell? who assure us that what they doe and enjoyne us to do is lawfull, that is, according, and agreeable to the Law, either of God, Nature, or the Land. Now it becomes us (whom they represent (thus honourably, and venerably to thinke of Them, viz. They know such and such things to be lawfull, and therefore they do them themselves, and enjoyne them to us. And not thus (as some pervert it) The Parliament hath done, or commanded such, or such things; and therefore doe affirme them to be lawfull, and just: for it is a principle in law, That no unworthy, or dishonourable thing is to be imagined, or presumed of Parliaments.

Answ. 8.Eightly, if we desert and now forsake the Parliament, we shall be found guilty before God of three great sins; to wit,

1. Persidiousnesse; for as we have intrusted the Parliament with our estates, liberties, and lives; so we have engaged our selves, to maintain, and defend them, so long as they pursue our safety, prosperitie, preservation, and peace, according to Law. And therefore, if for our good, or for discharging of their consciences, and trust, they be endangered, we are persidious if we leave them, and for lacke of succour let them sinke and perish.

2. Perjurie; for all who have taken the Protestation, have promised, protested, and vowed, with their lives, power, and estate, to defend, and maintaine all those who stand for the lawfull rights, and liberties of the Subject; yea, to oppose, and by all good wayes and meanes to endeavour to bring to condigne punishment, all such as shall either by force, practise, counsels, plots, or otherwise, withstand or endanger those who stand for our Lawes, and Liberties. Now who stand more, for our Religion, Lawes, Soveraigne, and Liberties, then our Parliament? and who are more opposed and endangered for their zeale, and care for us, and our Priviledges than They? And therefore we are guilty of Perjury before God, and Man, if we in this case assist them not, but desert them.

3. Treacherie; for such as forsake the Parliament, as the case now stands, are guilty of a manifold Treason: to wit, against the Church, against the State, against the Representative body of the Land, and against themselves. For by deserting of the Parliament, and suffering it to be trampled under foot, by Papists, Atheists, prodigals, Delinquents, Antiparliamentaries, and Viperous Monopolists, and Projectors; we betray

First, The Church to errour, and heresie.

Secondly, The State to ruine, and miserie.

Thirdly, The Parliament to bloud, and crueltie.

Fourthly, Our selves to poverty and slavery. And therefore I may truly and boldly say, That it is those who desert the Parliament, who are the Principall causes of all the bloud which is, hath, or shall be shed in this Warre, and of all the burning, plundering, ravishing, and theeving, where with the poore Subject hath, or shall be oppressed.

Ninthly,Answ. 9. we may not vow (when things are come to maturitie and height, and the cursed conception is come to a birth) desert and fall from our Parliament because there hath beene long great jealousies, of some greivous mischeife, to be intended against our Church and State, by those who are enemies to both. Here note, that the jealousies which men generally have had, that there was, and is still some designe a foot, for the ruine and destruction of the Parliament, and of us through their sides, and of introducing, yea establishing of Popery, and of abolishing of Protestantisine in this Land, are these and the like: to wit,

1. That Army of 8000. Irish Papists, which was raised by the Lord Straford, and ready to come over, either to further the Warre with Scotland, or (if that jarre were composed) to joyne with the English Army against the Parliament.

2. The endeavours and courses which were taken, to bring our English Army out of the North, either to destroy the Parliament, or to awe and compell it, and take away the freedome of it.

3. The two Letters sent to Mr. Bridgeman, Ian. 14. 1641. and to Mr. Anderton, which intimated some sudden, sad and sorrowfull blow to be intended against the Puritanes in and about the Citie of London; and declared many things of deepe and dangerous consequence, which (considering many passages in the State since) seeme not to be faigned or forged; but to foretell dangerous and divilish practises really intended against the City, Country, and Parliament, by the Popish Faction.

4. The accusing of the 6. worthy Members of Parliament, against whom (as yet) no proof hath been brought, nor no particular instances produced (as hath beene againe, and againe promised) of any treachery treason or high and treacherous misdemeanors, practises or plotts.

5. His Majesties going into the House of Commons, attended neither with his ordinary Gaurd, only, nor Pentioners and Servants only but with diverse Cavaliers armed who by their words and gestures showed themselves to bee men of desperate resolutions and bent them upon some damnable, and bloody designe.

6. The endeavours used to the Gentlemen of the Innes of Court.

7. The Rebellion in Ireland, which was raised for the diversion and interruption of the Parliament, for the weakning of our Land, by the maintenance of that, and for the strengthening of the Papists and Popish Faction with us. For when the English Protestants had beene plundered, pillaged, subdued and slaughtered there, (as it was reported, confessed and acknowledged by divers of the Rebels, when they were taken) they should have come hither to have assisted our Papists and Malignants, to have done as much to and with us.

8. The calling in diverse Cannoneers, and other Assistants into the Tower of London.

9. The making of Lunsford (a man of a knowne and notorious debach’d life and conversation) Lieutenant of the Tower; for he being so apt and fit a man for any desperate designe, or divellish practise, and in that place, having so much command over the City, made all generally feare, that there was more mischiefe intended against the City, then did out wardly appeare.

10. The selling of the Crowne Jewels beyond the Seas, and buying therewith Field-pieces, Pieces for Battery, Culverings, Morter-peices, Carabines, Pistols, Warre-saddles, Swords and Powder, as appeared by the note of direction which was sent over, and found among the Lord Digbies Papers. Now although these were bought in June; yet we must imagine (as appeares by the time when they were writ for) that they were bespoke, and that order was given for the providing of them long before.

2. The fortifying and guarding of Whitehall with Ammunition, in an unusuall manner, and with men of turbulent spirits; for some of them with provoking language and violence abused divers Citizens passing by; and others with their swords drawne wounded sundry other Citizens passing by (who we unarmed) in Westminster Hall.

12. The drawing away of many Members of the Parliament, by Messages and Letters from the Parliament, That the Actions of both Houses might be blemished and reported to be the Votes onely of a few, and an inconsiderable number, yea rather the Acts of a Party, then of a Parliament.

13. The force raised at Yorke, and the Ammunition provided beyond Sea, for to be sent unto Yorke that force being gathered (as was feared) to make an opposition against the Parliament, but evidently percieved to be imployed for the protection, and support of Delinquents.

14. The multiplying of Papists in this Land of late dayes their frequent meetings at certaine places in and about the City without controule, the audaciousnesse of their Preists and Jesuites with us, notwithstanding our strict and severe Statutes against them, the residence of the Popes Nunntio so long amongst us, the Colledge of Capuchius in or here unto Coven Garden, and the favouring and prefering principally such as were either Popish, or Arminion, who in some points are true Cozen Germanes.

15. Lastly his Majesties absenting of himselfe from his Parliament, withdrawing from them thereby both his presence and influence. Here note That after the King was councelled, and perswaded hereunto, this his absence followed and attended with this Doctrine, againe and againe iterated, viz. That the King absenting, dissenting, and severing of himselfe from his Parliament, it was no Parliament neither had they any Power to dispose of any of the weightie affaires of the Kingdome; which dangerous Doctrine seemes to have beene taught by Court slatterers for these ends viz.

1. To discourage, weary and quite tire out our couragious, and indesatigable Senate.

2. To divert, interupt and retard their consultations, and designes both for our owne Reformation, and the subduing of the Irish Rebels.

3. To take off peoples hearts from the Parliament, to stagger them in their obedience unto them, to coole their zeale for the preservation and defence of them, and to make them call in question all their proceedings

4. To annimate all those who stood disaffected to the Parliament, to show their disaffection, and opposion with more freedome and lesse feare.

Tenthly, and lastly to this maine question, whether the Parliament may be deserted or ought to be adhered unto, I answere that of (of necessity) some wee must adhere and stick unto, that is either to the grand and knowne Councellours of the Land, or to obscure and private Councellours, that is either to the Parliament, or to the Cavalliers, Papists, Malignants, Delinquents and dissaffected Persons of the Kingdome.

Now because Contraria jnxta se posita clarius clucescunt, contraries are best commentaries, wee will looke particularly upon both and consider the nature, ends and aimes of both, and from thence coniecture whom wee may best desert, and whom with most safety follow; and first I begin with the Cavalliers, and that side.

First, in that side which consists of Cavalliers, Papists, Malignants, Delinquents, ill-affected and Popishly affected Persons, or (to terme them onely so) evill, private and obscure Councellors, wee have these two things to observe, to wit; First, their intentions and endeavours: Secondly, their nature and ends.

First, their intentions, endeavours and the fruit of their Councells; for I conioyne them altogether.

1. Their intentions and endeavours were to raise Civill Warre, and that both first in Scotland, and afterwards in Ireland, and now in England; And

2. To perswade the King to rule by his owne Will. The Lord Faulkland tels us, That the King was perswaded by his Divines that in conscience, by his Councellours that in policie, and by his Judges that by law he might doe what he list. Which doth directly labour to raze the very foundation of our well founded State, and to introduce and reare amongst us an Arbitrary Government. And

3. They endeavour to make division betweene his Majesty and his Parliament, (whom God and the Lawes of this Land have united in so neere a relation) as appeares.

First, By their endeavours and perswasions to draw the King from his Parliament, which they have effected now for a long time, and still continues his absence from them; although (I thinke) the most Shires in England have most humbly petitioned and besought Him to rejoyce and revive all the drooping, dead and sad hearts of his People, by affording his much and long desired presence, unto his Parliament. If these Persons (whatsoever they are) who thus counsell the King to estrange himselfe from the Parliament, and to oppose and disgust all their Proceedings, and designes, were but Masters of Hull, the Militia, and Navy, they would then quickly master both the Parliament and all the Kingdome; who could expect but bad quarter from such Masters, who by their counsels and endeavours to divide the King and Parliament shew that they are neither friends to the Common wealth, nor favourers of the publique safety; And

Secondly, By their feare that the King should accord with his Parliament. For the Malignants and evill Counsellours stand in great feare That his Majesty is too inclinable to an accommodation with his Parliament, which above all things they abhor fearing thereby to be undone, that is, to lose the spoile, pillage and possessions of this Land, which they have long since hoped for: whence they have solicited the Queene to disswade the King by all meanes from such accommodation, hoping to obtaine their desires (the ruine of this Land) by the Queenes interposing. See the Lord Digbies Letter to the Queene, March 10. 1641. and Mr. Eliots Letter to the Lord Digby. May 27. 1642.

4. They endeavour to cast aspersions upon the Parliament, perswading the People, That the Parliament would set up a Aristocracie, take away the Law, and introduce an arbitrary government; a report so false that no man of common sense or reason can credit it.

5. They have and doe still endeavour and combine together to effect end worke the ruine of the Parliament, or at least to force it, and by forcing thereof to cut up the freedome of Parliament by the root, and either to take all Parliaments away, or (which is worse) make them the instruments of slavery, to confirme it by Law, as the Parliament in Rich. 2nds, time did, when they found the Kings anger against them, and feared the peoples for saking of them. See the Treatise called, The successe of former Parliaments.

6. The fruits and effects of the intentions, and indeavours of those evill Counsellours, have been nothing but contention, dissention, division, debate, decay of trading, and more &illegible; then would fill a volume, if we should consider all the distractions distresses, dangers, feares, discommodities, hinderances, and losses, which both England, Scotland, and Ireland have felt, undergone, and sustained by their counsels, designes, and plots.

And thus much for the Intentions, and indeavours, of evill counsellors, and the fruits, and effects of their evill counsels.

Secondly, we have now to consider, the nature, and ends of these evill counsellours, who desert, and oppose the Parliament.

1. They are men of lost estat. 8, and desperate fortunes; and these aime onely at plundering, and pillaging, desiring to raise themselves by razing others, and to build up themselves upon their brethrens ruine.

2. They are Rapist., and popishly affected persons. The Citizens of London (in their petition presented to the House of Commons, December 11. 1641. testifie. That information is given to divers of them, from all parts of the Kingdome, of the bold and insolent carriage, and threatning speeches of the Papists. Now those aime either at the introducing and establishing of Popery amongst us, by the change of religion, or at least, at the gaining of freedome to professe, or an open toleration of their idolatrous, and superstitions religion. Which because they can never expect, nor hope for, from the Parliament, (which labours so zelously for the reformation of our Church, and the abolition of all popery, and popish innovations) they therefore joyne, and side with the former sort, which seeke nothing but mischeife and ruine. Or

3. They are Delinquents, Malefactors, and guilty Persons, who have by some plotts, practises, monopolies, Projects, or otherwise, trespassed and transgressed highly against the Common-wealth for their owne private advantage and profit. Now these hope, that by siding with the Cavaleirs and Papists against the Parliament, they shall bee protected against it and the justice thereof. Or

4. They are the ministers of the Land, who are corrupt either in Life or Doctrine; that is, are either superstitious, ceremonious, contentious, covetous, Popish hereticall scandalous in their lives and conversations or slothfull in the discharge of the worke of their ministry. Now these hope by siding with the former, to keepe, and hold fast what they have fearing the justice of the Parliaments will (for their demerrits) deprive them of those spirituall or ecclesiasticall dignities and possessions which they hold and injoy; Or,

5. They are of that number of the Nobility or Gentry of the Land, whose lives have been very loose, & unbridled. Now these oppose the pious proceedings of the Parliament, least such restraint should be imposed upon them by that Reformation which is intended and indeavoured by Them that they may (without punnishment) live as they list, have done and desire still to doe; Or

6. They are ignorant Persons. Now there is a two fold ignorance viz.

1. Naturall; now they are naturally ignorant who for want of knowledge understanding, and teaching are neither able to discerne of the designes, and intentions, of the adverse Partie, nor to foresee the miseries which will come upon them by aiding and assisting of, and siding with them: nor to know what is their duty and how farre and in what cases they may aid and assist the Parliament against some personall or verball command of the King; And,

2. Affected: Now this mischevous, malitious, and affected ignorance is in those who will neither read, nor heare any thing which may inform them in the former particulars, viz. the nature intentions ends and fruites of evill councels, and counsellours: and what is their duty in regard of the great counsel of the land. Or,

7. They are of that number of the Nobility, and Gentry, who seeke preferment by betraying their Country, to serve, and be made subject to the Court. Or,

8. They are the allyes, friends, acquaintance, and associates of some of the former; who although in themselves they stand not much disaffected to Parliaments, yet in regard of their friends, they leave it, and cleave unto them. Or,

9. They are timerous and fearefull: who although they wish well unto the Parliament, yet they dare not shew their affection, nor affoord any aid unto them, lest thereby they incurre some malice, or detriment through the Kings displeasure, Or.

10. They are covetous, and desirous to keepe their mony, and meanes: and therefore (whatsoever their heart, and affections be unto the Parliament) they dare not shew their approbation of their proceedings, lest they should be wrought upon to supply them, and their wants, for the support of the State, their necessities, and occasions, in regard of the land, being great, urgent, and pressing. Or,

11. They are Macchiavillians, and Polititions; who desiring with the Cat to fall on their feet, and to be free from blame and danger however the world wags, will neither side, nor support, neither aid, nor asset, either King or Parliament.

Let us now seriously consider three things from what hath beene said of the nature of this Side, or Party, viz.

First. who are those evill Counsellours which we must not adhere unto, but desert? It is denyed, That there are any such about the King; but I conceive, what I shall say, will not be gainsayd, viz. If there bee any about the King, who first move him to Civill warres, and secondly, perswade him to rule his people according to his owne Will, or an arbitrary power, and thirdly, strive to divide, and estrange the King from his Parliament, and fourthly, cast (even in his eares) aspertions, and false calumnies upon his Parliament, and fiftly, labour to ruine, and destroy the Parliament, and sixthly, by their plots brings misery and confusion upon the whole land: none (I say) will deny, but these are evill and wicked Counsellours, who deserve to be disclaimed, deserted, and left free, and layd open to the penalty of the law. Now that there are some such about the King, or in high favour, power, and credit with Him, is more then evident (though I, and wiser then I, cannot particularly name them) for,

1. His Majesty professeth a detestation of warre, and yet prosecutes it, which shewes that some puts him upon it. And,

2. He protests to governe his people according to established law, and yet he hath been perswaded to an Arbitrary governement, by them about Him, by many plausible, and faire seeming arguments, as Himselfe affirmes in one of his Messages. And,

3. He solemnely professeth his love unto, and his care of, and his honourable respect to his Parliaments and their priviledges, and preservation; and yet some hath withdrawne his person from the Parliament, and to himselfe, vilified the Parliament, yea have had plots upon the Parliament, and have laboured that in them, they might be countenanced, and protected by his sacred Majesty, And,

4. The King againe and againe calleth God to witnesse, the sincerity of his heart towards all his people, and how earnestly desirous He is that they may live happily, and prosperously under him; and yet by following the counsell of some, many, great, and long evills have pressed all the three Kingdomes of England, Scotland, and Ireland. And therefore it must needes be granted, That there are malignant Counsellours about the King, who worke much misery, and mischiefe, both to Himselfe and his People; and that they cannot be unknowne unto Him, if He would please, to disclose, discover, and leave them to the just, and equall triall of the Lovers of the Land.

Secondly, let us consider from this Army of Maliguants, and mischievous Counsellours, and party, what in all probability we may expect, and looke for if they prevaile against the Parliament. That is, if,

  • 1.  Men of desperate fortunes prevaile, what can we expect but plundering and pillaging? And,
  • 2.  If Papists prevaile, what religion but Popery?
  • 3.  If delinquents, what but oppression?
  • 4.  If bad Ministers, what but bad preaching, and ill practizing?
  • 5.  If loose Gentry, what but prophannesse?
  • 6.  If ambitious spirits, what but contempt, cruelty, and disdaine?
  • 7.  If ignorant persons, what but their owne selfe-wills?
  • 8.  If delinquents and malignants friends, what but such a measure as we finde from delinquents, and malignants themselves? But from an Army consisting not of one, but of all these, what can we expect, but all these evills? and from the wickednesse which will be committed by them, the heavy judgment of God to be hastened downe upon us.

Thirdly, let us consider, whether there be any the least probability of receiving any benefit, or profit, in any regard, from this Side or Party, if they should prevaile against the Parliament.

  • 1.  Can we expect that the propriety of our goods shall be maintained, and preserved unto us, by men of decayed, lost, and desperate fortunes? Or,
  • 2.  Can we expect that the true orthodoxe Protestant Religion shall be maintained, and preserved, by heterodoxe, and hereticall Papists? Or,
  • 3.  Can we expect to be preserved free from unjust impositions, and taxes, by oppressing Projectors, and Monopolists? Or,
  • 4.  Can we hope that our Parliament priviliges will be preserved by Delinquents, and contemners of Parliaments? Or,
  • 5.  Can we expect the propagation of the Gospel, or that the sincere, faithfull, painfull, and profitable preaching thereof, shall be promoted by lewd, lazy, and corrupt Ministers? Or,
  • 6.  Can we expect that Piety, and the honour of God, shall be preserved in the land, by loose and prophane Gentlemen, and Nobles? Or,
  • 7.  Can we expect that justice, just measure, and equity, shall be maintained by those who ayme at nothing but their owne gaine, and greatnesse? Or,
  • 8.  Can we expect that our Lawes shall be preserved inviolably, by those who are wholely bewitched with the love of an Arbitrary Governement? Sense, and Reason will tell us, that these things cannot be expected from those persons; neither that any good can come unto the Land from such an Army.

I might conclude this last Answer, to that maine Question, Whether the Parliament be to be obeyed or deserted? as I began it: to wit,

Argum.To our Side of necessity we must adhere and cleave, that is, either to the evill, and obscure Counsellours, or to the Parliament.

But we must not adhere and sticke to the evill and malignant ones, for those reasons specified before.

Therefore we must adhere and cleave close to the Parliament.

This argument (I say) together with what hath been spoken against the Malignant party, might be sufficient for the amplification of the last Answer: but as I have said somthing against the one party, so I will say something for the other, as I promised, for the better fastning and setting of the Truth home upon the heart, of whosoever will vouchsafe to excuse this Treatise.

Secondly, in that Side, or party, which consists of the great, and grand Councell of the Kingdome, I will (as in the other Party observe divers things, for the amplification of this truth, That the Parliament ought not to be deserted, but obeyed, and assisted: to wit.

  • 1.  The ends of Parliaments.
  • 2.  Their necessity.
  • 3.  Their excellency.
  • 4.  Their utility.
  • 5.  The reason why we ought to believe ours.

First, the ends of Parliaments are briesly these two: to wit.

  • 1.  That the interest of the people might be satisfied.
  • 2.  That the King might be better counselled.

Secondly, the Necessity of this Parliament shewes it selfe by the miserable and distressed condition wherein our Land was, and the multiplicity of agrievances we groaned under; as is to the life declared, in the Parlioments Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdome, set forth December 15. 1641.

Thirdly, the Excellency of Parliaments is declared by his Majestie himselfe, who doth highly extoll the constitution of this Governement of ours, and especially the nature of our Parliaments, which consist of King, Peeres, and Commons; acknowledging that the power which is legally placed in both Houses, is more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of tyranny. Which argues plainely, that there is much, and great power, (and that by Law) placed, and put into the hands of both Houses, or the Major part of both for the good, and preservation of Peeres, and Commons, when the Common-wealth, or Whole is in danger, and the King being seduced by wicked Connsell, doth desert, and refuse to joyne with them in their owne defence. For if they cannot do any thing (upon any occasion, necessity, extremity, or danger, though never so evident, apparent, or urgent) without the King, then the sole power of managing the affaires of the Kingdome, doth even in arduis, in high, yea in the highest cases, belonging onely unto the King; and nothing at all to either, or both Houses, except, or but what he alleages. That is, though the Land say a bleeding, and were invaded by Hoasts, and Armies from abroad, and Papists, and Rebells at home (Ireland now is) and the King would make no provision against them, or, for the suppressing, and withstanding of them, the Parliament must sit still, and suffer all to be lost, and ruined, having neither power to raise, nor use any force without the thing.

Fourthly, the Vtility, and Benefit of Parliaments is great: and that both,

1. To Kings, and Princes; and that,

1. In regard of their reputation, same, and honour. Antonius &illegible; is greatly renowned for communicating all weighty affaires, und following publike advice, and approbation in all great expedients of high concernments; and He was more honourable, and prosperous therein, then was Nero, who made his owne will his Law. And thus alwaies those Princes have gained unto themselves most honour and renowne, who were most willing and ready to listen to the Counsell of the Land in important affaires. And also

2. In regard of their Crowne, state; for the Kings of England by this representative Body of their People, are alwayes assisted, and that upon all occasions: as for example.

First, If they lack money for any necessary occasion, the Parliament supplies them.

Secondly, if they be invaded by any forraigne or domestique soe, or force, the Parliament assists them.

Thirdly, if they be injured, reproched or dishonored by any potent person or Prince, the Parl. wil vindicate and avenge them. All which were seene evidently in Q. Eliz. time, between her and her Parliament, And

Fourthly, I may ad, that none of our Princes were ever yet happy without the use of Parliaments: and therefore it is plaine that they are beneficiall & utile unto Princes, and consequently not to be deserted of subjects which are loyall to Princes.

2. As Parliaments are usefull and utile to Princes, so they are also beneficiall and profitable unto People: as appears by 3. particulars, viz.

1. Without Parliaments People have no possibility of pleading their own rights, & liberties, they being too confused a body to appearin vindication of their proper interests. Whence it comes frequently to passe, that what all should look after, no man does, and what is committed to no man thinks his owne charge: and therfore some few chosen out by, and from amongst the People, to consider of their liberties, lawes and grievances, must needs be very advantagious unto them.

2. As people cannot without confusion plead for themselves, so often the subordinate Magistrates, and Iudges of the Land (through feare, flattery, or private corruptions) doe often betray the peoples rights, by unjust sentences or verdicts: and therefore such Counsellours as can have no private aymes, or ends of their owne; but are themselves involved in the same condition with the people, both in weale, and woe must needs be profitable for them. Yea,

3. By this present Parliament we have reaped already many great, and notable benefits; and therfore may conclude from our owne ezperience, with a Probatum est, That Parliaments are bene ficiall to people. By this Parliament we are free from these two grievous arbitrary Courts, the high Commission (the Purgatory of the Church) and Satr-chamber, (the terrour of the Common-wealth) as also from the heavy burthen of Ship-money, and the oppressions we groaned under by reason of Monopolies, and other illegall impositions, yea Bishops removed out of the House of Peeres, who having their dependance upon the King, for the most part would side with him, in any thing, though it were adjudged by the Parliament to be destructive and hurtfull to the Kingdome. This particular is so abundantly amplified, and that so truely, by the Parliament in their Remonstrance of the state of the Kingdom, set forth Dec. 15. 1641. that I will not enlarge it; but only conclude, that if the ends, necessity, excellency, and benefits of Parliaments be such as hath been shewed, then They are worth standing for, and ought not to be deserted. Now

Fiftly, we will take a short view of some particular reasons why we ought ta beleeve, & obey this our present Parl. and not relinquish it. viz.

1. Because they can have no by ends, nor base respects of their own: for if they aimed at promotion, preferment, and wealth, they might much easilier attaine those, by complying with, then by opposing the designes and personall commands of the King. It is (or at least hath been) an approved Maxim, that a community can have no private ends to mistead it, and to make it injurious to it selfe: and I never heard nor read so much as one story of any Parl. freely elected and held, that ever (for any ends of their own) did injure a whole kingdom or exercise any tyranny over the land (but divers Kings have done sundry acts of oppression) for nothing can suit or square with the common Councell, but only the common good, and therfore it is great reason that we should beleeve & obey them. And

2. Because no benefit at all can redound unto them by faigning, forging, or counterfeiting of false fires, feares, chymera’s, and dangers which are not. And therfore we may they better beleeve what they say. And

3. Because we never yet found them false unto us. It was the saying of one, If my friend deceive me once, I wil blame him, but if twice, my self? meaning, that he would never trust him the second time, who deceived him once. Now charity perswades us to hope, and believe, where we see nothing to the contrary; and give credit to them in whom we never saw any designes or indeavours, to betray us, or our liberties, but rather alwayes the contrary. And,

4. Because they know more then any one of us. Two eyes (we say) sees more then one; and the Parliament is the eies, and the eares of the re-publique, and their information, conference intelligence, experience, knowledge, &c. doth afford unto them some sight and insight into all things, passages, occasions, affaires, negotiations, &c. both at home and abroad. And therfore it is not without cause, that we should beleeve them. And

5. Because they never shewed any disloyalty unto the King, that ever yet was observed by the Commons or Commonwealth, whom they represent. We find in all their Petitions, royall expressions, humble suits, hearty intreaties unto his Ma: to comply with them for his owne honour & safety, cordiall Potestations of the sincerity of their intentions towards his Ma: and free and full promises neither to spare pains, purses, persons, nor estates, for the defence of his person, & preservation of his honor; yea unwearied & (beyond humane patience) continued supplications to his notice of personall imputations, yea reproachfull aspersions, that hath bin cast upon them; still taking (as much as possibly they can) all blam from his Majesty, and laying it upon his evill counsell. And

6. Because the King himselfe doth not accuse the Parliament, but onely some few particular persons therein; and therefore that which comes, or is commended unto us by the whole Parliament, we may believe, and obey, his Majesty promising to protect them, and their priviledges, and to except them in all his taxes, and accusations. And,

7. Lastly we may believe, obey, and adhere unto the Parliament, because the King of Kings seemes to favour their proceedings. How doe we see the Lord blowing upon all the devices of their enemies, sometimes turning them back upon themselves, and sometimes turning their wisedome into foolishnesse. Or what counsels, what letters, what plots, and practises, what words, and passages, against Kingdome and Parliament, hath strangely been discovered, prevented, and come to light, to the joy and rejoycing of Parliament and people, and the terrour and amazement of the contrivers, and authors of them. How extraordinarily hath the Lord assisted that honourable Assembly with zeale, courage, wisedome, discretion, prudence, moderation, patience, and constancy in all their consultations and desires? How hath the Lord preserved their Persons from imminent perill, and given them favour in the eyes of all Counties, not withstanding the base, and bitter as persions cast upon them by some? When they had cause to be discouraged, by reason of the strong opposition of Delinquents, and disaffected persons, what encouragments have they even then found, from the Petitions, Promises, and resolutions, of divers Shires? Wherefore, seeing these are blessings, and such as belong unto the godly, we may perswade our selves, that the Lord seeing the sincerity of their intentions, doth in much mercy shew his gratious acceptation of their zeale, for the good of our Church, King, and Common-wealth. I conclude this particular, if the Lord seeme to say to our grave, and gratioos Senators, as he said unto Joshua,Iosh. 1. 5, 6. There shall be none able to withstand you, because I will be with you, yea, I will not leave you, nor forsake you; therfore be strong, and of good courage: then let none who would be the Lords souldiers, and servants, desert the horsemen of Israel, and the Chariots thereof, yea the Lords Captains who fight his battels.

And thus by a serious consideration of these grounds, we may easily conjecture, yea abundantly satisfie our selves in this point, That the Parl. is not to be deserted, or forsaken by us. I proceed now unto the next Quære, which is,

Whether may the King be disobeyed,Quest. 5. and his commands withstood, or not? Whether He is to be opposed in his proceedings by any command of the Parl. Or whether are we now to obey King or Parliament.

Ans. 1.First, some Princes think, that they may lawfully do, whatsoever they have power to do, or can do; but the contrary seems truer (both by light of reason, religion, & I power intrusted by law in the hands of any) viz. that Princes have no power to do, but what is lawful, and sit to be done.

Ans. 2.Secondly, personall actions of superiours be disobeyed. The Gramarians say, Rex regis, à rego, the word King comes from Governing, because Kings are no other, but more high, and supreme Governours, and Magistrates. Now some hold (and I think warrantably) that if any Magistrate, or Judge, do pursue a man, not judicially, and by order of Law, but invade him by violence without any just cause against all law, that then in so doing he is to be held as a private person, and as such we may defend our selves against him. As for example, a woman may defend her selfe own body against an adulterer, though a Magistrate. A servant may hold his Masters hands, if he seek to kill wife, or children in his rage. Marriners, and Passengers may resist him who stands at helme, if they see that he would run the ship against a rock; yea they might hold the Princes hands, if being at the helme he misgoverns the ship, to their certain shipwrack, without prevention, because by his so governing thereof, He hazzards both his owne life, and theirs, and they by holding of his hands, prevent both his, and their own ruine, (which seems to be our present case) and therefore, much more may the whole Body defend it self against any such unjust and unlawfull invasion, as will indanger the safety, and welfare of all.

Ans. 3.Thirdly, the Kings personall, that is verball commands, without any stamp of his authority upon them, and against the order of both Houses of Parliament, I imagine may be disobeied. For I do conceive that no lawyer will say, that suppose the King should take the broad Seal of England from the Lord Keeper, into his own hands, that all the writs whatsoever he should issue forth signed with his own hand, and sealed therewith, ought to be obeyed: for it is not the stamp and impression of the Seale which makes a thing lawfull, but the Keeper thereof ought to be a Lawyer, and (by his place) should not for feare, or favour, signe any Writs, therewith, but such as are legall, and if he do otherwise, he is lyable to be questioned, and censured by a Parliament. And therefore doubtlesse, when Writs and Precepts are issued forth without the broad seal, or without a regall, that is, legall authority (as of all the Writs and Commissions, for executing the Commission of Array, are, as is proved both by the Parliament and others) they may be disobeyed, and withstood, especially when they are destructive to the Common-wealth.

Fourthly, Princes by Parliaments may be withstood,Answ. 4. when they desire, or endeavour those things, which tend to the envassailing of their people. Kings (we know) sometimes have loved their enemies more then their friends, and have marched forth amongst their enemies, to encounter with their friends. As for example, Richard 2. thought Spencer, and his confederates his best friends, though they were base sycophants, and bainefull foes, and conceited that his Peers (who were his loyallest Subjects) were the truest Traitors, And hence Princes being abused by the slattery of private persons (for some wicked ends of their own) have followed their private perverse counsels, before the grave, loyall and faithfull advice of their sage Senate. Now that it is lawfull for Parliaments to withstand Princes, who make unlawfull Warre upon their people, is so evidently proved, by the Author of that lately come forth, and learned and pious Treatise, called, A Soveraigne Antidote to prevent Civill Warres, Pag. 6, 7, 8, 9. &c. that at present I wholy silence it.

Fiftly, the matter with us is quite, and generally mistaken,Answ. 5. and the Question altogether wrong stated, viz. Whether we should obey the King, or Parliament? for the King and Parliament are not like two parallell lines, which can never meet, nor like two incompatible qualities which cannot be both in one subject, nor like the Atke and Dagon, whom one House will not hold, nor like God and Mammon, which one man cannot serve; for by siding with, and assisting of the Parliament, in those things which are according to Law, we side with, and serve the King.

Two things are here distinguishable, to wit,

1. In our obeying of the Parliament according to Law, we obey the King. This his Majesty grants, commands and commends, yea professeth, that he requires no obedience of us to himselfe, farther then he enjoynes that which is Law, lawfull and just, And,

2. In our obeying of the Parliament in this present Military and Martiall designe, we stand for the King, not against Him: that is, for the good of his soule, person, estate, honour and posterity; of which a word or two severally.

1. They stand for the Soule of their Soveraigne, who withstand him (having a lawfull call, and warrant thereunto) from doing those things which (if he doe) he can never justifie in the Court of Conscience, nor at the great chancery day of Judgement, but must sinke under the sentence of condemnation, for those unlawfull, and unjustifiable facts. And therefore the Parliament (and we in obedience unto Them) are friends unto the Soule of our dread Soveraigne, in not obeying, aiding and assisting of Him, to make unnaturall, unlawfull and unwarrantable Warres, upon his Parliament and people, which can never be defended, or justified, before or unto God, to whom the Mightiest, as well as the meanest, must give a strict account of all their actions at the last day. And

2. They stand for the Kings Person, who obey, joyne and side with the Parliament. His Majesties Person is now environed by those, who carry Him, (as far as the eye of humane probability can see) upon his own ruine, and the destruction of all his good people: which the Parliament seeing, they labour to free him from such false hands, by this twofold meanes, viz.

1. By perswading, beseeching and most humbly soliciting his Majesty to forsake them, and to rejoyce and make glad the hearts of his Parliament and People, by conjoyning himselfe with Them. But this request, sult and supplication will not yet be granted, though with much importunity and many loyall expressions desired. And

2. By labouring to take his evill Councellors from Him, they being confidently assured, and piously perswaded of the Kings sweet disposition and readinesse to comply with them, in any thing which might conduce to the good, either of Church or Common-wealth, if he were not overswayed and deluded by the fained flattering and crafty counsell of those about Him, who look with a sinister eye upon our State. Now this seemes to me to be all that is aimed at, in this present Military and Martiall designe: for the Parliament doe not purposely, and in their first intentions, intend by their Souldiers to cut off any (for if any be slaine by them, it is by accident) but to preserve and keep the peace of the Kingdome, to maintaine the priviledges of Parliament, the Lawes of the Land, the free course of Justice, the Protestant Religion, the Kings authority and Person in his royall dignity, and to attach, arrest and bring such as are accused, or imagined, to be the disturbers and firebrands of the Kingdome, unto a faire, just, equall and legall triall, which no man can think unlawfull in our Law-makers. And therfore both Senatours and Subjects in the prosecution of this Designe, stand for the safety of their Princes Person. And

3. They stand for his State, Wealth, Honour and reputation, for I conjoyne all these together. Kings acquire and accumilate more honour, respect, wealth and power, by their meeknesse towards, tender love of, and vigilant care for their Subjects, and their safety (as we see in Qa: Elizabeth and Tiberius, so long as he was such) then by tyrannizing over, and cruelly oppressing and handling of them, as we see in &illegible; If our gracious Soveraigne, would be but pleased, to consider the honour and prosperity which his predecessors have enjoyed, by following the Advice of their Parliaments, and the dishonour our Nation hath in divers designes received abroad, and the grievous troubles, vexation and discord we have had at home, since Parliaments have bene difused, and laid asleepe, he would then certainely see, that they seeke his wealth, honour, reputation and welfare, who desire to reconcile and conjoyne him unto his Parliament, and advise him to governe his people by Parliaments, and endeavour to free him from the power, and hands of those, who being themselves, desire likewise to make him, an enemy unto Parliaments. And

4. They stand for his Posterity: For as evill gotten goods slip and wast away, and seldome continue to the third generation: so Kings cannot be sure that their Posterity shall peaceably and successively enjoy their Crowns, except themselves rule and governe according to Law, righteousnesse only establishing the Crown and Throne, both upon Princes and their Posterity. And therfore they who assist not the King, in those things, wayes and courses, which are illegall, grievous, yea destructive to the Common-wealth, are His Childrens and Posterities best Friends.

I conclude this Question, with this Argument,

Those who labour with their lives and estates,Arg. to defend and maintaine the Kings Soule, Honour, Reputation, Wealth, Person and Posterity, obey and stand for Him.

But the Parliament,Quest. 6. and all those who side with them in this present designe, labour with their lives and estates, to maintaine and defend the Kings Soule, Honour, Reputation, Wealth, Person and Posterity.

Therefore the Parliament, and all those who side with them in this present designe, in so doing, obey and stand for Him.

It should seeme by what hath bene spoken, That neither Parliament nor People, doth intend the least indignity, dishonour or disloyalty to the King: and it is most perspicuously and clearely to be seene, in all the Kings gracious Messages and Declarations, That he hath no designe upon his people or Parliament, neither intends any harme, opposition or oppression unto them, but professeth to rule them according to Law and equity: How then comes it to passe, that either the Parliament will not or dare not confide in the King?

First, it is because they see that some about the King,Answ. 1. are potent with Him, who affect not the Parliament, nor their proceedings, have that influence in his counsels, and are so predominant and prevalent with Him, that they have often varied and altered him, from his words and promises. It is a Maxime in Law; The King can doe no wrong; for if any evill act be committed in matter of State, his Counsell, if in matters of Justice, his Judges must answer for it: and therefore I will not lay any fault upon the King, but rather impute the faults which have bene of late obvious to many, unto some about him, or in great favour with him. Great discouragements (I grant) the Parliament in their proceedings have had from the King, but I dare not imagine that they came originally and primarily from Him, but from some about him, in regard of that vast difference, which is between his words spoken to his Parliament, with his own mouth, when he was with them, and the Messages sent unto, and the heavy charges laid upon them, in his Letters and Declarations, now when he is absent from Them. He said once, That in the word of a King, and as He was a Gentleman, he would redresse the grievances of his people, as well out of the Parliament, as in it. Againe, That he was resolved to put himselfe freely and clearely upon the Love and affection of his English Subjects. Againe, We doe engage unto you solemnly the word of a King, that the security of all, and every one of You from violence, it, andever shall be as much our care, as the preservation of us and our children: And yet what actions and passages have of late fallen out, quite contrary to all these expressions? the Parliament and all who side with it, assist it, or obey it, in any of the Commissions or Orders thereof, being assaulted, opposed, yea now at last proclaimed Traitors. Againe, his Majesty doth professe the detestation of a Civill War, and abhorres (as he saith) the very apprehension of it. But this mind neither seemed to be in them, who came with his Majesty to the House of Commons, nor who accompanied him to Hampton-Court, and appeared in a warlike manner at Kingstone, nor in diverse of those who have bene with him and employed by him at Yorke, Hull, Leicester-sheire, Lancashiere, Sommerset-sheire, Northampton-sheire, and other places. And therefore we must needs conceive, that the King is put upon these courses and wayes by his evill Counsellors, and consequently, that the Parliament cannot confide in his words and promises, untill those Councellors be put from him, or forsaken by him. And

Answ. 2.Secondly, because of that trust which is reposed in them. I dare boldly say, That if the King should take, or make those Protestations, which he makes in his Messages and Declarations, unto any one of the Parliament-House, for the performance of any promise either unto them or theirs, which did simply and soly concerne themselves, they would beleeve and obey him, and without any further question confide in him, but they cannot doe this in the case, and place, wherein they are. The trust reposed by the people in the Parliament, is as well to preserve the Kingdome by making of new Lawes, when and where there shall be need, as by observing and putting the Lawes already made, in execution: And therefore in regard of this trust, they dare not hazard the safety, preservation, and sole managing of the Land to his Majesty alone, upon his bare word; because if after such confiding of theirs in the King, upon his faithfull promise unto them, he should be over-swayed, and seduced by some wicked Counsellours, to lay some illegall impositions, taxations and burdens upon his people (as he did soone after the granting of the Petition of Right unto the Subject) the Kingdome then would (and might justly) blame them as the Authours of their grievances, that had so lightly given away their liberties and freedome, by subjecting them to an arbitrary power. And indeed, if we will but consider it without passion and partiality, the case is no other but this, if the Parliament should wholy confide in the Kings words and Promises, then there were no more requisite in them, then this, to make a Declaration unto his Majesty of the grievances, burdens, annoyances and illegall proceedings in all, or such and such Courts or Persons, to the great oppression and heart-breake of the Subject, and having so done, to obtaine some serious Promise and Protestation, from the King to take-off all these pressures, and to be carefull for the future, that no such shall be imposed upon them, and then to confide in the King, and to breake-up the Parliament, and repaire every one to his own house. Now if Sense, Reason, Experience and Knowledge will tell us that this is farre from, or comes farre short of the true nature, and duty of a Parliament, then let us thinke that it is reason (as the case now stands) that the Parliament should not confide in the King. And

Thirdly,An. 3. because it were very dangerous for the time to come. Admitting our present Soveraigne were as prudent as Salomon, yea as pious as David (yea like him, a man after Gods own heart) yet it were dangerous for the Parliament so to confide in him, that they should trust the managing of all the great and weighty affairs of this Kingdome wholy and solely unto him, and consequently granting him an arbitrary power, to rule us, according to the dictates of his own conscience, or as the Lord should move and perswade his heart. This (I say) is not safe, because if they grant, give or settle this Power upon him, as King of England, then all other succeeding Kings will challenge and claime it as due; (or thinke they are not respected as their Predecessours) whence if any of them prove Tyrants or tyrannous oppressours, we shall be most miserable and wretched slaves.

Ob. Some perhaps may here object, that although Princes should not use their absolute power by doing alwayes what they lift, yet they ought not to be circumscribed, limited, or restrained in their Government, by any tie or obligation of Law.

An. 1. First, it is much better (considering the corruption of our nature) to be with-held by some restraints of Law and covenant, from that which is evill, and which we cannot justifie before God in the Court of Conscience, then to be boundlesse, lawlesse and left to live as we list, and to do whatsoever seems good in our own eyes.

An. 2. Secondly, this also is better for others: for as the Crane had better to keepe his head out of the Wolves mouth, then to put it into his mouth, and then stand at his mercy, whither he will bite off his neck or not, so it is better for every wise man, rather to keepe and preserve those immunities, freedomes, prerogatives, and priviledges, which God, and nature hath given unto him, for the preservation, prosperity and peace of his posterity, person and estate, then to disenfranchize himselfe and to relinquish and resigne all into the hands of another, and to give him power either to impoverish or enrich, either to kill him, or keepe him alive.

Quest. 7. I come now unto the last Question, which is this; suppose things come unto this height and issue, that the King will have the Parliament to confide in him for all they desire of him, or otherwise he will by warres labour to have his will of them, then whether is it lawfull for them by warre to withstand him? Briefly, whether is this Martiall and Military designe, undertaken by the Parliament, against that party which is owned and aided by the King, lawfull or unlawfull, and consequently whither may, and ought we to assist them or not?

An. 1. First in generall, I answer concerning meanes, by these Propositions; to wit,

  • 1.  Meanes must be used for preventing, and removing of all temporall evils.
  • 2.  The meanes to be used for the removall of temporall maladies must be alwayes lawfull: for we must never doe evill that good may come thereof.
  • 3.  The meanes to be used must be alwayes conformable, answerable and sutable to the malady; as for example, a man must not take a sword to quench a fire, nor thinke to defend himselfe against an armed foe, (who comes with his Sword drawn, or musket charged, or pistoll cocked to take away his precious life) with faire words; but must consider what remedy, or meanes is most proper for the preventing of the evill feared. Now there is no meanes better against offensive warres then definsive.

An. 2. Secondly, I answer in generall again, concerning Actions, by two Propositions, to wit,

1. That which is not lawfull for a private person to doe, is lawfull for a publicke; as for example, it is not lawfull for a private person to take away the life of one, whom he knowes to have robbed, or murdered some one or other, but it is lawfull for the Judge upon the Bench, upon good proof, to do it.

2. That which is not lawfull for a private person in his own particular cause, is lawfull for him in a publick: as for example, had Faux bin ready to have given fire to his train, when the Parliament had bin full, and in the very instant had fallen by a private mans Sword, that act had not bin punishable, but praise-worthy; but it is not lawfull for a private man to take away the life of one, because he sees, or knowes that he intends some mischiefe against his neighbour or acquaintance: but is bound only to indeavour to hinder, and prevent it, or, at least not to fall upon him, except he can by no other meanes prevent the death and preserve the life of his brother; and neither is this (I think) lawfull in all cases.

3. That which is not lawfull for a private and particular man to do upon his owne head, is lawfull for him to do being commanded by authority; as for example, if it be not lawfull for Sir John Hotham to shut the gates of Hull against the King, of his owne accord, yet it is lawfull being warranted, and commanded by the Parliament. If it be not lawfull for the Earls of Essex and Bedford, to take up arms to suppresse that party which oppresseth the Kingdome, of themselves, yet it is lawfull, by the Order and Commission of Parliament; as is proved by the soveraigne Antidote to appease our civill warres.

An. 3. Thirdly, if his Majesty passed an Act, not onely of Oblivion, but of Justification, to our Brethren of Scotland, for their Warres, or for taking up weapons against his instruments; then I cannot see wherein, or how our defensive Armes should so much differ from theirs, that they in so doing should be loyall Subjects, and we disloyall Traitours.

Answ. 4.Fourthly, a Necessary War must needs be lawfull; for the power and force of Necessity is such, that it justifieth actions otherwise unwarrantable. The transcendent apsgrχ&illegible;&illegible; of all politicks, or the Law Paramount, which gives Law to all humane Laws whatsoever, is Salus populi, The safety of the people: and this Supreame Law of Nations, Salus populi, hath it’s immediate rize from the Law of Nature, which teacheth every worme, much more a man, and most of all a whole Nation, to provide for its safety in time of necessity. It is not alwayes lawfull for us to kill those who stand at our doores, or who would keep us from comming out of our doores: but if our houses be blocked up, and we so hindred from commerce with others, or from seeking reliefe for the sustentation of our own lives, that we and ours are in danger to famish, it is lawfull then to issue forth with the forces we can make, to fight our selves free: how much more lawfull then is it to fight for the liberty and preservation of a Church and State? It seemes evident by the clearest beames of humane reason, and the strongest inclinations of nature, That every private person may defend himselfe, if unjustly assaulted, yea even against a Magistrate, or his own Father, when he hath no way to escape by flight: much more lawfull then is it for a whole Nation to defend themselves against such Assassinates, as labour to destroy them, though the King will not allow them defence. Let us consider the miseries, and heavy burthens which we must lye under, if we undertake not this defensive War, and that will shew us the Necessity thereof. Now the evills which we are in danger of, are of that nature, that if they should fall upon us (which the Lord in mercy forbid) we would thinke, that it were better for us to have no being, then such a miserable being. The present Case seemes to many, who see throwly into things, to be threefold. viz.

2. Whether Popery or Protestanisme? and this doubt arises from the Kings Assistants and Agents, in his designes, or some who are in neere trust, and of great power with his Majesty, who (for the most part) are either of no Religion, or of any Religion, or of the Popish Religion, or popishly inclined and effected. And

2. Whether slavery or liberty? and this doubt arises from the doctrines, counsels and perswasions of those about the King, who perswade Him that it is lawfull for him to doe what he list. And

3. Whether estates or none? and this doubt arises from some speeches fallen from some in place and authority; that all we have is the Kings; that when there is necessity he may command of, or take from us, what he please; and that he alone is the sole Judge of this necessity. The Case being thus with us, it seemes unnaturall, that any Nation should be bound to contribute its own inherent puissance meerely to abet tyranny, and support slavery: that is, to fight themselves slaves, or, to affoord aide, assistance and succour, either with persons or purses to those who desire and endeavour to introduce popery and heresie into their Church, and to bring themselves into such slavery and bondage, that they may tyrannize over them at pleasure. And thus the Necessity of this Warre shewes the lawfullnesse thereof.

Fiftly, Defensive Warres are alwayes held lawfull.Answ. 5. Now the nature and quality of our Warre is defensive, and so the more justifiable. For

1. The Kings Majesty mislead by Malignants, and malevolent Persons made preparations for Warre, before any such thing was thought upon by the Parliament. And

2. We intend not the hurt of others, but our own peace and preservation; the designe being but to suppresse riots, to keep the peace, and to bring Delinquents to a faire, just and legall tryall. And

3. Our Armes will be laid down, as soone as we are assured of a firme peace, and to be ruled as becommeth a free people, who are not borne slaves.

Sixtly, we may guesse at the nature of this Defensive Warre,An. 6. by divers particulars; as namely,

First, by the Persons against whom this Designe is undertaken, which is not the King (as was proved before, and shall be further enlarged by and by) but the Malignants of the Kingdome, which we labour to suppresse, and to bring to punishment in a legall way. We goe against the Troublers of Israel, the fire-brands of Hell, the Korahs, Balaams, &illegible; Rabshakaes, Hamans, Tobiahs and Sanballats of our time. And

Secondly, by the Persons most favouring, and furthering of this Defensive warre, who are in every place, those who stand most cordially affected to the good of the Common-wealth, and most sincerely addicted to the purity of the Church, and the intire profession and practise of Religion. And

Thirdly, by the mercy and favour of God towards the Parliament, the principall Agents and Authors of this Designe. If we consider,

1. How the Lord preserved their persons, from the malicious intentions of the Cavaliers, when they went to the very doore of the House. And,

2. How He discovered the plots and practises which were intended for the bringing up of the Army out of the North against Them. And

3. How He directed them in their setling of Hull, the Militia and Navy, when things were almost come to their height. And

4. How he hath from time to time, and still doth encourage them with, or by the Love, Loyalty, Fidelity, Faith and firme Resolutions of the most part of all Counties, to stand and fall, live and dye with them. And

5. How hitherto He hath extraordinarily turned all the plots of their enemies against themselves, and produced effects quite contrary to those they intended, and frustrated all their hopes.

If (I say) we consider these things, we cannot but say of the Parliament House, and Parliament-men, Surely God is in this place, and in the midst of you, and present with you, and president amongst you; and we considently hope, that the Lord will preserve and keep you, and finish the work he hath begun by you, to your comfort, His glory and our good. And

Fourthly, we may guesse at the goodnesse of the Designe, by the time, when it was undertaken; for it was not begun untill all other Meanes failed; and therfore may be called, ultimum & unicum remedium, the last and only meanes left. The old Rule was observed by them, Non recurrendum est ad extraordinaria, &illegible; qua fieri possunt por ordinaria, they tried all fair and ordinary means, and never had recourse to extraordinary and extreame courses, untill no other would prevail. We and They have again and again petitioned the King, but cannot prevail; and therfore all other politique means failing us, we ought generally (seeing the misery which is threatned is generall) to joyn heads, hearts, hands and estates together to fight for our King, Country, Parliament, selves, Religion, Laws, Liberties, lives and all that is ours, because now all is at stake. And

Lastly, we may cleerly see the lawfullnesse of this Defensive warre, if we but look upon the Causes and Ends therof, which are many, as namely,

  • 1.  The glory of God.
  • 2.  The good of the Church.
  • 3.  The propagation of the Gospell.
  • 4.  The peace of the Kingdome.
  • 5.  The prosperity of the Common-wealth.
  • 6.  The maintenance of the Kings honour, authority, and person, in his Royall dignity.
  • 7.  The liberties and immunities of the Commons.
  • 8.  The preservation of the representative Body of the Realme.
  • 9.  The Priviledges of Parliament.
  • 10.  The Lawes of the Land. And
  • 11.  The free course of Justice.

But I will reduce all these to foure Heads: to wit, Gods Glory, the Kings honour, the Parliaments safety, and the Kingdomes preservation.

First, This Defensive warre is undertaken by the Parliament for Gods Glory, and the maintenance of true Religion. Now we may, yea ought to sight, to maintaine the purity and substance of Religion, that it may neither be changed into the Ceremonions formalities of Popery nor our consciences brought into the subjection of Romish and Antichristian slavery.

Secondly, This Defensive warre is undertaken by the Parliament for the Kings honour and safety. Now we are bound by the duty of allegiance to defend and maintaine the Kings person, honour and estates and therefore,

1. It is our duty to labour by all lawfull meanes to free his Person from those Assassinates, who violently (by their wicked councell, assistance, and perswasion) carry him upon his owne danger and the destruction of his liege and most loyall Subjects. And

2. It is our duty to labour to maintaine the Kings honour; and therfore when he is over-ruled by those, who (through their subtilty) work so upon his mild and pliant temper, that they make him appeare to his Subiects, yea forraigne Nations to be a Defender of Delinquente and evill Counsellours, against his loving Subiects and loyall Parliament, which tends infinitely to his dishonour: it is then our duty to labour to unwinde and disentangle him from their practises, or by force plucke away their Persons from about Him. And

3. It is our duty to maintain his Maiesties estate. Now as the Lord Burleigh would often say to Q. Elizabeth, Madam, get but your Subiects hearts, and you need not feare their purses; so I may say, that the love and affection of the Kings Subjects (which his Parliament labours to enrich him withall, and to possesse him of) will be more advantagious unto him for matter of estate, then all the Prerogatives and Priviledges, which his obscure Counsellours perswade and indeavour so much for, against the will and welfare of his people. And if we compare our Q. Elizabeth (who would have nothing, but by and from the Parliament, with the love and affection of her people) with the king of Spain, who by an arbitrary power tyrannizeth over his Subjects, we shall then see, as cleare as the Sun, that where Princes by joyning with Parliaments, labour to unite, the hearts, and affections of their people unto them, there riches abound more, both with Prince and people, than in those Kingdomes where all cruell courses are taken by the King, to impoverish the Commons.

Thirdly, this Defensive warre is under-taken by us, at the Parliaments command, for their safety. Now both Reason and Religion will teach us, that if our pious Parliament and sage Senate, for the maintaining of our lives, liberties and lawes, and in, or for opposing of it selfe (not against the Kings Person, honour or estate, but) against his affections mislead by evill Counsellours, shall be exposed to danger, dissolution or death: then it is our duty by defensive Warre, to withstand that power, or force which is levied against them.

Fourthly, this Military Designe is undertaken for the Kingdoms preservation. Now both the Laws of God and man (as is against all contradiction proved in the Treatise, called, A Soveraigne Antidote to prevent and appease our civill Warres) will beare us out, for taking up Defensive Armes for the safety of our Kingdome and Common-wealth. That is, if we see indeavours and designes a-foot, for the reducing of the Government of this Kingdom, to the condition of those Countries, which are not governed by Parliament and established Laws, but by the will of the Prince and his Favourites; then it is lawfull for us to assist the representative body of the Land (whom we entrust with our laws and liberties) against those who resist and oppose them, that they may the more easily prevaile against, and make good their designes upon us.

And therefore although we will never cease to sue unto the King, and humbly to supplicate the King of Kings, for peace and unity, yet if we cannot obtain it, without the dishonour of God, the losse of our Religion, Priviledges, Liberties and Laws, the endangering, yea exposing of our most faithfull Parliament, to imminent perill, and the hazard of his Majesties Person, honour and estate; we may then with the peace of God, his holy Angels, and of our own consciences take up Arms for the Defense of all these.



8.9. Richard Ward, The Anatomy of Warre (26 November, 1642)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

Richard Ward, The Anatomy of Warre, Or, Warre with the wofull, fruits, and effects thereof, laid out to the life: VVherein from Scripture, and experience, these things are clearely handled; to wit,
1. What Warre is.
2. The grounds, and causes of Warre.
3. The things requisite in War.
4. The nature, and miseries of War, both Civill, and Forraigne.
5. What things are justly taxed in War.
6. When War is lawfull.
7. Whether it be lawfull for Christians to make War.
8. Whether Subjects may take up armes against their Soveraignes.
9. The remedies against War.
10. The Meanes to be freed from War.
11. The Remedies, and Meanes both Military, and Morall for the obtaining of Uictory in War.
By R. W. Minister of the Word at Stansteed Mount Fitchet in Essex.

Hoc & Ratio doctis, & Necessitas Barbaris, & Mos gentibus, & seris Natura ipsa praescripsit, ut omnem semper vim quacunque ope possent, à corpore, à capite, à vita sua propulsarent.
Cicero pro Milone.
LONDON, Printed for Iohn. Dalham, and Rich, Lownds.

Estimated date of publication

26 November, 1642.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 199; Thomason E. 128 (15.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

AS Children through ignorance of the nature, and perill of Fire often times fall thereinto, and are burnt: so Men not acquainted with the nature, and danger of Warre, too often desire it,a and too soone rush into it, to their own ruine. And therefore that we may see clearly, as in glasse, the true nature of this heavy plague of Warre, which now threatens our desolation, and the downfall of our Church and state, I have once againe stept upon the Stage, and for the good of my Country, exposed my selfe to the sight, and censure of all eyes and tongues. Omitting wholly what I have handled concerning Warre, both in my Pious &illegible; &illegible; Parliament time; and in The Principall duty of Parliament men; and in The Vindication of the Parliament, and their proceedings; I will here for the information of the judgment, the clearing of the understanding, and the satisfaction of the conscience of all those, who will peruse this Treatise, lay down many things, concerning both Warre in generall, and Civill Warre in particular; although for brevities sake I shall omitt many things concerning both, which might be said, and treat but briefly of those things which I do handle.

What Warre is.Warre in generall, is a lawfull defence, whereby the ordinary, and lawfull Magistrate, for just causes taking up Armes, doth publickely repell force with force, revengeth publicke, and generall injuries, or recovers generall, or generally sustained losses. In this Definition these things are observable. viz.

I. That Warre is not to be undertaken, but for just causes.

II. That it belongs onely unto the Magistrate to make Warre, and not to private persons

III. That it is not to be moved, but repelled: not kindled, but quenched: that is, rather for defence then offence: for the punishing of injuries, than the doing of wrong. All which showes evidently the lawfulnesse of the Parliaments Warres, their Cause being Religion, and the Republiques good; Themselves the greatest Magistrates, and of greatest power; and this designe of theirs declined as long as possibly they could, with the safety of the State.

The Causes of Warre.Q. 1. It may here be demanded, What the grounds, & causes of Warre are?

A. 1. First, in generall, the great Alexander being once demanded, why he endeavoured by Warre, to be Lord of the whole world, made answer; All the Warres that are raised in this world, are for one of these there Causes; viz. either to have many Gods, many Lawes, or many Kings: therefore I desire by Warr to possesse the world, and to command it, that all the inhabitants thereof may honour but one God, serve but one King, and observe but one Law.(b)

A. 2. Secondly, and more particularly, Warrs come sometimes from a good ground, or cause, sometimes from a bad bottome, or foundation.

First, sometimes War comes from good grounds, it being onely ordained to make men live in peace; whence Augustine(c) saith, That even amongst, yea by the true Worshipers of God, Warrs are often raised, and undertaken, not out of coveteousnesse, or cruelty, but out of a true, and sincere desire of setling peace. Yea hence the Emblematists devised this Hieroglyphicke to expresse this truth, viz,(d) a Helmet which had been used in War, being in time of peace neglected, and laid by, a swarme of Bees (emblemes of sweet peace) come and hire, build, and breed therein: the Motto or word was, ex bello pax. Peace is the off-spring of War, or War the Parent of Peace: much like unto the souldiers sword, which in Martiall was turned in the time of peace unto a Reapers siele.

Pax me certa ducis placidos curvavit in &illegible;:

Agricolæ nunc sum, militis ante fui.

Secondly, sometimes Warr comes from a bad bottome, or foundation, yea for the most part springs from one, or other of these evill rootes; to wit, either,

I. From some unbridled pleasures, and immoderate, and inordinate lusts.(e) Or

II. From diversity of Religion. For,

I. Sometimes Satan the father, and Prince of Heresy, stirs up Ware against the woman. And,

II. Antichrist, alwayes having an intestine hatred, and bitternesse of spirit, and mind against Christ, and his truth, instigates, and sets on work still some instruments or other, for the opposing, distracting, and dividing of those places, and persons who professe the Gospel. Or

III. From some coveteous desires, and affections. The fountaine, and originall of all Warrs, and seditions (saith Plutarch.:f:) are the corrupt coveteous desires of man, whereby, by hooke, and crook, right or wrong; he pursues after vehemently whatsoever he conceives, to be for his profit, and advantage. Whence Seneca(g) faith:

Si duo de nostris toll as pronomina rebus.

Praliacessarent, pax sine lite soret. That is,

Take from the world these Pronounes, Mine, and Thine,

The Warrs will cease, and peace through the world will seine.

IV. From ambition, or, a desire to rule:(h) It is observed by Entropius, and others, that the Romanes were 400, yeares in conquering of Jtaly, and that for the most part; they were ever in their Warrs Assailants, and but seldome times Defendants: and why so? but onely from their ambition to rule others, and to bring all into their subjection. Yea what but ambition, and a desire of supreame Soveraigery was the cause of all Alexanders, and the great Turkes Warrs?

V. Warrs alwayes, at least on one part, or in regard of one side comes from some sinne or other: according to that of Plutarch.(i) There is no Warr whereof some sinne, or vice is not the cause; viz, either pleasure, coveteousnesse, ambition, desire to rule, or the like.

VI. As Warrs come from some sinne or other of those who raise them, so they come from or for the sinnes of those against whom they are raised: for the sword is sent by God unto a people for their sinnes, and is therefore the punishment of sin. Yea sin is Causa sine qua non, such a cause of all Warrs, that no Nation should be annoied with any, if it were not for their sins.(k)

Qu. 2. Having thus cursorily run over the grounds or causes of Warr, in the next place we will consider Requisita, what, or how many things are requisite in Warr?

A. 1. I may answer hereunto, either as a Souldier, or as a Scholler.The things required in Ware.

First, if I should answer this as a Souldier, or as a Scholler in Mars his Schoole, then I might say, as Brasidæs was wont to say,(k) That these three things are requisite, and necessary in Ware: to wit,

I. To be willing to fight: for if a man hunt with unwilling hounds, he will scarrely ever catch the hare, and if a man fight against his will, he will hardly endeavour as he ought to overcome him, or them, with, or against whom he fights. And,

II. To feare disgrace, and shame: for if he be shamelesse, and fearelesse of disgrace, he will quickly flee, and forsake his colours. And,

III. To be obedient to Commanders; for if the souldier do not obey his Captaine, and Commanders, he will quickly be disranked; he may quickly be slaine, or taken by the enemy: and cannot performe any good service for him, under whom he fights.

A. 2. Secondly, if I should answer this as a Divine, or as a Scholler in Christs Schoole, then I must say, that these three things are required in every lawfull Ware, viz.

I. A lawfull Authority commanding it; for Warr must not be attempted without the Authority of the Magistrate.

II. A just, and lawfull end, or cause, occasioning, and moving it. Now what the lawfull Causes of Warre are and when Warre is lawfully undertaken followes by and by.

III. A good affection in following it, or a due consideration of the manner of the enterprising, and prosecuting of it: for although the cause of Warre be just, yet it must not be rashly set upon, but all other meanes must first be tried.(l)

The nature and noiseries of Warre.Qu. 3. It may now be enquired, What the Nature of Warre is?

A. 1. First, Warre is sometimes the whet-stone of fortitude, and the encourager, and stirrer up of youth unto Martiall discipline. When the King of the Lacedamonians did threaten, that he would utterly destroy and raze a certaine Citie, which had often annoyed the Lacedamonians, & found them work, the Ephori would not permit it, saying(m) Thou shalt not destroy, nor abolish the whet-stone of youth: calling thus that Citie which so often troubled them, the whet-stone of youth: because their young men thereby were whetted, and their affections set on edge to be skilfull in the art of Warre, seeing there were those so neare them, who would try both their skill, and strength upon every occasion, and advantage.

A. 2. Secondly, most commonly Warre is evill; whence the Scripture sometimes calls it, a grievous evill. Isa. 21. 15. sometimes an oppressing evill. Jerem. 46. 16. sometimes a bitter evill. 2. Sam. 2. 26. sometimes a devouring evill. 2. Sam. 2. 26. Ier. 50. 22. sometimes an evill which pierceth unto the heart, and soule. Ierem. 4. 10.

A. 3. Thirdly, Warre is of that nature that few are enriched thereby, as appeares thus; If any grow rich by Warre, then it is those who gather the spoiles thereof; but seldome these; therefore few or none. We say, Malè parta, malè dilahuntur; goods ill got wast like snow before the sun: as money wonne at playe, or got by theft. Yea lawfull prey, for pillage is seldome long enjoyed, according to our English Proverbe, Gightly come, Gightly go; or, to the Greek Adage &illegible;kappav πολεμίας, I got this booty in the warrs from an enemie, and therefore I may spend it the more freely.

A. 4. Fourthly, Warre is the cause of all innovations, alterations, and mutations in a State, they being still brought in by the sword, or an overawing power. Whence Lucien saith, opsgr πήλεμ&illegible; &illegible;π&illegible;ν τohpegrν π&illegible;&illegible;ίrhosymbol, Warre is the father of all things, or the Author of all changes in States, and Kingdomes, from which all things seeme to proceed. Historians observe, that there is a vicissitude, and intercourse of all things, and that once in a 100 or at least in 400. yeares there is some great change, and alteration in all governments, and States, either in Religion, or manner of government, or Governours, which change whatsoever it is, seldome comes but by Warre. As for example, if ours or any Protestant Prince should desire to introduce, or set up Popery, it would very hardly be don but by the sword, and a strong power; Warre producing all innovations, and mutations in States.

A. 5. Fiftly, Warre is a miserable plague; whence this word Warre in the Hebrew tongue, hath its name from cutting, biting, and devouring, because warrs devoure, and consume many. Hence the sword is said to have a mouth, that is, an edge.(m) and to eat(n) that is, to kill. Warre is one of Gods 4. fierce, and devouring plagues:(o) yea one of his 3. forest judgments(p) and seemes to be the greatest of all the 3. or 4.(q)

Qu. 4. Some may here say, If Warre &illegible; of this nature, then what may we thinke thereof?

A. 1. First, we may safely thinke, that some Warre is lawfull; for (as Augustine saith,)r If Christianity should blame, or taxe all warrs, then when the souldiers asked Christ what they should do for the salvation of their soules, he would undoubtedly have bidden them to cast away their weapons, and to give over Warre, which he doth not but onely forbids them to wrong any, and bids them he content with their wages: which showes plainely, that some Warrs are lawfull, and therefore not all to be condemned.

A. 2. Secondly, we may thinke that the event of Warr is most uncertaine; and therefore they are much mistaken who expect from the Warrs nothing but good news, and prosperous successe in all designes, and enterprizes,(s) for he who puts on his armour must not bragge, as &illegible; that puts it off. Philip of Macedon warring upon the Grecians, Diogenes came into histent, and being conducted to the Emperour, and asked if he were a South-sayer, or Fortune-teller? answered(t) yes I am a true Fore-teller, and Fortune-teller of thy folly, and vanity, who (when none compells thee) comes to hazard thy life, and Kingdome, and to cast the dice of warr, whether thou shalt live or not, and whether thou shalt have a Kingdome at command, or to possesse or not. When 2. Armies are in the fields, we see both of them to have warlike weapons, and both to have humane bodies(u); and not the one of them to be armed, and the other naked, and the one mortall, but the other immortall; and therefore successe, event, and expectation, never deceive us, or frustrats our hope so much, in any thing as in Warr.

A. 3. Thirdly, we may thinke of Warr, that it is a thing not to be desired; and that none delights in the sound of the warlike Drums, or in the the Alarmes of Warr; but onely they who never tasted the bitternesse thereof(w) for he who hath once felt the smart of it, will tremble as oft as he thinks of its approach, or summons therunto. And therfore we must use all our best skill, and cunning alwayes to avoide warr as much as possibly we can,(x) it being a thing of that nature, that no wise man will desire it, nor willingly (when he can, and may avoide it) cast himselfe into Mars his armes, or expose himselfe to the mercy of his enemies sword, and his body, and life to perill, seeing it is not in our power to overcome or conquer, the issue of all warr being doubtfull, and hazardous.(y)

A.4. Fourthly, we may well thinke, that Warr is not so easily ended as begun; and that all should take notice of this who undertake Ware, that it is easily begun, but hardly ended, easy to enter into, but hard to get out of, (like a curious drawn Garden maze) the beginning and ending not being in the same mans power:(z) for every coward, or fresh water souldier may begin Ware, but it is laid aside, when the Conquerour will.(a)

A.5. Fiftly, we may thinke, that Warr is such a thing, that to be free from it, is a great blessing, and happinesse, and so pronounced to be by God. Isa. 2. 4. Mich. 4. 3. And therefore is never to be attempted, but upon immergent necessity.

A.6. Sixthly, we may thinke this of Ware to wit, That if peace may be procured, Warr is not to be Waged; as Marcian the Emperour was wont to say(b) Kings must not take up Armes against their subjects or any, so long as they may live quietly, and in peace.

A.7. Seventhly, we may thinke of Warr, that it ought not to be undertaken rashly, or unadvisedly, but with most mature deliberation; and that before we begin Ware, we should well consider what may happen in Ware(c) and not onely thinke with our selves, what power, and strength we have: but what the power of chance, or common sate of Ware is, or may be.(d)

A.8. Eightly, we may safely thinke of Ware, that it is evill, or a great judgment, or an evill, alwayes in some regard. The Æolians intending to ayd the Argives in their Warrs, Archidamus writ a letter unto them, wherein were onely these words, Quietnesse is good; and therefore if that be (as indeed it is) most true, then by the rule of contrarics it will follow, that War is evill. Yea Warr simply considered, and in it selfe, may be reckoned in the number of evills; that is, either.

I. Of evill of sinne, for it cannot be just on both sides. Or

II. Of evill of punishment; for it was ever held a scourge of God; and is onely therefore esteemed good, because we are bad.

Ninthly, we may think from the word of God that the war wherby whole Kingdomes are infested, wastest, and destroyed, comes not by chance, but by the purpose, permission, and providence of God, for the punishment of mens sinnes(a). And thus by these particulars we may ghesse at the nature of war, and see a little what we may think thereof: We will now briefly lay downe.

Quest. 5. What things are justly taxed in warre?

Ans. 1. An implacable desire of revenge, or to mischeeve those with, or against whom we fight: For although we may punish offences, yet we must not revenge our selves; and I conceive that in war we should bee more ready and inclinable to spare when wee can take, and with safety keep alive, than to kill; especially when the warre is undertaken for the punishment of Delinquents, because then if we keep them alive, they may fall by the sword of justice in the Magistrates hand, as well as by us in battell; and therefore they who have no mercy upon any in war are justly taxed.

2. Cruelty in revenging, and punishing in warre is justly taxed, for although a man may kill his enemy in battell, yet he should not delight in using cruelty towards him, by devising new or strange: orments to make him die.

3. Covetousnesse of prey and pillage is taxed in warre; for althoug it is not a sin to fight in war, yet to fight or war only for prey or pillage, is a crime(b).

4. Ambitious desires to rule, or possesse the Thrones and Crownes of others, are justly taxed in war. A Philosopher presenting Antigonus with a book, de justititia, concerning just and upright dealing between man and man, be said(c), Thou art a foole in graine oh Philosopher, who when thou seest me oppressing with war strange Cities, telst me of justice and upright dealing: Implying thus much, That they who for the enriching of themselves, or for the enlarging of their Territories, or for the glory of their Name, seek other mens Cities and Crownes, cannot observe the Lawes of righteousnesse. And therfore this ambitious desire is in war justly worthy of blame.

Quest. 6. I will now lance this plague soare of War, and touch it to the quick, in and by this quere: What the miseries of war are?

The miseries and miserable fruits and effects of war are many and great; as for example.

Answ. 1. In war the most wicked are held the most warlike, yea, except a man be exorbitantly wretched, he is scarce esteemed a resolute and right bred souldier; for as a plough-man except he be crooked and bending to his labour, doth never make cleare work, nor furrow his land handsomely, as the Jewes were wont to say; so except a souldier can sweare, swagger, ravish Maids, deflower Matrons, and play the villaine in graine, he is scarcely counted a man at armes in these corrupt times.

2. War continued, or long wars make men inhumane, for consuetudo peccandi tollit sen sum peccati, that is,

At first sinne seemes to us loathing, but often sinning makes sinne seeme nothing; reade and compare together, 2 King 8. 12. 13. with 10. 32. 33. where before Hazael ever truly entred into the wars, he thought he could never be so cruell, as to dash the childrens braines against the stones, as the Prophet foretold; but afterwards when he was inured with warre, he did it. And thus the continuall warres which the Siciliant had, made them like savage beasts, as Plutarch saith.

3. Warre brings populous Cities to utter destruction, and desolation(a); as we see by Fridericus Oenobarbus, who when he had overthrown Millain, sowed salt there, and harrowed it, to shew that that City was brought to utter destruction.

4. War brings misery, and desperate distractions upon, and unto that Kingdome were it is: For, as the Sea (though vast and great) is tossed and troubled when the winds strive and rage; so when Kings contend, and make war one upon another, their whole Kingdoms are disquited, perplext and vext(b).

5. War wasts that in an instant, which was long a finishing, and ruines in a trice what was long are edifying; for as Herestratus, an obscure and base man, could easily burn the Temple of Diana of the Ephesiant, which was 220 yeeres a building of all Asia, at the cost of many Kings, and beautified with the cunning labours of many excellent workmen; so it is most easie in war, by fire and sword quickly to subvert famous and admired Cities, as we see by Niniueh, Jerusalem and others, and shall see (we hope) by Rome. Wofull experience in poore Ireland shewes that warre wasts and consumes all wheresoever it comes, whether Townes, Cities, Villages, Corne-fields, Vine-yards, Forts, Orchards, and whatsoever is necessary for the sustentation of man.

6. Warre spares none, neither man, woman, nor child, neither young nor old: Virgins and Wives in warre are ravished and vitiated: Infants are trampled without pity or mercy under the horse feet, or tossed upon speares points: Women with child are often cut up and diffected.

7. War exposeth all things to prey, plundering and pillage. And

8. Caffeth, or carrieth those who are left unslaine into exile, captity, banishment, and bondage.

And thus I have briefly shewed the nature and misery of War in generall: I will now proceed to the consideration of Civill-war, wherein first we will take a view of the nature, then of the misery thereof.

Quest. 7. What is the nature of Civill war?

Answ. 1. It is a misery of miseries, for when wars arise in a Commonwealth, great calamities do invade that place, both publikely and privatly(c): war being like a swelling and overflowing streame and tide, which scatters, wasts, overturnes and beates down all things before it; much more Civill wars, wherein one part of the Land wars upon, or against another, as it is now in Ireland, and begun in England(d). In Civill wars nothing but misery can be expected, for if the worst part prevaile, their mercies are cruell, and if the better side get the better, yet it cannot be without much losse and blood-shed of the Inhabitants of the Land(e): And therefore Civill (or uncivill) wars is a misery of miseries.

Quest. 8. But may some say, What are the miseries of Civill war?

Many and great, as namely.

Answ. 1. Civill war is not easily appeased, nor quickly quieted, but once begun continues long; For as the wings of birds though clipt, doe speedily grow out againe, so the fire of Civill war once kindled, is not easily quenched, but although it be raked up for some time in the enibers of seeming reconciliation, yet upon every occasion it breaksforth againe.

2. Civill war is the wasting of the subject, and brings the Inhabitants of the land into a consumption: For as Dragons sucking the blood of Elephants, kill them, and they in like manner being drunk with their blood are squeesed in peeces by the fall of the Elephant, and so die; so oftentimes, yea for the most part in Civill war, both parts doe destroy and are destroyed, and both sides doe endammage and are endammaged(f).

3. Civill war exhausts the exchequer, or brings the Treasure or riches of the Land into an Hectique Fever, being like a vessell capt at both ends, which quickly runs out. This we see to our griefe both in Ireland and at home.

4. Civill war is the overthrow of all Estates and Monarchies, as appeares by the Roman Empire, and the &illegible; Monarchy of Alexander the Great.

5. Civill wars beget corruption of manners, and makes wicked men and deceivers grow daily, by much, worse and worse. And

6. It begetteth a change of Lawes, for as ex malis moribus bonæ leges, good Lawes come from evill customes and corrupt conversation, if the good side or party prevaile, but the enslaving and envassalling of the subject by a Law, if the worse win the Field.

7. Civil war exposes or layes a Land open unto the rage and fury of others, or invites forraigne Forces, and power to endeavour the conquering and subduing of them: For as the Eagle and Crane doe so vehemently contend and strive, that oftentimes clasping together in the aire they fall down unto the earth and are taken up alive of Shepherds; so now and then it commeth to passe, that whilst Princes perversly exercise mortall and deadly wars against their subjects, another invader when he finds him sufficiently weakned, puts in for a hand or lot, and carries all away; The Emblematists have observed this, and discribed it by a Lyon and wild Bore, who fight so long for victory or mastery, that at length they both become a prey unto the Vulture, who awaits them untill they have so weakned one another that they are unable to defend themselves; the word is, Ex damno alterius, alterius utilitas, The losse of the Inhabitants in Civill and uncivill wars is the gaine of forragn Invaders.

8. Civill war beget want of reverence towards God, for the madnesse and outrage thereof is such and so great, that it profanes and polutes every holy thing and place(g); neither times, places, nor persons, that is, neither the Lords day, nor his House, nor his Deputies the Magistrates, nor his Messengers the Ministers, being regarded by rude uncivill souldiers in Civill wars.

9. Civill war makes that King who undertakes unjust wars against his subjects to repent him of his victory, when he truly sees what hee hath done; and he overcomes in Civill wars wofully who repents him of his victory: and had therefore much better pardon his subjects if they doe offend him, then repent after Conquest the slaughter and destruction of them(h).

10. Civill war maketh many poore, according to that of Antisthenes, to whom one saying, That in wars the poore perish, answered(i); Nay, in war the poore are multiplied, many being impoverished thereby, as we finde it true both in this Land and in Ireland.

11. Civill war brings good and bad into misery, or the sword of civill warre wounds, yea murders both the innocent and guilty: for when the fire or flame thereof breaks forth in a Land, both guilty and guiltlesse, both wicked and righteous, feele equally the smart, and misery thereof;(j) neither love nor hatred being knowne by any externall thing.(k) And thus by these particulars we may easily ghesse at the Nature and Misery of civill warres.

Quest. 9. It may in the next place be demanded, when warre is lawfull? or, seeing that sometimes it is lawfull to fight, and sometimes not, how may we know when, with the peace of a good conscience, we may wage warre, or aid and assist these who fight?

Answ. 1. War is lawfull when it is for Religion, and the Republicks good. When Pope Eugenius offred to bestow some Cities upon Alphonsus, because he had recovered Piconum, and subjected it to the Sea of Rome, he answered, That he neither fought for profit nor prey, but only for Religion and the Churches cause.(l) And

2. When it is to procure the continuance and setling of peace and quietnesse. Men prepare war, when they desire peace, because (as we say in a proverb) weapons bode peace,(m) yea wars are undertaken that men may live in peace without injury and oppression.(n) And as men sustaine and endure hard labour upon hope of rest and case, so wise men make warre in hope, and for the effecting of tranquility and peace.(o) Indeed men doe not desire peace, that war may follow, but make war that peace may be obtained: Let those therefore who wage war with or against any, be peace-makers in their warring; that is, by labouring to overcome those against whom they fight and contend, that so they may bring them to embrace the sweet and profitable conditions of peace(p). In war, we say, the end must be good, which end in generall is Gods glory, in speciall the conservation of justice, and confirmation of peace: Pugna pacis mater, war is the mother of peace.

3. War is lawfull when it is for the defence of a mans owne right, or for the safety, safeguard, and preservation of our Cities, and habitations(q): For reason teacheth the learned, necessity the rude, custome the Gentiles, and nature the wilde beasts, to repay war with war, and force by force, when they are robbed and deprived of their right by injustice and oppression(r).

4. War is lawfull when it is to repulse our enimies: Moses(s) said to Ioshua, chuse us out men, and goe fight: upon which words Piscator observes, that it is lawfull for the people of God to defend themselves with weapons against their enimies; for Moses doth here nothing of himselfe, but by Gods direction. And

5. When it is deliberately begun, and speedily ended: undertaken with good advice, and given over with all willingnesse, when it may with safety, conveniency, and the good of Church and State. And

6. When it is in defence of the innocent: for that war whereby either our Countrey is defended from invaders, or the weak and innocent from oppression, or our friends from theeves and wicked persons, is a most just war(a). Or when war is attempted and enterprized to deliver the oppressed, and to bridle the insolency and cruelty of the wicked(b).

7. War is lawfull when it is for the punishment of publick injuries and wrongs; for just wars were wont to be thus defined, contentions whereby we endeavour to punish publick injuries and wrongs(c); and therefore that war was not only of old held just, but also necessary, which defended force by force.(d) And

8. When it is for Gods people, it is lawfull, 2 Sam. 10. 12. And

9. When the cause is iust, and weighty, not light and frivolous; &illegible; &illegible;εigrgr σkappavε&illegible;ς opsoxgr&illegible;&illegible;. vel de lana caprina, as about the shadow of an Asse, or, the fleece of a Goat, as the Proverbs are: that is, for trifles, and things of no value: but as Suetonius said to, and of Augustus, Quod nulli genti sine justis & necessariis causis bellum intulit, that he never made war with any Nation without just and necessary causes.(e) And

10. When it is undertaken by lawfull authority, to wit, of the Magistrate as was shewed before. And

11. When it is only against those who injure us, or raise uniust war against us, or our Countrey. Note here, that our Countrey, or Kingdom may be injured by an enimy two manner of wayes, to wit:

First, When he invades, by unjust forces, our temporall possessions and good things, labouring by a strong hand to deprive us of them, whether it be our liberties, lawes, lives, riches, inheritances, wives, children, &c. Now against such as these we have just cause to defend our selves.(f) And

Secondly, When he labours to rob and spoile us of our spirituall and eternall treasure and riches, viz. the true worship of God, the true, pure, and holy Religion; and consequently the salvation of our soules.(g)

12. War is lawfull when it is carried in a good manner: for although God himselfe hath taught Stratagems in war, and consequently allowes them; yet lawfull Covenants and Faith given must bee kept inviolable.

13. When Malefactors, Malignants, and Delinquents are maintained, and protected, as Iudg. 20.

14. When Rebellion is moved, or raised in a Land, and defensive armes are prepared for the preservation of the State, as David waged war against Sheba, 2 Sam. 20.

15. When it is against Apostates, and back-sliders in Religion, Deut. 13. 12. &c. Lyran in Numb. 31.

16. When it is better than peace; for(h) an honest war is to be preferred before a base and shamefull peace.

17. When it is enterprized by the speciall commandment of God, as Saul was sent against Amaleck.

18. When it is for the rescuing and recovering of such things as are unlawfully taken away, 1 Sam. 30.

19. When it is incruentum bellum, an unbloody warre; or as Laertius saith, apsgrδαkappavrhosymbolugrgrς πόλεμος, a warre without weeping; that is, when the victory is got without blood-shed, and murder.

20. When it is for the preservation of liberty, and prevention of slavery and bondage. When time and necessity requires (saith Tully) we must fight, because death is to be preferred before base slavery and servitude, and a man had better die in the wars, than live in disgrace and bondage.(i)

Lastly, War is lawfull, when there is no other meanes left; for that warre is lawfull which is necessary, and those armes are just and warrantable, which are not taken up untill there is no hope at all of peace or safety, but by warre.(k) And hence the Jewes in all their voluntary wars, first offered peace unto their enimies, and then denounced warre; but did not execute it untill first they had made this threesold Proclamation, viz.(l)

  • 1He that will have peace, let him have peace.
  • 2He that will flee, let him flee.
  • 3He that will make war, let him make war.

This we must alwayes remember in warre, that though both the cause be just, and the authority sufficient; yet must it not be rashly or hastily undertaken,(m) for no man trieth extremities at the first. Warre is one of the sharpest remedies to cure the maladies of a Common-wealth, and the event thereof is both doubtfull and dangerous; and therefore it should bee the last refuge, and only then used when necessity enforceth.

Quest. 10. Although it be not much doubted or questioned, whether the Jews or Gentiles of old did lawfully, as occasion served them, make warre, yet it is ordinarily enquired, whether it be lawfull for Christians, now under the Gospel, to make war or not?

Answ. It is, as is proved by these grounds, viz.

1. God, by Moses prescribes a forme of making warre, Deut. 20. 1. and therefore certainly he did allow his people sometimes, and upon some occasions to make warre.(n)

2. We read that many of Gods faithfull servants have made warre, as Abraham Gen. 14. 28. Moses, Exod. 17. 8. Ioshua, Exod. 17. 9. Iosh. 1. 14. and 12. 7. the Judges, 1. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 11. chapters, the Kings, David, Asa, Iosaphat, Hezekiah.

3. Iohn Baptist forbids not souldiers to fight, neither commands them to give over warre, if they would be saved; but to wrong none, and be content with their wages, Luke 3. 14.

4. The Magistrate is said, Rom. 13. 4. not to beare the sword in vaine, but to bee the Minister of God for our good, and a revenger to execute wrath upon him who doth evill. Which plainly shews, that the right of the sword is allowed both against private faults and offenders, and also against publick, who by armes are to be resisted and opposed.

5. Cornelius the Centurion, Acts 10. 1. is commended for his faith, and did not give over warfare (that we read of) when he was baptized: which undoubtedly the Apostles would not have suffered if war had been prohibited unto Christians. And so Math 8. 10. the saith of another Centurion is highly commended.

Rom. 13. 4.6. It is most certain, that a great part of the Magistrates duty is, to protect and defend innocents, orphans, widdowes, and those that are oppressed, which sometimes without Armes cannot be done. And therfore if the case require it, the godly Magistrate may flee unto this last remedy of war. It is the office of the Magistrate, to take vengeance on him that doth evill: Now it may fall out that not one or two, or a few, but a multitude may do evill, and commit some outrage, who cannot be resisted but by force of armes; and then the Magistrate is to use this meanes of the sword for the suppression of evill, and the vengeance of evill doers.

7. That which God perswades unto, and which is done by the inspiration and assistance of his holy Spirit, is lawfull; but God often perswades and exhorts the Saints to make warre, and is said to be present with them by his spirit, and to give victory unto them; and therefore warre is lawfull, Iosh. 1. Iudg. 6. 11. and 13. chapters, 1 Sam. 15. and 30. chapters, Psal. 44.

8. That which the Saints doe by faith is lawfull unto them, but by faith they make warte, Heb. 11. 34. therefore warre is lawfull unto them.

9. The Scripture saith, There is a time to war, and a time to make peace, Ecclesiast. 3. 8. And therefore warre is lawfull.

10. God is stiled, The Lord of Hoasts, a man of war; One who teacheth our hands to warre, and who giveth victory in battell, and therefore warre is lawfull.

Quest. 11. But whether is it lawfull for Subjects to take up armes against their Soveraigne?

Answ. Dr. Sharp (Symphon. Proph. & Apost. pag. 244.) answers hereunto, that there are two sorts of Subjects, to wit.

1. Some who are meerely private, and these ought not of themselves to take up armes against their King.

2. Some who are so private, that the superior power in some sort doth depend upon them, as the Tribunes amongst the Romans; the Ephori amongst the Lacedemonians; and our Parliaments amongst us: And if Princes observed not their Covenants and promises, these might reduce them, and if they sought the overthrow of the State, these might withstand them.

Quest. 12. What are the Remedies against warre, that is, both for the preventing and removall of it?

Answ. 1. The Remedies are either Morall, Martiall, or Theologicall.

First, the Morall meanes are these two, to wit:

1. Humble sutes and supplications for peace, unto them from whom a warre is feared.

2. Expressions of the Loyalty of our actions, and sincerity of our intentions and desires, however they may be wrested or misconstrued.

Secondly, The Military meanes are many, as namely,

1. To follow close a victory: this was Hanibals fault, who could tell better how to winne the field, than how to use his victory: and this Casar blamed in Pompey, that having once the better of him, he did not follow his fortune.

2. To give way to a storme. Pleu andet andax quam fortis, a foolehardy man dare doe more than one truly magnanimous; for the property of a good souldier is not to runne himselfe into such desperate hazards, that there is no probability for him to come off with safety; but couragiously to adventure upon any feazible designe, and to give it over, when it may bee given over, but cannot bee effected or brought to passe. It is better (as all know and will confesse) for souldiers sometimes to retreat, that they may returne againe to their greater advantage, than to keep their stations and die. Whence Antigonus once forced to give way to the violent onset of his enemies, said,(o) That he did not flie, but pursue his profit and advantage, which was placed backwards, or behinde him; intimating, that in such a case it was more commodious for him to goe backwards than forwards, to retire than to advance.

3. Another Military meanes for the removall of warres is Prudence, Magnanimity, and skill in Martiall discipline, in the Captaines, Commanders, and Officers.

4. Another is, for Captaines and Commanders to observe, and mark diligently all conveniences and advantages of time, place, &c. both for pitching their tents, and fighting their battells.

5. Another is, in the souldiers strength, courage, resolution, and obedience to their Commanders.

6. Another is, for Captaines and souldiers in necessity, when they can, to help one another.

7. Another is, for Captaines and Common Souldiers to bee well armed, for and against all assayes, and assaults: But more amply of these by and by in the way unto Victory.

Thirdly, the Theologicall or Religious Remedies or Means for the preventing and removing of Warre, are these which follow, and the like, viz.

1. To warre upon our selves; The Oracle of Apollo answered those of Cyrrha, That if they would live in peace at home, they should make war with their neighbours abroad; but if we desire peace with others, we must wage continuall war with our selves, and our own sins, wickednesse within, being the true cause of war without.

2. To humble our selves before and unto God, by fasting, Joel 2. & 3. Jonah 3.

3. To enter into a covenant and holy league with God, Hose 2. 18.

4. Seriously to repent and to turne truly unto God, Levit. 26. 40 &c. Devt. 30. 1. and 32. 36. and 1 Sam. 7. 3. Jer. 4. 8. and 6. 26.

5. A promise of thankfulnesse or thanksgiving unto the Lord, if he will be pleased to give victory unto us or preserve and deliver us from warre, and the performance of this promise when he hath answered our desires.

6. Prayer unto God, and that both in generall and particular.

First, in generall we must pray that the Lord would be our Captain in the time of War, and take our part and fight for us, there being nothing without him which will or can help us, that is, neither

1. Strong, and well instructed Armies, Psal. 33. 16. Nor

2. Fenced Cities, Amos 5. 9. Nor

3. Great or mighty colleagues or confederates, Psal. 60. 13. and 62. 10. And therefore let us not trust in any of these or the like, but only in the Lord, as these his Saints have done, to wit, Asa(p), Iosaphet(q), David(r), Isa(s) Hezekiah(t).

Secondly, Because the Lord works ordinarily by meanes, therefore we must in speciall and more particularly pray when we are anoid and infested with war.

1. That the Lord would bestow upon our Captaines, Commanders, and Officers, such wisedome, and prudence, yea such fortitude and courage, that they may consult of, manage, and order all things wisely and discreetly, and prosecute, yea execute all things prosperously, magnanimously, and with good successe, Psal. 20. 1. 5.

2. That the Lord would encline the hearts of the souldiers unto obedience, and subjection to their Captaines; and preserve them from all sedition and rising up against their Commanders

3. That the Lord would preserve both Commanders and Common Souldiers from all wickednesse and impiety, especially from those hainous offences which too frequently follow the Camp and accompany wars; as namely, blasphemy, fornication, rapes, drunkennesse, gaming, jarres, contentions, theft, pilsering, &c.

4. That the Lord would strengthen the hands of all in battell, giving them courageous hearts, resolute minds, and firme resolutions, that their battels and endeavours may be crowned with victory.

Now that these our prayers may become effectuall, two things are required, viz.

First, They must proceed from a pure mind, or an heart purged from sinne(u).

Secondly, They must proceed from faith unfained, or from a firme confidence and assurance, that the Lord will heare our prayers in as much as may stand with his glory and our good(x).

And thus much for the Remedies against, or Meanes for removall of this plague of war from us.

Quest. 13. It may now in the last place be demanded, How victory may be obtained in War? Or by what means we may not only be preserved from the power of our enemies in battell, but also bring them by conquest and victory into subjection?

First, The Martiall meanes for the obtaining of victory in war, are either Negative, or Affirmative.

1. Negative, if souldiers desire conquest in fight, Then

1. They must not fall to pillaging too soone, lest their enemies take occasion thereby to fall upon them, and to take them unprovided.

2. They must not pursue their enemies in flight so eagerly, that they mingle themselves with them or run themselves so far in amongst them, that they are not able to bring themselves off againe with safety.

3. They must not at all trust to their multitude; for not alwayes that Army which is the greatest prevailes, but oftentimes the least. Darius against Alexander, Pompey against Cæsar, Hamball against Scipio, Antonius against Augustus, and Mithridates against Sylla, had greater Forces without comparison then their enemies, and yet were overcome.

4. They must not at all trust in their own strength: Thou hast therefore oh man (saith Augustine(a) not overcome in battell, because thou presumedst of thy selfe; for he who before fight, trusts in his own strength, shall be overthrown(b).

Secondly, There are Affirmative martiall meanes for the obtaining of Victory in War; as namely.

1. For Captaines highly to prize their souldiers, Fabius Maximus sent to Rome to the Senate for money, to redeeme his souldiers which Haniball had taken Prisoners, and being denied thereof, commanded his sonne to sell all his lands, and bring money for their ransome; so highly did he value and esteeme the freedome of his men. And thus every Captaine should doe if he would winne the love and affection of his souldiers, without which a Commander should hardly obtaine victory.

2. Courage and resolution in battell: 300 Noble-men of the house of the Fabii, tooke upon them alone to wage battell against the Vientines(c). To shew that a true and magnanimous souldier will not fear to undertake any noble feazible enterprize for the obtaining of Victory in the day of battell.

3. Long preparation for the undertaking thereof: Hee must long prepare for warre who would speedily overcome, because a long preparation of war makes a speedy victory(d).

4. To prosecute the wars with good counsell and advice; for there must be counsell at home when there is warre abroad(e).

5. A diligent observation of all conveniences and inconveniences which may happen, whether of Sun, winde, mists, &c. for the Sun and dust hinders our sight, and the winde being contrary, or in our face, is noxious both to horse, rider, and all kinds of darts, arrows, and shot.(a)

6. The use and assistance of expert and experienced souldiers, who know their termes of art, postures, conveniences, inconveniences, when to advance, when to fall off; and how to use their weapons, or handle their armes &c. One saying on a time to Epaminondas, that the Athenians were all armed with new armes and weapons, answered, What then? shall Antigenidas (who was a most curious Musitiam) weepe, because Tellia (who was a most poore player of instruments) hath got a new Pipe? signifying, that the Athenians were to small purpose armed with new weapons, seeing they knew not how to use them.(b) If an Army consist of raw, yong, and fresh-water souldiers, who seldome or never saw men wounded or slaine; when they come to see such sights, they will tremble and be confounded with feare, and begin to think rather of flying than fighting.(c) Experience shewes, that knowledge and skill in Military and Martiall discipline doth exceedingly embolden a souldier in battell; and that in warlike enterprizes, a few ancient and expert Warriours hath overcome, got the day, put to flight, yea to a fore slaughter, a great multitude of rude ignorant, untaught and untutered souldiers(d).

7. Subtilty, Policy, and secret stratagems: Note here, That Policy in war, is threefold, to wit,

1. For the immediate endangering of the enemy: It is observed That Haniball never sought any battell without laying some ambush for the ensnaring of his enemies: And when just war is taken in hand, it matters not whether a man endeavour to conquer, subdue, and master his Adversaries by open force or secret politike devices: for the Lord commanded Ioshua by deceit, or a secret stratagem, to overcome the Inhabitants of Ai(e). Good Captaine, doe not alwayes Vi & armis, by open force labour the overthrow of their foes, but chiefly endeavour it by secret stratagems, because in open warre there is a common danger, but in warlike devices those who lie in wait are not in such perill, as these are for whom they lie in walt(f). Antigonus being asked, How a man should give the onset upon his enemy? answered, either by force or frand, either openly or by deceit(g).

2. Policy in war is sometimes for the immediate preservation of themselves, and mediate or consequent disadvantage of their foes: P. &illegible; to avoid the Sunne that shined in the face of his Hoast, was so long in ranging his Army, that by the time the battells should joyne, the Sunne was upon his back. The like policy used Marius against the Cymbrians, and Augustus against the Flemings.

3. Policy in warre is sometimes for the encouraging of the souldiers against their enemies: Polemon to make his souldiers fiercer in assailing the Lacedemonians, cast his colours into the midst of his enemies, whereupon they pressed upon them with great violence, esteeming it a great shame to abandon their Ancient, or to have their enemies possesse their Ensigne.

8. Another martiall meanes for the obtaining of Victory, is the Captaines encouraging of his souldiers and convincing them of the lawfulnesse of the war in hand. Themistocles leading out the Army of the Athenians against their enemies, saw two Cocks fighting most fiercely; whereupon, hee turned him to his Souldiers, with these words(h): These neither fight for their Countrey, nor for their Religion, nor for their Possessions, nor for their fathers Sepulchers, nor for honor, nor for their wives & children, nor for their Lawes, or Liberties, but only, Left the one should be overcome of the other, and forced to yeeld unto him: How much more then should we hazzard and adventure our lives when we fight for all these? with which words his souldiers were so encouraged, that they went most courageously and resolutely against their Adversaries.

9. Another meanesis, experienced Commanders and stout Captains; Cæbriat the Athenian was wont to say(i): That an Army of Deere was more terrible if they had but a Lyon to be their Captaine, than an Army of Lyons having an Hart to be their Captaine.

10. Another meanes is, to cope with the enemy, before his strength encrease too much; whence Iulius Cæsar was wont to say,(k) That it was a great madnesse for any to stay untill the Hoast or their enemy was encreased and multiplied; because he who desires to conquer and subdue his foe, may in all probability sooner doe it when his Army is small, than when it is great, when he hath few to aid him, than when he hath many.

11. Another meanes is, to be resolute, and couragious in battell. There is a people in Germany called Catti, whose strength consisteth in their foot-men; of whom it is said,(l) Others goe to skirmish, and the Catti to warre; such was their courage, magnanimity and undaunted resolution in the day of battell: much like to that speech of King Iames, That he had foure and twenty Players, and six Actors. Souldiers must not be like the Frenchmen, of whom it is said,(m) That if they loose the first encounter, they loose also the victory; but rather like the Lacedemonians, who of all people were most valiant, being both in the beginning and end of the battell more than men.

12. Another meanes is, to aime principally at the principall, and to levell at the Leaders, (as Scanderbeg was alwayes observed to doe) because, smite the sheepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. Epaminondas viewing a huge and well harnessed Army, but without a Leader, Generall, or Captain, said,(n) How great and faire a beast is here, but without an head.

13. Another meanes is, to warre only upon just causes. It is observed, That the Emperour Trajane was never overcome, or vanquished in warre, because he never undertook warre without just cause, as Hely the Spartan doth say. The Romans were never so foiled, neither ever received so much dishonour in all their warres in Asia, or Africa, as they received at the siege of Numantia; and this was not for default of battery or assault, or because the City was impregnable, but because their warres against Numantia were unjust, and the Numantines had just cause to defend themselves. Titus Livius observes, that Marcus Marcellus would not be Captaine of that warre, which was not very well justified; and that Quintus Fabius would never undertake that warre in chiefe, which was not very dangerous; and that these two Noble Princes were of high esteeme with the Romans: But in the end much more was the estimation of Marcus Marcellus for being just, than of Quintus Fabius for being valiant. Whence it hath beene said(o) That if the cause of the Warriour be good, the end of the warre cannot be evill; and contrarily the end of a fight is not judged to be good, except a good cause and a right intention did precede the fight.

These and the like, are the Military and Martiall Meanes which are to be used for the obtaining of Victory in Warre.

Object. Against these it may be objected, that victory in warre comes only from God; and therefore all Military meanes are vaine, none being able to preserve us from warre.

Answ. To neglect the meanes wholly, is to tempt Gods Providence, and to trust in the meanes, is to distrust Gods Providence; and therefore we must observe, how meanes profit, and how not, viz.

1. Military meanes will help us, as they are meanes ordained by God, for the removall of the malady of warre, if we use them in the feare of the Lord, and because ordained by God, putting our trust, confidence, and affiance for our protection and preservation wholly in Him, notwithstanding the use of the meanes

2. These meanes will not help us, if God being despised, neglected, and not looked at as all in the use of them; wee being intent only upon them, or at least respect them primarily, hoping that they will profit us without God: for victory in war is neither got by multitude, nor strength, but by the ayd, assistance, and power of God(p). And therfore these military meanes must now be used, and those Theologicall, mentioned in the 12 question, and then trust solely, wholly, and onely to our good and gracious God, who is the God of victory, and maketh wars to cease in the world: and to whom all praise and glory belongs both for the enjoyment of all good, and preservation from all evill, whether of sinne, or punishment.



 [a ] Duke bellum inexpertis.

 [b ] Guevara samilier. epist pag. 240.

 [c ] Qua non crudelitate, aut cupiditute, sed pacis studio geruntur, Aug in libr de Verb. &illegible;

 [d ] Andr. &illegible; emblem. Pag. 445.

 [e ] Iam. 4, 1.

 [f ] &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; & &illegible; &illegible; &c. Plutar consol. &illegible; &illegible;

 [g ] &illegible; 4. Piou.

 [h ] Genes. 14, 3.

 [i ] Nullum &illegible; bellum, cujus virium aliquod to sit causa, &c Plut. de repugn. Stoir.

 [k ] Livit. 26, 24, 25: Deut. 28, 36, 49 Iud: 2, 13, & 3, 1, 8, & 4, 1, & 6, 1, & 10, 6, & 13, 1, & 1, King 8, 33, Jsa. 5, 25, Ier. 5, 15.

 [k ] &illegible; 52 &illegible; ferm 52.

 [l ] Iudg. 10. 13. 2 King. 18. 14.

 [m ] Nequaquam abolobis, neque subveries juvenum cotem. Plutar. in Lacon. Brusolth. 3. 6. 15.

 [m ] Iob. 1, 15, Hebr. 11, 34.

 [n ] 2, Sam. 11, 25.

 [o ] Ezech. 14. 21.

 [p ] 2, Sam. 24, 13, 14.

 [q ] Levit. 26, 16, 17, 25, 33, Deut. 28, 48, &c.

 [r ] Si Christiana disciplina omnia bella culpares, &c Aug. &illegible; de centur.

 [s ] &illegible; qui in bello &illegible; &illegible; rerum &illegible; expectant, Iul. Cæs. Comm. &illegible; 7.

 [t ] &illegible; vanitatisq, tuæ &illegible; &illegible; specutator, &c.

 [u ] Virinque serrum, & cerpora humana crunt: nusquam &illegible; quam in &illegible; eventus respondent, Lev. lib. 3. &illegible; Duke &illegible; non expertis, at quigustauit, cotremiscit &illegible; quoties &illegible; illud videt. pindar &illegible; &illegible; &illegible;

 [w ] Duke &illegible; non expertis, at quigustauit, cotremiscit &illegible; quoties &illegible; illud videt. pindar &illegible; &illegible; &illegible;

 [x ] &illegible; &illegible; prudenter derliuanda, G. eg. in nor

 [y ] Sapientis non est velle certare, & periculose velle committere &c. Lactaut. l. 6.

 [z ] Scito omne bellum &illegible; sacile, cæterum ægerrimè disincre, &c. Salust, in Ingurth.

 [a ] Bellum &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; sicet. deponitur cum victores velint, Tull. in quæst.

 [b ] Imperatori ar, ma non essceaplenda, dum pacẽ habere liceret, Zo. naras to. 3. &illegible;

 [c ] &illegible; evenire in &illegible; potest, priusquam ingrediare considera, &illegible; &illegible;

 [d ] cum tuæe vires, &illegible; imfortunæ, Martemque belli communem propone animo, Liv. lib. 30.

 [(a) ] &illegible; 26. 17. &illegible; 31. &c. 2 Sam. 17. 24. 12. 13. Psal. 46. 9, 10.

 [(b) ] Militare non est delictuns, sed prepter prædam militare, peccatum est. Ambros.

 [(c) ] Despis, qui cum me videas alienas ubes armis vexantem, tamen apud me de justitia dicetis. Erasæ. lib. 4. Apoph. ex &illegible;

 [(a) ] terem. 48. 2. Hose. 5. 8. 9.

 [(b) ] Quemadmo dem certantibus &illegible; mare concuritut, &illegible; Reg bus sibi adversantibus, populus &illegible; vexacur. Cheysost in Matth.

 [(c) ] Cum &illegible; et publice & privarim magnæ urbem calamitates invadunt Plato lib. 1. de l. ge.

 [(d) ] &illegible; torrenen infiat omnia sternir, & vastat. Plut. de educat. puer.

 [(e) ] Omnia in bellis civilibus misera, &c. Tul. ad Mr. Marc.

 [(f) ] Plin. lib. &illegible; Chap. 32.

 [(g) ] Bellotum civilium insania omne sanctum & sa rum profanatur. Sen. lib. 1. de benef cap &illegible;.

 [(h) ] Male vicit qui pænitet victoriæ. Melius est enim ignoscere quam post victoriam pænitere, Senec. &illegible; 15.

 [(i) ] Imò tum plures fiunt &illegible; serm. 18.

 [(j) ] Vbibelium civile ingiur, innocentes, & &illegible; juxta cadunt. Tac. &illegible;

 [(k) ] Ecles. 9. 1.

 [(l) ] Senequaquã quæstus aut prædæ, sed ecclesiæ gratia hanc expeditionem &illegible;. Panorm lib. 3. de reb. gest. Alphon.

 [(m) ] qui desiderat pacem, præparat bellum. Vigitius.

 [(n) ] suscipienda bella sunt ut in Pace sine injuria vivotur. Tul. 1. offic.

 [(o) ] Sapientis pacis causa bellum gerunt ut laborem spe oth sustentant. Salust. ad Cæs.

 [(p) ] Non quæriturpax ut bellū exerceatur, sed bellum geritur, ut pax acquiratur. esto ergo belando pacificus, ut cos quos ex pugnas, ad pacis utiliratem vincendo perdu cas. Aug. in l de verb. dom.

 [(q) ] 2 Sam 10. 12.

 [(r) ] Hoc & ratio doctis, & necessitas barbaris, & mos gentibus &c. Cic. pro Milone.

 [(s) ] Exo, d. 17. 9.

 [(a) ] Forti &illegible; q’æ per bella tuetar a &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; defend &illegible; infirmos, vela latronibus locios, plena &illegible; est. Ambros de &illegible;

 [(b) ] Gen. 14. 14.

 [(c) ] Iusta bella &illegible; &illegible; quæ &illegible; injuries. &illegible;

 [(d) ] Be lam illu lest non &illegible; iustum, sea &illegible; necessarium, quum &illegible; illata defenditur. Gices. pro Milone.

 [(e) ] Sueton. in Aug. Chap. 21.

 [(f) ] Iudg. 19. 25. and &illegible; 1. 5. 2 Sam. 10. 12. Nehem. &illegible; 14.

 [(g) ] Deut. 13. 14. 2 Sam. 10. 12.

 [(h) ] Bellum honestum turpi pace preferendome? Demosthen.

 [(i) ] Quum tempus necessitasq; postulat, decertandu est manu & mors servituti turpitudinique anteponenda; nam occidi pulchrum est, si ignominiose servis, Cicer. in Tule, qu.

 [(k) ] Bellum est justum quod necessarisi est, & arma sant pia quibas nulla nisi in armis relinquitur spes, Liv. l. 9. dec. 1.

 [(l) ] Dedatse qui vult, fugiat qui vult, pugnet qui vult.

 [(m) ] Extrema primo nemo tentavit loco.

 [(n) ] Num. 10. 9. and 31. 2, 17. Iudg. 1. and 3. chapters.

 [(o) ] 5. nonfugere, sed utiltatem retro sitam perlequi.

 [(p) ] 2 Cro. &illegible; 11

 [(q) ] 2 Cro. 10. 12

 [(r) ] Psal. 44. 6. & 108. 13.

 [(s) ] Isa. 33. 2.

 [(t) ] Isa. 37. 20.

 [(u) ] Pro. 1. 16. & 28. 9.
Isa 1. 15. & 59. 2 Mic. 3. 10.

 [(x) ] Iam. 1. 6.

 [(a) ] Oh homo ideo non vicisti quia de cuopræsumpsisti. Qui præsumit de viribus &illegible; pugnet, prosterniter. Aug. de verb. Apost

 [(b) ] Eccles. 9. 11

 [(c) ] Livius.

 [(d) ] Diu apparandum est bellum ut vineas &illegible; quia lõgabells præpatatio celeré facit victorian Senec. epist. &illegible;.

 [(e) ] Parva sunt arma foris, si non est consilium domi. Sen. Epist. 15.

 [(a) ] Ordinaturus aciem, tria debet ante prospicere, solem, pulverent, ventum, &c. Veget. l. 13. cap. 14.

 [(b) ] Plutarch. in apoph.

 [(c) ] quirarò aut nunquam viderens homines vulnerari, vel occidi &illegible; prlmum aspexerint &c.

 [(d) ] Vigetius de re militari. lib. 1. cap. 6.

 [(e) ] Quum justà bell im suscipitur utram apertè pugnet quis, an ex insibus, nihil ad justitiam interest. Aug. 2d, Bonif.

 [(f) ] Boni duces non aperte prælio, in quo est cómune periculum, sed exocculto semper attentant. &c. Viget. l. 3. ca. 9.

 [(g) ] Aut &illegible; aut vi, aut apertè aut per insidias. Stob.

 [(h) ] Hi neque propagation neq. pro atis & focis, neque pro monumentis avorum, neque pro glorta, neque pro liberis neque pro libertate, periculum subcunt, sed tantum, ne alter ab altero superetur, ciq; cedere cogatur Ælian. lib. 2. cap. 28.

 [(i) ] &illegible; esse exercitium &illegible; duce Leone, quam Lenum duce cevo. Erasm. lib. 2. cap. 32. Facet.

 [(k) ] Expectare dum hostium copiæ a gentur, summa den. entia est. Iulius Cæl. Comment lib. 4.

 [(l) ] Tacitus.

 [(m) ] Livius.

 [(n) ] Quanta bellus, sed absque capi e. St. b.

 [(o) ] Si bona sucrit caula pugnantis, pugnæ exitus &illegible; &illegible; non potest & vice versa &c. Beru. denova militia.

 [(p) ] Victoria in bello nec multitudine, neque fortitudine patatur, sed divino auxilio. Xenophon. Stob. serm. 49.


8.10. William Prynne, A Vindication of Psalme 105.15 (6 December, 1642)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

William Prynne, A Vindication of Psalme 105.15. (Touch not mine Anoynted, and doe my Prophets no harme) form some false Glosses lately obtruded on it by Royallists. Proving that this Divine Inhibition was given to Kings, not Subjects; to restraine them from injuring and oppressing Gods servants, and their Subjects; who are Gods Anoynted as well as Kings: And that it is more unlawfull for Kings to plunder and make War upon their Subjects, by way of offence, then for Subjects to take up Armes against Kings in such cases by way of defence. With a briefe exhortation to peace and unity.
2 Samuel 23.3. He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the feare of God.
Ecclesiastes 4. 1, 2. I returned and considered all the Oppressions that are done under the Sunne; and behold the teares of such as were oppressed, and they had no Comforter : and on the side of their oppressors there was power, but they had no Comforter. Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead, more then the living which are yet alive.
Proverbs 28. 15, 16. As a roaring Lyon, and a ranging Beare, so is a wicked Ruler over the poore people. The Prince that wanteth understanding is also a great oppressour; but he that hateth covetousnesse shall prolong his daies.
Galathians 5. 15. But if ye bite and devoure one another, take heed that ye be not confused one of another.
Printed, 1642.

Estimated date of publication

6 December, 1642.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 203; Thomason E. 244. (1.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

THere is nothing more pernicious to the souls of men, or destructive to the republique in distracted times, then Clergy-mens wresting of Scriptures from their genuine sense to ensnare mens consciences, the better to accomplish some sinister designes. How sundry sacred texts have been thus perverted of later yeers, not by the* unlearned and unstable vulgar, but by the greatest Seraphicall Doctors in our Church, is too apparent unto all; and among* others that of the Psalmist, Psal. 105. 15, (which is repeated 1 Chron. 16. 22.) Touch not mine Anoynted, and do my Prophets no harm; hath not had the least violence offered it, both in Presse and Pulpit, to try up the absolute irresistable Prerogative of Kings in all their exorbitant proceedings; and beat down the just liberties of the Subject, without the least defensive opposition; when as this text, in real verity, is rather a direct precept given to Kings themselves, not to oppresse or injure their faithful subjects, then an injunction given to subjects, not to defend themselves against the oppressive destructive wars, and projects of their Princes. In which regard it wil be no unseasonable nor ungratefull worke, to cleare this text from all false Glosses, and restore it to its proper construction.

In former ages when popery domineered, the popish Clergy grounded their pretended exemption from all temporall jurisdiction on this Scripture; suggesting, that they onely, at least principally were Gods Anointed here intended; and therefore ought not be touched nor apprehended by Kings or temporall Iudges for any crimes. But this false Glosse being long since exploded, many Court Divines, not so much to secure as slatter Kings, have applyed it primarily unto Kings, and secundarily to Priests, as meant of them alone, excluding their faithfull Subjects out of its protection and limits; when as the text is meant of none else but they in general and of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with their families in particular.

1. To put this out of question: you must first observe, that this Psalm from the 5 verse to the end, is meerely historicall. The 7 first verses of it are but a gratulatory preamble (interlaced with some exhortations) to the subsequent historicall narration; as he that reads them advisedly will at first acknowledge: In the 8, 9, 10, & 11. verses, the Psalmist begins his history, with the covenant which God made to Abraham, and the oath which he sware to Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting testament: saying, unto thee will I give the land of Canann, the lot of your inheritance. In the 12, 13, 14, & 15. verses, he expresseth the special care and protection of God over Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their several families after his covenant thus made unto them, in these words: When they (to wit, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with their families) were but a few men in number, yea very few, and strangers in it: When they went from one Nation to another, from one Kingdom to another people (which cannot possibly be expounded of Kings and Priests, but onely of those Patriarcks) He suffered no man to doe them wrong, but reproved even Kings for their sakes, saying, Touch not mine Anoynted, and doe my Prophets no harme. Then in the very next verse to the end of the Psalm, he proceeds with the story of the famine in Egypt, and of Iosephs sending thither beforehand by God, &c. So that by the expresse words and series of the story in this Psalm, these persons of whom God said, Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harme, were Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and their families, (as S. Augustin with sundry other Expositers of this Psalm conclude;) who in truth were neither Kings nor Priests by office, but onely Gods peculiar people and servants: of whom he took special care. Whence I thus reason, in the first place.

These words, Touch not mine anointed, &c. were originally spoken and intended only of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and their families, who were neither actual Kings nor Priests; & they were meant of them, not as they were Kings or Priests, but only as they were the servants and chosen people of God; as is evident by the 6 verse of this Psalm. O ye seed of Abraham his SERVANT, ye children of Jacob his CHOSEN.

Therefore they are to be so interpreted; and to be applyed not to Kings and Priests, as they are such; but only to the faithful servants and chosen people of God, though, and as subjects.

Secondly, Consider to whom these words were spoken; not to Subjects, but to Kings themselves; as the Psalmist resolves in expresse terms, Vers. 14. He suffered no man to do them wrong, but reproved even KINGS for their sakes; saying, (even to Kings themselves) Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harme. Now that these words were spoken to Kings themselves is apparent, by those histories to which these words relate, recorded at large, Genes. 12. 10. to 20, Gen. &illegible; throughout, and Gen. 26. 1. to 17. and vers. 29. Where when Abraham by reason of the famine went down into Egypt, with Sarah his wife, and King Pharaoh tooke her into his house, God first permitted neither Pharaoh nor his servants to do either of them any injury (though Abraham out of over-much feare, suspected they would have killed him, and therefore made Satah say she was his sister,) and likewise plagued Pharaoh, and his servants because of Sarah Abrahams wife; whereupon they and all theirs went away in safety. After which Abraham and his wife sojourning in Gerar, Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah: But God said to Abimelech in a dream, behold thou art a dead man for the woman that thou hast taken, for she is a mans wife, &c. Therefore I sufferred thee not to touch her; Now therefore restore the man his wife, for he is a Prophet: (where, Touch not mine anoynted, and do my Prophets no harme, were litterally fulfilled:) and he shal pray for thee, and thou shalt live; and if thou restore her not, know that thou shalt surely die, thou and all that are thine: whereupon Abimelech restored Abraham his wife, and gave him Sheep, Oxen, Men-servants, and Women-servants, and leave to dwell in the Land where he pleased, After which Isaac and his wife dwelling in Gerar, and he telling the men of the place that she was his sister, lest they should kill him for her, because she was faire, king Abimelech discovering her to be his wife, charged all his people, saying, he that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death; yea he kindly intreated him, and did unto him nothing but good, and sent her away in peace. To which we may adde, the story of Gods prohibiting and restraining both Laban and Esau (who were as potent as Kings) to burt Jacob when they came out maliciously against him. Gen. 31. 24, 29, 52, 55. & ch. 33. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. This prohibition then, Touch not mine anoynted, &c. being given to Kings themselves, not to touch or hurt these Patriarchs whiles they sojourned among them as forraigners and subjects (as all expositours grant) and not to subjects touching their Kings; these two conclusions will hence necessarily follow.

  • 1.  That this inhibition, given to Kings themselves with reference to subjects, and the people of God, cannot properly be meant of Kings and Priests, but of subjects fearing God. It is most apparant, that Kings, Princes and Rulers of the earth have alwaies been the greatest enemies and persecutors of Gods anointed ones, to wit, of Christ and his chosen members; witnesse Ps. 2. 2. & Act. 4. 26, 27. The Kings of the Earth set themselves, and the Rulers take counsell together against the Lord, & against his anoynted: For of a truth against thy holy child Iesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pentius Pslate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel were gathered together, &c. And now Lord behold their threatnings. Which truth you may see exemplified by Ps. 129. 23, 161. Ier. 26. 21, 22, 23. c. 36. 26. c. 37. 15. c. 38. 4, 5, 6. Ezek. &illegible; 6, 7, 27, 28. Mich. 3. 1. to 12 Zeph. 3. 3. 1 Sam. 22. 16. to 20. 2 Chron. 24. 21. 1 King. 22. 26, 27. c. 29. 2. 10. Rev. 17. 12, 13, 14. c. 18. 9. 10. c. 19. 18, 19. Math. 10. 17. 18. Ln. 21. 12. Iam: 2. 6. Act. 12. 1, 2, 3. with sundry other Scriptures, and by all ecclesiastical histories since. In which regard God in his infinite wisdome gave this divine inhibition, not to subjects and inferiour persons; but to Kings, Princes and the greatest Potentates (who, deem their wils a law, and think they may do what they* please to their godly subiects,) Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harme: which being spoken to Kings themselves; it cannot be meant of Kings but subjects; unlesse you wil make this nonsence exposition of it. That Kings must not touch nor hurt themselves; and that it is unlawfull for one King to make war against, imprison, depose, or kill another: which the practise of all ages, with infinite* presidents in Scripture and story, manifest to be lawful, and not prohibited by this text; which can properly be applyed to none, but subjects fearing God.
  • 2.  That all Gods faithfull people are Gods anoynted, as well as Kings: and therefore as our Court Sycophants conclude from hence, That Subjects may in no wise take up Armes (though meerely defensive) against their Kings, because they are Gods anoynted: so by the self-same reason, the genuine proper meaning and expresse resolution of this text, Kings ought not to take up Armes against their Subjects, especially those professing the true feare of God, because they are Gods anoynted too, as well as Kings.

If any Court-Chaplan: here demand; how I prove beleeving Subjects fearing God, to be his anoynted, as well as Kings or Priests?

I answer: first the scripture resolves expresly: That all true Christians are really (in a spirituall sence) both* Kings and Priests to God the Father, though they be but subjects in a politicke sence yea God hath prepared a heavenly kingdom, (with an eternall crown of glory) for them, where they shall raigne with Christ for ever and ever. Mat. 5. 3. c. 25. 34. Lu. 6. 20. c. 12. 32. c. 22. 29. 30 Col. 1. 13. 1 Thef. 2. 12. Heb. 12. 28 Iam. 2. 5. 2 Pet. 1. 11. 2 Tim. 4. 8. 1 pet. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 9. 25. Rev. 22. 5. 2 Tim. 2. 12. Being therefore thus really Kings and Priests, and having an heavenly Kingdome and Crown of Glory, wherein they shall raigne with Christ for ever in this regard they may as truly be called Gods anoynted, as any Kings and Priests whatsoever.

Secondly, all true Christians are members of Christ and of his body, flesh and bone and made one with Christ, who dwelleth in them, and they in him. 1. Cor. 11. 12. 17. Ephes. 1. 22. 23. c. 3. 17. c. 5. 29. 30. 32. Iohn 6. 51. c. 17. 21. 23. In which respect they are not onely stiled Christians in Scripture, Act. 11. 26. c. 26. 28. 1. Pet. 4. 16. But Christ himself, 1. Cor. 10. 12. Ep. 4. 12. 13. Now our Saviour himself is stiled Christ in Scripture, in the abstract, by way of Excellency, onely because he is the Lords anoynted; anoynted with the oyle of gladnesse above his fellowes. Ps. 45. 7. Psa, 2. 2. Isa. 61. 1. Ac. 4. 23. c. 10. 38. Lu. 4. 18. He. 1. 9. Christos in the Greek, signifying anointed in English, being derived from Chris to anoynt: And Christians had this very title given them, because they are Christs members, and have a spirituall* anoyntment in, by, and from Christ, and his Spirit, 1 Iohn 2. 27. But the ANOYNTING which ye have received of him abideth in you. and ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same ANOINTING teacheth you of all things. Therefore they are really and truly Gods anoynted, and may be as properly so phrased, as any Kings and Priests whatsoever.

Thirdly, the scripture in direct termes oft cals Gods people, (though subjects) Gods anointed: as Psa. 28. 8. 9. The Lord is their strength, and be is the saving health of his anoynted. Now who those are, is expressed in the following words, save thy people, blesse thine inheritance, guide them and lift them up for ever. Gods people are here defined to be his anoynted. So Ps. 18. 50. And sheweth mercy to his anoynted; (but who are they?) to David & to his seed for evermore, that is, to Christ and his elect childre here caled Gods anointed, Ha. 3. 13. Thom wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anoynted. 2 Cor. 1. 21. Now he which establisheth us in Christ, and hath anoynted us, is God, &c. 1 Joh. 2. 27. The anoynting which ye have received of him, abideth in you, &c. All these, with other scriptures, thus resolving Gods people (though subject) to be his anointed ones; they may be properly said to be the persons specified in this text, Touch not my anoynted; being an injunction given to Kings themselves, and not meant of Kings, but of Gods people, as I have formerly manifested.

I shall willingly and cordially professe, that Kings in sacred writ, are commonly called Gods anointed; because they were usually anoynted with oyle upon their inauguration to their thrones Sa. &illegible; &illegible; 15. 17. c. 12. 3. 5. c. 16. 3. 5. c. 16. 3. c. 12. 13. c. 24. 6. 10. c. 26. 6. 11. 16, 23. 2. Sa. 1. 14. 6. c. 2. 4. 7. &illegible; &illegible; 34. 3. &illegible; 2 Kin. 9. 3. 6. 12. 2 Chro. 6. 42. Psal. 20. 6. Psal. 89. 20. 38. 51. Psal. 92. 12. &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; 45. 1. Lun. 4. 20. And in this regard their persons are sacred, & no violence ought to be &illegible; upon their persons, especially by their subjects, as is cleare by the 1 Sam. 24. 3. to 12. 17. 18. 19, ch. 26. 7. to 25. 2 Sam. 2. to 7. And thereupon this text, Touch not mine anointed, and doe my Prophets no harms, though not properly meant of Kings, may yet be aptly applyed to their personal safety. But then I say, on the contrary part. That all Gods saints and people though Subiects, are his anoynted ones as well as Kings; wheesore Kings must no more offer violence to their persons or estates (without legal conviction and iust cause) then they offer violence to their Kings, which I shall thus make cleare.

First, because God hath given this expresse injunction even to Kings themselves, Touch not mine anoynted (that is your subiectes, my faithfull seruants) and doe my Prophets no harme, ps. 105. 14. 15. 1 Chr. 16. 2. 12. Prohibiting Abimelech, and he his subiects so much as to touch Abraham, Sarah, or Isaac. Gen. 20. 6. ch. 26. 11. 29.

Secondly, because he that toucheth them (to do them harme) toucheth the very apple of Gods eye. Zep. 2. 8. psal. 17. 8. 9. Deu. 32. 9. 10. 11. Yea, persecuteth God, nay Christ himselfe, Isai. 36. 9. Mat. 25. 45. Act. 9. 4. 5. And what Kings, how great soever, may or dare touch or persecute God and Christ, the King of Kings?

Thirdly, because God himself hath quite &illegible; Kings and their posterities, for offering violence to his servants though their subiects. Thus Ahab, Iezabell, and their posterity were destroyed for putting Naboth to death, and seizing on his Vineyard wrongfully without cause, though under a pretext of law, 1 Kin. 21. & 22. 2 Kin. 9. So King Ioash exciting his people to stone the prophet Zachariah without good cause, which they did at his commandement; the Princes and people who did it were soon after destroyed by the Syrians; and the Kings own servants conspired against him for the bloud of Zachariah, and stew him on his bed, and then buried him dishonourably, not in the sepulcher of the Kings, So as his prayer at his death (the Lord look upon it and require it) was fully executed on the King and people, 2 Crho. 24. 20. to 27. Thus King Ichoahaz, leharachin, and Ichoiachins with all their Princes and people were carried away captive into Babilon, and destroyed for mocking, abusing and despising Gods messengers, prophets and people, 2 Chr. 36. 16. 17.* Many such instances might be added, but these may suffice, and that of the King of Babilon, Isa. 14. 4. 19. 20. 21. 22. But thou art cast out of thy grave as an abominable branch, &c. as a carcase trodden under feet. thou shalt not not beloyned with them buriall. BECAUSE THOU HAST DESTROYED THY LAND, AND SLAINE THY PEOPLE: the seed of evil doers shall never be renouned, prepare ye slaughter for his children, for the iniquity of their fathers, that they doe not vise, nor possesse the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. For I will rise up against them saith the Lord of Hosts, and cut off from Babilon the name and remembrance, and sons, and nephewes, saith the Lord. A notable text, for oppressing Princes to meditate upon.

Fourthly, because God himselfe hath given an expresse command, Ezek. 44. 15. 16. 17. That the Prince shall not take of the peoples inheritance by oppression to thrust them out of their possession, but he shall give his sonnes inheritance cut of his own possession. Which well interpreteth and fully answereth that much abused text in the 1 Sam. 8. 11. 12. 19. and proves the Kings taking their Fields, Vineyards, Oliveyards, &illegible; and sheep to give his servants there specified, to be a meere oppression, which should make them cry out in that day because of their King, ver. 18. and no lawfull act, as some royalists glosse it. If then Kings may not take away by violence or oppression their subjects lands or goods; muchlesse may they offer violence to their persons, being Gods anointed, yea his Temple, 1 Cor. 6. 19. c. 3. 16. And if any man (be he King or Emperour) destroy the temple of God, him will God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple they are 1 Cor. 3. 17. Hence Ioah, Davids Generall, comming to besiege Abel to which Shebasted, a women of that place thus &illegible; with him thou seekest to destroy a City and mother in Israel: why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of the Lord? Whereupon Ioah answered and said: for be it, for be it from me that I should swallow up or destroy, 2 Sam. 20. 19. 20.

Fiftly, because no law of God or man hath given any authority to Kings to iniure or oppresse their subiects, in body lands or goods, but only to feed, defend, protect them; and to fight their battels for them, not to wage war against them. 2 Sam. 6. 2. c. 23. 3. Psal. 78. 72, 73, 74. 2 Chron. 9. 8. Pro. 20, 8, 24. c. 29. 4. 14. Esay 49. 23. 1 Tim. 2. 3. Therefore Kings having no right at all to injure or oppresse their people, they* neither lawfully can nor ought to do it, either by themselves or instruments; there being nothing more severely prohibited and censured in Scripture then Princes and Magistrates oppression of their Subjects, Prov. 28. 15, 16. Zeph. 3. 3. Michah. 3. 9, to 12. Ezek. 22. 6, 7, 27. Take but one text for many, Ezek. 45. 8, 9. My Princes shal no more oppresse my people, and the rest of the land shal they give to the house of Israel according to their Tribes. Thou saith the Lord God, let it suffice you, O Princes of Israel, remove violence and spoyle (or plundering) and execute judgment and justice; take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord, See Esa. 1. 23. c. 3. 12, 14, 15.

Sixtly, Because as there is a solemne* Oath of allegeance, of the people to their Kings, to honour and defend their persons; So there is the like oath from kings to their people, to protect their rights and persons, goods, estates, lives, lawes, and liberties, from all violence and injustice, solemnly sworn at their Coronations. By vertue of which oath Kings are as strictly tyed not to wage war against their Subjects,Esay 45. 4. 1 Sam. 8. 19, 6, 20. nor to oppresse or offer violence to their persons, liberties, or estates; as their subjects are by their oath of allegiance, not to rebel against them. And seeing Kings were first created by and* for their subjects; and not their subjects by and for them; and are in verity but publicke servants for their peoples welfare,1 Chr. 9. &illegible; 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. their subjects not being so much theirs, as they their subjects; from whom they* receive both their maintenance and royalties. There is as little (if not far lesse) reason, for Kings to oppresse and take up offensive armes against their subjects though perchance more undutiful and refractory then they expect; as there is for people to take up offensive armes against their Princes, in case they become more oppressive and invasive on their persons, goods, lawes, liberties, then they should.Rom. 13. 4. The husband hath no more right or authority to injure or destroy the wife, or the master the servant, the head the inferiour members, then they have to destroy the husband, master, or head. And as the leudnesse of the King, husband, parent, master, must not cause the people, wife, child, servant, to rebel against them,Math. 22. 17. to 22. and utterly to reject their bonds of duty, so the undutifulnes or vices of the people, wife, child, or servant, must not cause the King, husband, parent, or master, (as long as these relations remain actually undissolved) to give over their care* protection, and vigilancy over them, or any waies injuriously to intreat them 1 Pet. 2. 18. 2 Chro. 10. & 11.

Finally, the* Hebrew Midwives, notwithstanding K. Pharohs command, would by no means kil the Israelites male children; (though but bondmen and no free subjects) and God blessed, and built them houses for it: but* drowned Pharoah and his host in the red sea, for drowning them, and transgressing this inhibition, Touch not mine anointed: When* K. Saul commanded his footmen and guard, to turn and slay the Priests of the Lord at Nob, because their hand was with David (whom he deemed a traytor) and knew when he fled, and did not shew it him, they all refused (this his royall unjust command, though not only his Subjects, but servants too) and would not put their hand to fall upon them, being Gods anointed: And because Doeg the Edemire slew them, by Sauls command, Saul himself was soon after slaint by his own hand, 1 Sam. 31. 4. When* K. Saul had twice solemnly vowed to put his innocent son and subject Ionathan causelesly to death, onely for tasting a little honey; his subjects were so far from assisting him in this unjust action, that they presently said to their King, Shal Ionathan die who hath wrought so great salvation in Israel? God forbid: As the Lord liveth, there shal not one haire of his head fall to the ground: So the people RESCVED Jonathan that he died not, notwithstanding Sauls double vow to the contrary, and Ionathans being not only his subject, but son too, which is more; neither are they taxed of disobedience or treason, but commended for it. When* K. Rehoboam raised an army to fight against the ten tribes, who revolted from, and rebelled against him, (for giving them harsh language by the advice of his yong Counsellors;) electing a new King over them: God himself by his Prophet Shemiah, spake thus to Rehoboam and his army,* Ye shal not go up, nor fight against your brethren, return every man to his house, for this thing is done of me: Whereupon they all obeyed the words of the Lord, and returned: neither King nor subject daring to fight against them, contrary to Gods expresse command, though rebels how much lesse then may Kings wage war upon their innocent loyall subjects? When* K. Ichoram in his fury made this &illegible; &illegible; do so, and more also to me, if the head of Elisha (his subject) shalest and on him this day; and withall sent a messenger to Elisha his house to take away his head. This Prophet was so far from submitting to this his unjust design, that he commanded the Elders sitting with him to look when the messenger came, and &illegible; the doore, and hold him fast, though the sound of his masters (the Kings) &illegible; were behind &illegible; which they did; not suffering the messenger or King to do him violence. You the great* Prophet &illegible; when K. Ahariah sent two Captains with their fifties one after another to apprehend and bring him down to him by violence; was so far from rendering himself into their hands; that in his own defence, he commanded fire twice together to come down &illegible; heaven which confused these two Captains and their mon; though sent by the King his Soveraign. Which divine miracle from heaven wrought by God himself &illegible; That it is lawful for subjects to defend themselves against the unjust violence of their Kings; and that it is dangerous for Kings themselves, or any of their officers by their commands to offer violence or injury to their subjects.* This may be further cleared by Gods exemplary judgement upon K. Ieroboam; who stretching forth his hand to smite the Prophet, which prophecied against his idolatrous Altar, it dried up forthwith, so that he could not pull it in again.* Upon those Princes who caused Daniel to be unjustly cast into the Lyons den, where he was preserved safe from danger; but they their wives and children had there their bones broken in pieces by the Lyons or ever they came at the bottom of the &illegible; And upon those* mighty men in Nebuchadnezzars army, who bound Shadrach, Mesech, and Abednego, and cast them into the burning fiery fornace, by the kings speciall command, because they peremptorily refused to worship the golden image which he hath set up; who for executing this his unjust precept, were by Gods just vengence slain by the flame of the fiery furnace; when as those three godly persons unjustly cast into it by the Kings command, were miraculously preserved in the midst of the fiery furnace, without any harme, there being not an haire of their heads singed, neither their coates changed, nor the smell of fire passed upon them. So safe is it for people to* obey God rather then men, then kings themselves in their unjust commands: so dangerous and destructive is it for Kings, or others upon their unjust commands, to offer any injury or violence to their subjects; or violate this injunction, Touch not &illegible; anointed, &c. In a word, I read Ier. 12. 3. to 12 that God commanded King. Shallum, to execute judgment and righteousnes, and deliver the spoiled out of the hands of the oppressor; & do us wrong nor violence to the stranger, fatherles, or widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place. Adding, But if ye shal not heare these words, I swear by my selfe, saith the Lord, that this house (even the kings house of Judah) shal become a desolation, I wil make it a wildernesse, and prepare destroyers against it, every one with his weopan, &c. And v. 15. to 30. in the same chap. God thus speaks to K. Iehoiakim, Shalt thou raign because thou closest thy self in Cedar? Did not thy father eat and drink, & do judgment and justice, and then it was well with him? &c. But thine eyes, and thine heart were not but for thy covetousnes, and to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, & for violence to do it. Therfore thus saith the Lord concerning Jehoiakim K. of Iudah; they shal not lament for him saying, ah my brother, or ah sister; ah Lord, or ah his glory; but he shal be buried with the burial of an asse drawn & cast forth beyond the graves of Ierusale. Neither doth this judgment for oppressing & slaying his subjects rest here, but extend to the utter extirpation of his posterity, ver. 24. 30. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Iehoiakim, K. of Iudah, were the signet on my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence. Write ye this man childlesse, a man that shal not prosper in his daies, for no man of his seed shal prosper sitting upon the thron of David. So fatal is it to Kings and their posterity to oppresse and murther their subjects. And as for those subjects who by their Kings commands shal take up armes against their brethen to murther, plunder, or oppresse them, I shal desire them first to consider, that precept of Iohn Baptist given to souldiers themselves, Luk. 3. 14. De violence to no man, &c. muchles to your brethren and fellow-subjects: and next that of &illegible; v. 10. to 16 For thy violence against thy brother Iacoh, shame shal cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away his substance, and enteredinto his gates; and cast lots upon Ierosulem, even thou wast as one of them. But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother, neither shouldest thou have rejoyced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distresse, Thou shouldest not have Entered into the gate of my people, nor have looked on their affliction, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity; Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crosse way, to cut off those of his which did escape; neither shouldest thou have shut up those of his that did remain in the day of distresse. As thou hast done it shall be done unto thee, thy sword shal return upon thine own head. All which cosidered, I shal humbly submit it to every mans judgment, whether the whol state in Parliament and his Majesties faithful subjects, may not upon as good or better grounds of conscience, take up armes to defend and preserve their persons, wives, houses, goods, estates from unlawful violence, rapine, plundering and destruction, now every where practised by his Majesties Cavaleeres in a most* barbarous manner, to the utter ruine of many thousands for the present, and whol kingdom in likelihood for the future, contrary to the fundamental lawes and liberties of the subject, his Majesties Coronation oath, and frequent protestations and Declarations; As his Majesty, by advice of ill counsellors, raise an army at home, and bring in forren* forces from abroad, to make war upon his Parliament and people, to plunder, murder, undoe them, and being the whole kingdome to utter desolation? Certainly, if the subjects defensive war in this case be unlawful; as all Royalists aver, against Scripture, reason, and the principles of nature, which instinct all creatures to defend themselves against unjust violence and oppession, as others have proted at large. Then the Kings offensive war upon his loyall poore innocent subjects and Parliament, must much more be unjust and unlawful, for the premised reasons, and Scripture authorities.

For my part, it is so far from my intention to foment this most unnatural destructive war between King Parliament, and people, that the thoughts of its deplorable effects do make my very soule to bleed, and heart to tremble. For if ever Christ, the Oracle of truth, uttered any verity truer than other, it was this,* That a kingdom divided against it self cannot stand, but shall be brought to desolation;* And if we bite and devour one another,Marke 3. 24, 25, 26. we shall be consumed one of another. O then (if God in his justice hath not devoted us to a totall & final desolation for the sins and abuses of our long enjoyed former peace) if there be any remainder of policy or prudence, any bowels of mercy on tender affection left within us, towards our most deere native bleeding and also expiring Country, Engand; to poore dying Ireland; to our religion lives wives children, parents, kindred, neighbours, goods, estates, liberties; or any care of our own safety, tranquillity or felicity; let all of all sides now at last, (after so much sensible experience of the miseries of an intestine uncivill war) with all convenient expedition lay down offensive and defensive armes, & conclude such a sweet solid peace throughout our divided and distracted kingdom as may last forever without the least violation, upon such just and honourable terms, as may stand with Gods glory, religions purity, his Majesties honour, the Parliaments priviledges, the subjects liberty, the whole kingdoms safety and felicity; least otherwise we become not only a scorn and derision, but likewise a prey to our forraign enemies. Alasse, why should the head and members have any civil contestations, since both must perish if divided?* neither subsist, but being united? why should the Kings prerogative, and the subjects liberties, which seldom clashed heretofore, and ended all differences in Courts of justice, be now at such irreconcileable enmity, as to challenge one another into the field, and admit no trial but by battel? when I read in* Scripture, of sundry presidents where Kings, Princes, and people, have unanimously concurred in their counsels heretofore; and consider how our King and Parliament have most happily accorded till of late, I cannot but bewaile their present discords; which O that the God of peace and unity would speedily reconcile.

2 Sam. 18. 4. c. 19. 43, c. 9. 2. 10. 11. lomh 3. 7. Ester 1. 13. to &illegible; 30. 40.I shal close up all, with his Majesties printed speech to both houses annexed to the petition of right by his Royal command. I assure you my maxime is, That the peoples Liberty strengthens the Kings Prerogative, and that the Kings Prerogative is to defend the peoples Liberties: And with the Statute of Magna Charta, ch. 29. No freeman shal be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any other waies destroyed, nor we shal not passe upon him, nor condemn him, but by the lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the law of the Land. We shal sel to we man, no shal deny nor defer to no man justice or right: Which in effect is a most exact paraphrase on this misconstrued text, Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harme.



 [* ] 2 Pet. 2. 16.

 [* ] As the 2 Sam. 15. 24. For Rebellion is as the &illegible; of Witchcraft, & &illegible; is as iniquity and idolatry; now applied to subjects opposing their Princes unlawfull commands, when it is meant only of King Sauls rebellion against the command of God, as the content and story manifest.

 [* ] Zech. 11. 5.

 [* ] Read the 2 Chr. 36. Dan. 5. 30. 31. Ps. 136. 17. 18. 19. 20. 10f. 12. for all the rest.

 [* ] Rev. 1. 6. c. 5. 10. c. 20. 6. Exo. 19. 6. 2 Pet. 2. 5.

 [* ] See Eze. 16. 9. I anoynted thee with Oyle, &c.

 [* ] See Dr. Beards The &illegible; of Gods Iudgements. L. 2. c. 17. 18. 19. 38. 39. 40. 41.

 [* ] Cooks 11: Rep. f. 72. 86. Plowd. Com. f. 146, 147, 487. 21 E. 3. 47.

 [* ] 1 Eliz. c. 2.

 [* ] 2 Sam. 5. 12 1 Pet. 2. 13. Deut. 17. 14, 15.

 [* ] Rom. 13. 6.

 [* ] Nam Rex ad tutelam legis, corparuim & bonorum erectur est, Ca. 7. Rep. Calvins case, f. 4, 10, 12.

 [* ] Exo. 1. 15. to 20.

 [* ] Exod. 14. 13. to 31. Psa. 106. 21.

 [* ] 1 Sam. 22. 17, 18.

 [* ] 1 Sam. 14. 38, to 46.

 [* ] 2 Chro. 10.

 [* ] 2 Chro. 11. 4. 1 King. 11. 21, 22, 23, 24.

 [* ] 1 King, 6, 31, 32, 33.

 [* ] 2 Kin. 10, 9, to 16.

 [* ] 1 Kings 12. 6.

 [* ] Dan. 6.

 [* ] Dan. 3.

 [* ] Act 4: 12 c. 5. 18, 19, 40, 52. c. 11, 1, to 19. Este. 3. 2, 3 Iohn 7. 33, to 48. Numb. 22. & 23. & 24.

 [* ] See the Relation of Brainford businesse.

 [* ] See the Letter fro the Hague newly printed.

 [* ] Luke 11. 17, 18, 19.

 [* ] Gal. 5. 25.

 [* ] See 1 Cor. 12. 14. to 26.

 [* ] 1 Chro. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4. 2 Chro. 23. 3. c. 13. 1. to Iudg. 10. 1. 10. 12.


8.11. Anon., The Privileges of the House of Commons (31 December, 1642)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

Anon., THE PRIVILEDGES Of the House of COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT Assembled. Wherein ’tis proved their Power is equall with that of the House of Lords, if not greater, though the King joyn with the Lords. However it appears that both the Houses have a Power above the King, if He Vote contrary to them. All which is proved by severall Presidents taken out of Parliament Rolls in the TOWER. By P. B. Gentleman.
London, Printed for J. R. 1642.

Estimated date of publication

31 December, 1642.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 214; Thomason E. 83 (39.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

The Priviledges of the House OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT.

WHen after the period of the Saxon time, Harold had lifted himself into the Royall Stat: the great men to whom but lately he was no more then equall, either in fortune or power, disdaining that Act of Arrogancy, called in William then Duke of Normandy, a Prince more active then any in these Western-parts, and renowned for many Victories, he had most fortunately archieved against the French King, then the most potent Monarch in Europe.

This Duke led along with him to this work of glory, many of the younger. Sonnes of the best Families of Normandy, Picardy, and &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; accompanyed the undertaking of this fortunate man.

The Usurper was slain, and the Crown by this Duke was gained; and to secure certain to his posterity, what he had so suddenly gotten, he shared out his purchase, retaining in each County a portion to support the Dignity, Soveraign, which was styled &illegible; Regni; and assigning to the rest of his Adventures, such portions as suited to their quality and expence, he retained to himself, dependency of their personall service, except such Lands as in free Alms were the portion of the Church; and these were styled Barones Regis, the Kings immediate Freeholders, for the word Baro imported then no more.

Now as the King to these, so these to their followers, subdivided part of their shares into Knights Fees, and their Tennants were called Barones Comites for we (as in the Kings Writs) in their writs, Baronibus suis & Francois & Anglois, the Soveraign gifts for the most part extending to whole Counties, or Hundreds an Earl being Lord of the one, and a Baron of the inferiour Donations to Lords of Townships or Mannors.

And as the Land, so was all course of Judicature divided, even from the meanest, to the highest portion, each severall had his Court of Law; preferring still the manner of our Ancestors, the Saxons, who jura per pages reddebant; and these are still termed Court-Barons, or the Freeholders-Court, twelve usually in number; who with the Thame or chief Lord were Judges.

The Hundred that was next, where the Hundredus or Aldermanus, Lord of the Hundred, with the chief Lord of each Township within their Lymits were Judges.

The County or generale placitum was the next, This was to supply the defect or remedy, the corruption of the inferiour Courts. Ubi curiæ Dominorum probantur defecisse, pertinet ad vicecomitem provinciarum; and the Judges here were Comites, Vicecomites, & Barones Comitatus qui liberas terras habebant.

The last and supreme (and upon which I am to treat) was generale placitum apud London, Universalis Synodus in the Charters of the Conqueror, Capitalis curia by Glanvile, or magnum & commune consilium coramrege & magnatious suis.

In the Rolles of Henry the third, It is not Stattve but summoned by Proclamation, Edicitur general: placitum apud London, (saith the Book of Abingdon) whether Epium Ditces principes, Satrapæ rectores, & causidici ex omni pærte confluxerunt ad istam curiam, saith Glanvile. Causes were referred, propter aliquam dubitationem quæ emergit in Comitatu, cum Comitatus nescit dijudicare. Thus did Ethelweld Bishop of Winchester, transferre his suite against Leostine from the County, ad generate placitum; in the time of King Etheldred, Queene Edgine against Goda from the County, appeald to King Etheldred at London, Congregatis principibus & Angliæ sapientibus. In the tenth yeer of the Conqueror, Episcopi, Comites, & Barones Regni ad Universalum Synodum pracausis audiendis & tractandis convocati, saith the Book of Westminster; and this continued all along in the succeeding Kings raign, untill towards the end of Henry the third.

As this great Court or Councell, consisting of the King and Barons, ruled the great affairs of State, and controuled all inferiour Courts: So were there certain Officers, whose transcendent Power seemed to be set to bound in the execution of Princes Wills, as the Steward, Constable, and Marshall, fixt upon Families in Fee for many Ages; They as Tribunes of the people, (or ex plori among the Atherians) grown by unmanly courage, fearfull to Monarchy, fell at the feet and mercy of the King, when the daring Earl of Leicester was slain at Evesbam.

This chance, and the dear experience, Henry the third himself had made at the Parliament at Oxford, in the fortieth yoer of his raign, and the memory of the many streights his Father was driven unto (especially at Rumny-Mead neer States) brought this King wisely to begin what his Successor fortunately finished in lessening the strength and power of his great Lords; and this was wrought by searching into the Regality they had usurped over their peculiar Soveraigne, whereby they were as the Book of Saint Albane termeth them, Quot domini tot tiranni; and by the weakning that hand of Power which they carried in the Parliaments, by commanding the Service of many Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, to that Magnum consilium, or generale placitum, which we still call Parliament.

Now began the frequent sending of Writs to the Commons, their assent being used not only in Money, Charge, and making of Laws, (for before all Ordinances were passed by the King and Peers) but their consent is likewise used in all Judgements of all Natures, either Civill or Criminall: In proof whereof, I will produce some few presidents out of Record.

When Adamor that proude Prelate of Winchester, the Kings half Brother, had grieved the State by his daring Power, he was exiled by joynt sentence of the King, the Lords and Commons; and this appears expressely by the Letter sent from Pope Alexander the fourth, Expostulating a Revocation of him from banishment, because he was a Church-man, and so not subject to any censure: to this the answer was, Si dominus Rex & regni Majores hoc vellint (meaning his Revocation) Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum in Angliam nullatenus sustincret. The Peers subsigned this answer with their names; and Petrus de Mountford vice tatius communitatis, as Speaker of the Commons. Lib. S. Alban. fol. 20. Anno 44. H. 3.

And by that style, Sir John Tiptofe, Prolocutor, affirmeth under his Arms, the deed of intail of the Crown by King Henry 4. in the 8. yeer of his raign for all the Commons.

The banishment of the two Spencers in Edward the seconde time, prælati Comites & Barones & les auters Peers de la terre & Communes da be Roialme, give consent and sentence to the Revocation and Reversment of the former sentence; The Lords and Commons accord, and so it is expressed in the Roll.

When Elizabeth the Widdow of Sir John de Burgo complained in Parliament, that Hugh Spencer the younger, Robert Boldock, and William Cliffe his Instruments had by duresse, forced her to make a writing to the King, whereby she was despoiled of all her Inheritance; sentence is given for her in these words, Pur ceo que avis est al Evesquez Counts & Barones & les auters grandes, & a tout Cominalte de la terre que le dit escript est suit encounter be ley; & &illegible; manner deraison si suist le dit escript per agard del Parliament dampne elloques abliune a le dit Elizab.

In Anno the fourth of Edward the third, Prarl. Prim. rot. 11. It appears by a Letter to the Pope, That to the sentence given against the Earl of Kent, the Commons were Parties, as well as the Lords, or Peers; for the King directed their proceeding in those words; Comitibus Magnatibus Baronibus & aliis de Communitate dicti regni ad Parliamentum illud congregatis injunximus ut super his discercetent & judicarent quod rationi & justitiæ conveniret, & haberent pro oculis solum deum qui eum concordi, &c.

When in the fortieth yeer of Edward the third, the Lords had pronounced the sentence against Richard Lions, otherwise then the Commons agreed to. The Commons appeald to the King himself, and had redresse, and the sentence entred to their desires; Yet this does not prove that the Kings Power is so farre beyond the Parliaments, as that he can do what he will, notwithstanding them.

When in the first yeer of Richard the second, William Weston, and John Jennings, were arraigned in Parliament, for surrendring certain Forts of the Kings; the Commons were parties to the sentence given against them as appears by a Memorancium annext to that Record.

In the first of Henry the fourth, Although the Commons referred by Protestation, the pronouncing of sentence of deposition against Richard the second, unto the Lords; yet they are equally interressed in it, as it appears by the Record. For there was made Proctors or Commissioners for the whole Parliament, one B. one Abbot, one Earl, one Baron, and two Knights, Grey and Erpingham for the Commons; and to inferre, that because the Lords pronounced the sentence, the point of judgement should be only theirs, were as absurd as to conclude, That no authority was left in any other Commissioner of Oyer and Terminor, then in the Person of that man solely that speaks the sentence.

In the second of Henry the fifth, The Petition of the Commons importeth, no lesse then a right they had to Act and Assent to all things in Parliament, and so it was answered by the King; and had not the adjournall Roll of the higher House bin left to he sole entry of the Clark of that House (who either out of his neglect to observe due forme, or out of purpose to obscure the Commons right, and to flatter them, which he immediately served) there would have been frequent examples of all times to clear this doubt, and to preserve a jast interrest to the Common-wealth; and most conveniently doth it suite with Monarchy to maintain this forme, least others of that well framed body, knit under one head should swell too great and monstrous: Monarchy again may sooner groan under the weight of an Aristocracy as it once did, then under Democracy, which it never yet either felt or feared.



8.12. John Norton, The Miseries of War (17 January, 1643)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

John Norton, THE MISERIES OF VVAR. By a lover of TRVTH AND PEACE: And by him Dedicated to all that are such.
REVEL. 13.10. He that killeth with the sword, must be killed with the sword.
Printed for Nicholas Vavasor. 1643.

Estimated date of publication

17 January, 1643.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 222; Thomason E. 85 (13.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet


WHen I consider our late lost happinesse of a blessed Peace, and the heavy pressures of this present Warre; I find it hard to judge, which of them may bee justly called our greatest affliction: but both being laid together (sure I am) harder misfortune nere befell a Nation. And yet I find a sort of Salamander spirits (in what torrid flames of cursed contention noutisht, I cannot tell) that will admit of nought that sounds of Peace; but cry downe all accommodation, unlesse their owne prodigious fancies (conditions worse then Warre) may be the ingredients.

Eccl. 10. 8But let such Jucendiaries take heede least they fall into the Pit that they themselves have digged: For who may in common presumpsition be more justly charged to be the Authors, and Fomenters of Warre, then such as shall oppose a Peace: I have beene very inquisitve to know, what may bee the true ground of this unnaturall Warre; the most, and most discreet, to whom I have propounded that Question, Ingeniously confesse, they are ignorant of it: Others; that will be ignorant of nothing, and scarse rightly understand anything, will tell you the cause as readily, as if they were the Founders of it. Yet I cannot meet with any two of them that concurre in the same particular, onely thus farre they agree in the generall, that it is for the maintenance of the Protestant Religion, and the Lawes of the Land.

Why, this is pretended on both sides? But if that bee the quarrell, certainly the Question hath beene hitherto mistaken, or at least, mis stated; for neither Law nor Religion are any ways opposite to Peace.

Warre and the Law are inconsistent, for the Law hath its very subsistence by Peace; whence the rule is, Inter arm: silent leges, that is, The Lawes are dumbe in time of Warre; and the Prophet David tels us, that Righteousnesse and Peace have kissed each other.Psal. 35. 10 Now Righteousnesse in the Latine Translation is rondred Justitia, which is Iustice; and every man, that understands any thing, knowes that Right or Iustice is the fruit and ende of the Lawe.

And in an other place you may heare the same Prophet speaking to God himselfe,Psal. 119. 165 saying, Great Peace have they that love thy Law. So you see Law and Peace still coupled together. And through the whole Scripture I find no Warring Law, but that which the Apostle Paul speakes of, saying,Rom. 7. 12 &illegible; I see annother law in my members, warring against the Law of my minde, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sinne, which is in my members. And how good this warring law is, you may perceive by the Text. Now for Religion,Phil. 4. 9 2 Cor. 13. 1 Isa 9. 6. which is onely the service of God, the holy Scriptures will plentifully informe you, what relation and affinity that hath with Peace. For there you shall find God stiled, the God of Peace. And againe,Gal. 5. 21. 23 The God of Love and Peace. Our blessed Saviour is called, The Prince of Peace. In the Epistle to the Gallatians, it is said,Ephe. 4. 1, 2, 3. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentlenesse, goodnesse, faith, meekenesse, temperance: against such there is no law. And the same Apostle in his Epistle to the Ephesians, farther saith, I therefore the Prisoner of the Lord,Ephes. 6. 15. beseech you, that ye walke worthy of the vocation wherewith &illegible; &illegible; called:Isa. 54. 10. with all lowlinesse and weekenesse, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keepe the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace.Marth. 5. 9. And in the same Epistle, Christs Gospell is called The Gospell of Peace. God calls his Covenant, The Covenant of Peace.Psal. 29. 11. Our blessed Saviour in his Sermon upon the Mount, pronounces no small blessing on the Peacemaker. Blessed (saith he) are the Peacemakers,Prov. 12. 20. for they shall be called the children of God. And the Psalmist tells us, that The Lord will blesse his people with Peace.Mark. 9. 50. 2 Cor. 13. 11. 1 Thes. 5. 13. The wisest of men tells us, To the Counsellors of Peace is joy. How often are we commanded in the Holy Scriptures, To have Peace one with another. To live in Peace. To be at Peace among our selves.Psal. 122. 6. To pray for Peace. To love Peace. To seeke Peace and ensue it.Zach. 8. 19. &illegible; 34. 14. & 1 &illegible; 3. 2.

And is God the God of Peace? and doe they not feare his heavy judgements to bee denounced against them, and his dreadfull wrath and indignation to bee shoured downe upon them, who shall presume to Preach or Petition against a Peace? Is Christ the Prince of Peace? and can they thinke themselves his Subjects, and desire a Warre? Are the fruits of the Spirit Love and Peace? and can any man thinke himselfe moved, or inspired with the Spirit, who shall live in hatred, or oppose a Peace? Sure it must be with that lying spirit that perswaded Ahabs Propheas.1 Kin. 18. 22 Is the Gospell a Gospell of Peace? Then certainely his Religion cannot bee founded upon that Gospell, who shall not love and seeke Peace. Is Peace a blessing? Is the Peacemaker blessed? and shall hee bee called the childe of God? Accursed must he then be, and (it is to be feared) little better then the childe of the Devill, who breathes out nothing but Warre.

But some of these Botefeus, seeking to varnish over their blood-thirsty desires with a pretended inclination to peace, say, they refuse it not, so as it may be accompanied with truth. Tis well said, I wish it were as truely meant. He must be a man of a very easie credulitie that can assent to credit it; for I dare with confidence affirme, and I beleeve the whole Kingdome (besides their owne faction) will unanimously agree, that more lyes and faloities have fallen from the pennes of these kinde of men, within lesse then these two yeares, then ever were committed to the Presse, since Printing was invented.

Indeede, I thinke their desires of Peace and Truth, are equall; but let such take heede by Ananias and Saphiras judgements.Act. 9. 1. &c. And I hope this Kingdome will beware how they credit such Iesuiticall gulleries, least in stead of a pretended truth, we finde a certaine &illegible; Were such men enforced to be the &illegible; which are the greatest sticklers for this bloody warre, we had then some hopes of a happie peace, and consequently of truth, ever a better friend to peace, then warre.

We were indeede too happie in our late Peace, which made us to get our God, the giver of that blessing, and thereby justly called downe, his heavie vengeanee of a Civill Warre,Exod. 3. 8. for our ingratitude. We had then, a Land flowing with milke and honey; there was no complaining in our streetes:Psal. 144. 24. but each man sitting under the shade of his owne Vine, might without seare eat of his owne figtree, and drinke the waters of his owne cesterne.Isa. 36. 16. How richly habited were almost all rankes and degrees of people?Mat. 11. 8. In our Saviours time, those that were soft cloathing were in Kings houses: but in the time of our late peace, it was to be found almost in every pessants Cottage, silkes were the ware of every ordinary person; wee accounted him a very meane trades-man, that could not put his wife into a silke gowne and a beaver; nay, were not the wives of many Citizens of ordinary trades, habited in as rich Sattin, and bone-lace, adorned with as many orient peales, faire diamonds, and other jewels of value, as might well become a queene and yet now paradventure would gladly part with them, to be secured sustinance for themselves and families.

How munificent were we in our buildings with stately Turrets, seeming to threaten the very clouds? many of them already left dessolate without an inhabitant, and how great pitty is it to see such stately Fabrickes levelled with the ground? How did we abound in rich furniture, costly hangings, couches, bedding, and the like; massie plate, and other gallant house-hold-stuffe, already become a prey to the mercilesse souldiers, even those that pretend to fight for us. What curious gardens, brave orchards, faire meddowes, rich pastures, and fruitfull corne fields, are now ruined, defaced, and unmanured? Indeede wee did abound in all things that plenty could afford, or curiosity invent; we had health, wealth, pleasure, profit, now turned to sicknesse, penury, paine and mourning. Parents then injoyed the deare pledges of their love, their children; children their loving parents, friends and neighbours mutually happie in each others society, so that nothing was wanting to our felicity.

But this bloody tyrant Warre, hath put a period to all our joyes, all our happinesse. Monstrum horrendum informe ingens: that huge horrible, ugly Monster, Horresco referens, I tremble to speake of it. When David had committed that great sinne against the Lord in numbring the people, and as a punishment for it, was to submit to his choice of three heavie judgements, chose either Pestilence, or Famine, then that of the Sword, which he knew had no mercy.Sam 24. 14. Let us (saith he) now fall into the hand of the Lord (for his mercies are great) and let me not fall into the hands of man. Warre is one of Gods greatest Plagues, his fearefullest judgements, his heaviest scourges upon a Nation: for how ugly is the visage of it? how manifold are the miseries of it? Especially that of a civill warre, as ours is in this Kingdome.

Man, created after Gods owne image, destroying the image of his Creator; Christian most unchristianly slaughtring his brother in Christ: nay, Protestants linckt by a nearer tye of religion, massacring those of their owne Religion: the father most unnaturally ripping up the bowels of his sonne, and the sonne of the father, a brother beating out his brothers braines; kinsman against kinsman, friend against friend, most barbarously and inhumanely butchering one another: here a bullet, there a speare, or Poleax separating the soule and body in the very act of wrath and malice: the devouring Cannon heaping the mangled carcasses of horse and man together. What ghastly lookes, what hideous screckes, and dismall groanes, what grisly gaping wounds of dying men, besmeared with blood and dirt, doe even affright and terrifie the hearers and spectators, though their enemies. What out-cries, teares and sighes by new-made widdowes for their husbands deaths? What mournings by aged parents for their slaughtred sonnes? What lamentation by poore distressed children made fatherlesse by warre? What pillaging, plundrings, rapines, murders, massacres, by the cruell, barbarous, and bloody souldier? No liberty left us of ploughing, sowing, trafficking, or trading one with the other.

That with the industrious and painefull tradesman, or husbandman, hath with much labour and paines gathered together, to be the staffe and comfort of their age, and to be a portion and provision for their children, in an instant becomes the prey and spoyle of a few mercilesse men. And all these miseries usually seconded by pestilence and famine. Let us looke upon the miserable condition of Samaria, beseiged by the Syrians,2 Kings 6. 15. when by reason of the warre, the famine was so great, that an asses head was sold for fourescore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a kabb of doves dung, for five peeces of silver. Nay women did eate their owne children, as appeares by a womans complaint to the King of Israel.verse 28. 29. And she answered, this woman sayd unto me, give thy sonne that wee may eate him to day, and we will eate my sonne to morrow, so we loyled my sonne and did eate him, and sayd unto her on the next day, give thy sonne that eve may eate him, and she hath hid her sonne.

Let us behold the miseries of Germany, a Kingdome once as famous and flourishing as ours lately was, but hath now suffered the miseries of almost 20 yeares warre: where many stately Townes and Cities have beene burnt to the ground, women ravished even in the very Churches, and after hewen in peeces: mens eares and noses cut off, and strings put through them, to make hat-bands: holes made in the legges and armes of men, and cords drawne through them, their guts pulled out at their mouthes children tost on the points of speares; and so great hath the famine beene in some part thereof, that the people have beene glad to eate dogges, cats, dead men, and all manner of carrion for foode.

Nay let us goe no further then bleeding Ireland, (which now suffers for our distraction here) and we shall finde their miseries not behinde those of Germany, where after they had beaten out the husbands braines, they ravished the wife, and then ripping her up being with childe, cast the childe into the fire: ravishing maides and women before their parents and husbands faces: driving men and women naked out of their houses into the frost and snow, where hundreds of them have perished with cold and famine, hanging some, and with most exquisite tortures, mangling, gashing, and miserably tormenting others, without all sence of humanitie. And God Almighty knowes how soone it may bee our turnes to suffer the like, or worse calamities, unlesse we endeavour to prevent it, by applying all our diligence, industry, and affections towards the procuring of a Peace, while it may bee had. The long continued warre in Germany shewes us, Peace is not easie to be obtained, when a smaller Army then ours, on either side, hath beene for many yeares together attempted to be removed, but without successe. Neither doth God alwayes blesse either the greater or the better side with victory. For we have many examples in Scripture where great Armies have beene overcome with smaller numbers: and our Saviour himselfe tells you,Luke 13. 1, 2, 3, 4. that the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, were not sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things; nor those 18. upon whom the tower of &illegible; and slue, sinners above all men that dwelt in Ierusalem: which shewes they are not always the greatest sinners, whom God suffers to perish here. Let us therefore use all possible endeavours for a peace, and for prevention of farther shedding of blood; least by lamentable experience we finde ourselves included within that heavie judgement pronounced by our Saviour,Mat. 26. 52. which is, that All they that take the sword shall perish with the swerd.



8.13. Anon., The Actors Remonstrance (24 January, 1643)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

Anon., THE ACTORS REMONSTRANCE, OR COMPLAINT: FOR The silencing of their profession, and ba|nishment from their severall Play houses. In which is fully set downe their grievan|ces, for their restraint; especially since Stage-playes, only of all publike recreations are pro|hibited; the exercise at the Beares Colledge, and the motions of Pup|pets being still in force and vigour. As it was presented in the names and behalfes of all our London Comedians to the great God PHOEBUS-APOLLO, and the nine Heliconian Sisters, on the top of PERNASSUS, by one of the Masters of Re|quests to the MUSES, for this present month. And published by their command in print by the Typo|graph Royall of the Castalian Province. 1643.
LONDON, Printed for EDW. NICKSON. Ianuar. 24. 1643.

Estimated date of publication

24 January, 1643.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 225; Thomason E. 86. (8.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

The Actors Remonstrance or Complaint, for the silencing of their Profession, and banishment from their severall PLAY-HOUSES.

OPpressed with many calamities, and languishing to death under the burthen of a long and (for ought wee know) an everlasting restraint, we the Comedians, Tragedians and Actors of all sorts and sizes belonging to the famous private and publike Houses within the City of London and the Suburbs thereof, to you great Phœbus, and you sacred Sisters, the sole Patronesles of our distressed Calling, doe we in all humility present this our humble and lamentable complaint, by whose intercession to those powers who confined us to silence, wee hope to be restored to our pristine honour and imployment.

First, it is not unknowne to all the audience that have frequented the private Houses of Black-Friers, the Cock-Pit and Salisbury-Court, without austerity, wee have purged our Stages from all obscene and scurrilous iests; such as might either be guilty of corrupting the manners, or defaming the persons of any men of note in the City or Kingdome; that wee have endevoured, as much as in us lies, to instruct &illegible; another in the true and genuine Art of acting, to represse be &illegible; and raising, formerly in great request, and for to &illegible; our language and action to the more gentle and naturall garbe of the times; that we have left off for our owne parts, and so have commanded our servarits, to forget that ancient custome, which formerly rendred men of our quality infamous, namely, the inveigling in young Gentlemen, Merchants Factors, and Prentizes to spend their patrimonies and Masters estates upon us and our Harlots in Tavernes; we have cleane and quite given over the borrowing money at first sight of punie gallants, or praising their swords, belts and beavers, so to invite them to bestow them upon us; and to our praise be it spoken, we were for the most part very well reformed, few of us keeping, or being rather kept by our Mistresses, betooke our selves wholy to our wives; observing the matrimoniall vow of chastity, yet for all these conformities and reformations, wee were by authority (to which wee in all humility submit) restrained from the practice of our Profession; that Profession which had before maintained us in comely and convenient Equipage; some of us by it meerely being inabled to keepe Horses (though not Whores) is now condemned to a perpetuall, at least a very long temporary silence, and wee left to live upon our shifts, or the expence of our former gettings, to the great impoverishment and utter undoing of our selves, wives, children, and dependants; besides which, is of all other our extremest grievance, that Playes being put downe under the name of publike recreations; other publike recreations of farre more harmfull consequence permitted, still to stand in statu quo prius, namely, that Nurse of barbarisme and beastlinesse, the Beare-Garden, whereupon their usuall dayes those Demy-Monsters, are baited by bandogs, the Gentlemen of Stave and Taile, namely, boystrous Butchers, cutting Coblers, hard-handed Masons and the like, rioting companions, resorting thither with as much freedome as formerly, making with their sweat and crowding, a farre worse stinck than the ill formed Beasts they persecute with their dogs and whips, Pick-pockets, which in an age are not heard of in any of our Houses, repairing thither, and other disturbers of the publike peace, which dare not be seen in our civill and well-governed Theatres, where none use to come but the best of the Nobility and Gentry; and though some have taxed our Houses unjustly for being the receptacles of Harlots, the exchanges where they meet and make their bargaines with their tranck chapmen of the Country and City, yet we may justly excuse our selves of either knowledge or consent in these lewd practices, we having no propheticke soules to know womens honesty by instinct, nor commission to examine them; and if we had, worthy were these wretches of Bridewell, that out of their owne mouthes would convince themselves of lasciviousnesse: Puppit-plays, which are not so much valuable as the very musique betweene each Act at ours, are still up with uncontrolled allowance, witnesse the famous motion of Bell and the Dragon, so frequently visited at Holbourne-bridge; these passed Christmas Holidayes, whither Citizens of all sorts repaire with far more detriment to themselves then ever did to Playes, Comedies and Tragedies being the lively representations of mens actions, in which, vice is alwayes sharply glanced at, and punished, and vertue rewarded and encouraged; the most exact and naturall eloquence of our English language expressed and daily amplified; and yet for all this, we suffer, and are inforced, our selves and our dependants, to tender our complaint in dolefull manner to you great Phœbus, and you inspired Heliconian Virgins: First our House-keepers, that grew wealthy by our endevours, complaine that they are enforced to pay the grand Land-lords rents, during this long Vacation, out of their former gettings; instead of ten, twenty, nay, thirty shillings shares which used nightly to adorne and comfort with their harmonious musique, their large and well-stuffed pockets, they have shares in nothing with us now but our mis-fortunes; living meerly out of the stock, out of the interest and principall of their former gotten moneyes, which daily is exhausted by the maintenance of themselves and families.

For our selves, such as were sharers, are so impoverished, that were it not for some slender helps afforded us in this time of calamitie, by our former providence, we might be enforced to act our Tragedies: our Hired-men are disperst, some turned Souldiers and Trumpetters, others destin’d to meaner courses, or depending upon us, whom in courtesie wee cannot see want, for old acquaintance sakes. Their friends, young Gentlemen, that used to feast and frolick with them at Tavernes, having either quitted the kin in these times of distraction, or their money having quitted them, they are ashamed to look upon their old expensive friends. Nay, their verie Mistresses, those Buxsome and Bountifull Lasses, that usually were enamoured on the persons of the younger sort of Actors, for the good cloaths they wore upon the stage, beleeving them really to be the persons they did only represent, and quite out of sorts themselves, and so disabled for supplying their poore friends necessities. Our Fooles, who had wont to allure and excite laughter with their very countenances, at their first appearance on the stage (hard shifts are better than none) are enforced, some of them at least to maintaine themselves, by vertue of their bables. Our boyes, ere wee shall have libertie to act againe, will be growne out of use like crackt organ-pipes, and have faces as old as our flags.

Nay, our very Doore-keepers, men and women, most grievously complaine, that by this cessation they are robbed of the priviledge of stealing from us with licence: they cannot now, as in King Agamemnons dayes, seeme to scratch their heads where they itch not, and drop shillings and half Crowne-pieces in at their collars. Our Musike that was held so delectable and precious, that they scorned to come to a Taverne under twentie shillings salary for two houres, now wander with their Instruments under their cloaks, I meant such as have any, into all houses of good fellowship, saluting every roome where there is company, with Will you have any musike Gentlemen? For our Tire-men, and others that belonged formerly to our ward-robe, with the rest, they are out of service: our stock of cloaths, such as are not in tribulation for the generall use, being a sacrifice to moths. The Tobacco-men, that used to walk up and downe, selling for a penny pipe, that which was not worth twelve-pence an horse-load; Being now bound under Tapsters in Inns and Tippling houses. Nay such a terrible distresse and dissolution hath befallen us, and all those that had dependance on the stage, that it hath quite unmade our hopes of future recoverie. For some of our ablest ordinarie Poets, in stead of their annuall stipends and beneficiall second-dayes, being for meere necessitie compelled to get a living by writing contemptible penny-pamphlets, in which they have not so much as poetical licence to use any attribute of their profession; but that of Quidlibet audendi? and faining miraculous stories, and relations of unheard of battels. Nay, it is to be feared, that shortly some of them; (if they have not been enforced to do it already) will be encited to enter themselves into Martin Parkers societie, and write ballads. And what a shame this is, great Phœbus, and you sacred Sisters; for your owne Priests thus to be degraded of their ancient dignities. Be your selves righteous Judges, when those who formerly have sung with such elegance the acts of Kings and Potentates, charming like Orphens the dull and brutish multitude, scarce a degree above stones and forrests into admiration, though not into understanding with their divine raptures, shall be by that tyrant Necessitie reduced to such abject exigents, wandring like grand children of old Erra Paters, those learned Almanack-makers, without any Mæcenas to cherish their loftie conceptions, prostituted by the mis-fortune of our silence, to inexplicable miseries, having no heavenly Castalian Sack to actuate and informe their spirits almost confounded with stupiditie and coldnesse, by their frequent drinking (and glad too they gan get it) of fulsome Ale, and hereticall Beere, as their usuall beverage.

To conclude, this our humble complaint great Phœbus, and you nine sacred Sisters, the Patronesses of Wit, and Pro tectresses of us poore disrepected Comedians, if for the present, by your powerfull intercessions we may be re-invested in our former Houses, and setled in our former Calling, we shall for the future promise, never to admit into our six-penny-roomes those unwholesome inticing Harlots, that sit there meerely to be taken up by Prentizes or Lawyers Clerks; nor any female of what degree soever, except they come lawfully with their husbands, or neere allies: the abuses in Tobacco shall be reformed, none vended, not so much as in three-penny galleries, unlesse of the pure Spanish leafe. For ribaldry, or any such paltry stuffe, as may scandall the pious, and provoke the wicked to loosenesse, we will utterly expell it with the bawdy and ungracious Poets, the authors to the Antiodes. Finally, we shall hereafter so demeane our selves as none shall esteeme us of the ungodly, or have cause to repine at our action or interludes: we will not entertaine any Comedian that shall speake his part in a tone, as if hee did it in derision of some of the pious, but reforme all our disorders, and amend all our amisses, so prosper us Phœbus and the nine Muses, and be propitious to this our complaint.



8.14. Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes of this Kingdome (24 February, 1643)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

Anon., Touching the Fundamentall Lawes, Or Politique Constitution of this Kingdome, The KINGS Negative Voice, and The Power of PARLIAMENTS. To which is annexed, The priviledge and power of the Parlia|ment touching The MILITIA.
LONDON Printed for Thomas Underhill, and are to be sold at the signe of the Bible in Woodstreet. M.DC.XLIII.

Estimated date of publication

24 Februarty, 1643.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 237; Thomason E. 90 (21.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet


FUndamentall Laws are not (or at least need not be) any written agreement like Peare-Stones between King and People, the King himselfe being a part (not party) in those Laws, and the Common-wealth not being like a Corporation treated by Charter, but treating it selfe. But the fundamentall Law or Laws is a setling of the laws of nature and common equity (by common consent) in such a forme of Polity and Government, as that they may be administred amongst us with honour and safety. For the first of which therefore, we are governed by a King: and for the second, by a Parliament, to oversee and take order that that honourable trust that is put into the hands of the King for the dignity of the Kingdome, be rightly executed, and not abused to the alteration of the Politique Constitution taken up and approved, or to the destruction of that, for whose preservation it was ordered and intended. A principall part of which honour, is that royall assent he is to give for the enacting of such good Laws as the people shal choose, for they are first to consult their own safety and welfare, and then he who is to be intrusted with it, is to give an honourable confirmation to it, and so to put an Impresse of Majesty and Royall authority upon it.

Fundamentall Laws then are not things of capitulation between King and people, as if they were forrainers and Strangers one to another, (nor ought they or any other Laws so to be, for then the King should governe for himselfe, not for his people) but they are things of constitution, treating such a relation, and giving such an existence and being by an externall polity to King and Subjects, as Head and Members, which constitution in the very being of it is a Law held forth with more evidence, and written in the very heart of the Republique, farre firmlyer then can be by pen and paper, and in which sense we owe our Allegiance to the King as Head, (not onely by power, but insuence) and so part of the constitution, not as a party capitulating for a prerogative against or contrary to it, which whosoever sake to set up, or sine unith, doe brealt their Allegiance, and rebell against the State, going about to deprive the King of his juridicall and lawfull authority, conferred upon him by the constitution of this State, under the pretence of investing him with an illegall and unconstitutive power, whereupon may follow this grand inconvenience, The withdrawment of His peoples Allegiance, which, as a Body connexed with the Head by the constitution of this Kingdome, is owing to him; his person in relation to the body, as the enlivening and quickning head thereof, being sacred and taken notice of by the laws in that capacity, and under that notion us made inviolate.

And if it be conceived that Fundamentall Laws must needs be only extant in uniting, this is the next way to bring all to consusion, for then by the same rule the King bids the Parliament produce those laws that fundamentally give them their being, priviledges & power, (Which by the way is not like the power of inferiour Courts, that are springs of the Parliament, dealing betweene party and party, but is answerable to their trust, this Court being it selfe Fundamentall and Paramount, comprehending Law and Equity, and being intrusted by the whole for the whole, is not therefore to be circumscribed by any other Laws which have their being from it, not it from them, but onely by that Law which at first gave it its being, to wit, Salus populi) By the same rule I say the Parliament may also intreat the King to produce those Laws that Fundamentally give him his being, power and honour. Both which must therefore be determined, not by laws, for they themselves are laws, yea the most supreame and fundamentall law, giving law to laws themselves but by the received constitution or polity, which they themselves are; and the end of their constitution is the Law or rule of their power, to wit, An honourable and safe Regiment of the Common-wealth, which two whosoever goeth about to divide the one of them front the other, breaks the fundamentall constitutive law or laws and polity of this kingdome, that ordinance of man which we are to submit unto; nor can or ought any statute or written law whatsoever, which is of later Edition and inferiour Condition, being but an off-spring of this root, be interpreted or brought in Plea, against this primary and raticall constitution, without guilt of the highest I reason and destructive enmity to the Publique weale and polity, because by the very constitution of this Kingdome, all laws or utterpretation of laws tending to confusion or dissolution, are ipso facto void. In this case we may allude and say, That the Covenant which was 400. peers before the Law, an after-Act cannot disanull it.

Ob. It may be objected, that this discourse seems to make our Government to be founded in Equity, not in Law, or upon that common rule of Salus popali, which is alike common to all Nations, as well as any: and so what difference:

Ans. The Fundamentall laws of England are nothing but the Common laws of Equity and Nature reduced into a particular way of policy, which policy is the ground of our title to them, and interest in them: For though it is true, that Nature hath invested all Nations in an equall right to the laws of Nature and Equity by a common bounty, without respect of persons, yet the severall models of externall Government and Politie renders them more or lesse capable of this their common right: For though they have an equall right in Nature to all the Laws of Nature and Equity, yet having fundamentally subjected themselves by their politique Constitutions unto a Regal servitude, by Barbarisme or the like they have thereby much disabled and bisbested themselves of that common benefit. But on the contrary, where the outward constitution or polity of a Republick is purposely framed for the confirming and better conserving this common right of Nature and Equity, (as in ours) there is not onely a common right, but also a particular and lawfull power joyned with this right for its maintenance and supportation. For whereas other people are without all supreame power, either of making laws or raising monies, both these bodies of supremacie being in the arbitrary hands onely of the Soveraigne Magistrate amongst many Nations, these with us are in the hands of the supreame Government, (not Governour) or Court of Judicature, to &illegible; it, the King and Parliament; here the people (like free-men) give money to the King, he both not take it; and offers Laws to be enacted, doth not receive them so: Now in such a constituted Kingdome, where the very Constitution its selfe is the fundamentall law of its owne preservation, as is this mixt Regiment of ours, consisting of King and Parliament, as Head and Body, comprehending Monarchie, Aristocracie, and Democracie; there the fundamentall laws are like fundamentall truths in these two properties: First, they are comprehended in a very little &illegible; to but, honour and safety; and secondly, they have their influence into all other inferiour Laws which are to be subjected to them, &illegible; correspondent with them, as lawful children and naturall branches.

Ob. But in processe of time there are many written Laws which form at least to contradict this fundamentall Constitution, and are not they binding notwithstanding it?

Ans. The Constitution of this Kingdome which gave it its being, and which is the radicall and fundamentall law thereof, ought therefore to command in chiefe, for that it never &illegible; up its authority to those inferiour laws, which have their being from it, nor ought they which spring from it tend to the destruction of it, but on the contrary, it is to revive its radicall virtue and influence into all succeeding laws, and they like branches are to make the &illegible; &illegible; from whence they spring, with exhibiting the lively and sructifying virtue thereof, according to the nature and seasons of succeeding times; things incident in after ages not being able to be &illegible; and particularly provided for at the beginning, saving in the fundamentall law of &illegible; populi, politiquely established; nor can any laws growing out of that root, bear any other fruit, then such as the nature thereof &illegible; for, for a particular branch to ruine the whole foundation by a seeming sense contrary to it, or differing from it, is very absurd; for then how can it be said, Thou bearest not the root, but the root thee: Laws must alwayes relish of, and drink in the constitution or polity where they are made; and therefore with us, the laws wherein the King is nominated, and so seems to put an absolute authority into his hands, must never so be construed, for that were with a breath to blow downe all the building at once: but the King is there &illegible; and meant under a two-fold notion; First, as trusted, being the &illegible; with that power the Law conferd upon him, for a Legall, and not an absolute purpose, tending to an honourable preservation, not an unnaturall dissolution. Secondly, as meaning him juridically, not abstractly or personally, for so onely the Law takes notice of the King as a surivicall person; for till the Legislative power be absolutely in the King, so that laws come down from him to his people, and goe not up from them to him, they must ever be so interpreted: for as they have a juridicall being and beginning, to wit, in Parliament, so must they have a sutable erecution and administration, to wit, by the Courts, and legall Ministers, under the Kings authority, which according to the constitution of this Kingdome, he can no more suspend for the good of his people, then the Courts can theirs; or if he doe, to the publique hazard, then have the Courts this advantage, that for publique presernation they may and must provide upon that principle, The King can doe no wrong, neither in withholding justice, nor protection from his people. So that then Salus populi being so principally respected and provided for, according to the nature of our constitution and polity, &illegible; so being Lex legum, or the rule of all laws branching thence, Then if any law doe by variation of times, violence of tyrannie, or misprision of Interpretere, bary there-from, it is a bastard, and not a son, and is by the lawful parents either to be reduced or cast out, as gendring unto bondage and ruine of the inheritance, by attempting to erect an absolute and arbitrary Government. Nor can this equitable exposition of particular Statutes taken from the scope of the politique constitution be denyed without overthrow of just and legal Monarchy, (which ever tends to publique good and preservation) and the setting up of an unjust and illegall tyrannie, ruling, if not without law, yet by abused laws, turning them as conquered ordnance upon the people. The very Scripture it selfe must borrow from its scope and principles for explantation of particular places, else it will be abused (as it is through that default) unto Heresies. See we not how &illegible; Satan quoted true Scripture to Christ when he tempted him, onely by urging the letter without the equity, or true intention and meaning? We are to know and doe things verum verè, justum justè, &illegible; we neither judge with righteous judgement, nor obey with just obedience.

Ob. But is not the Parliament guilty of evercising an arbitrary power, if their proceedings be not regulated by written laws, but by &illegible; populi?

Ans. For the Parliament to be bound up by written laws, is both destructive and absurd.

First, it is destructive, it being the Fundamental Court and Law, or the very Salus populi of England, and ordained, as to make laws, and see them executed, so to supply their deficiencie according to the present erigencie of things for publique preservation by the prerogative of ‘alus populi, which is universally in them, and but particularly in particular laws and statutes, which cannot provide against all future exigents, which the law of Parliaments both, and therefore are not they to be limits to this. And it would yet he further destructive, by &illegible; the Parliament short of half its power at once, for it being a Court both of Law and Equity (as appears by the power of making laws, which is nothing but Equity reduced by common consent into &illegible;) when ever it is cricumscribed by written laws, (which onely to the property of inferiour Courts) it ceaseth to be supreame, and &illegible; itselfe of that inherent and uncircumscribed power which Salus populi comprehends.

Secondly, as it is destructive, so also it is absurd; for the Legislative power which gives laws, is not to receive laws, saving from the nature and end of its owne constitution, which as they give it a being, so they &illegible; it with Laws of preservation both of it selfe; the whole, which it represents.

I would not herein be misunderstood, as if the Parliament, when &illegible; onely both the office of inferiour Courts, judging between party a party, were not limited by written lawes: there I grant it is, because therein it only deales between meum & tuunt, which particular written lawes can and ought to determin: so that its superlative and uncircumscribed power I intend only as relating to the Universe and the affaires thereof, wherein it is to walke by its fundamentall principles, not by particular precepts or Statutes, which are made by the Parliament, between King and people, not between people and Parliament: they are &illegible; to be rules of Government to the King, agreeing with the liberty and property of the people, and rules of Obedience to the people without defainment of their freedome by the exercise of an illegall, usurped, and unconsented power, whereunto Kings (espectally in hereditary Monarchies) are very prone, which cannot be suspected by a Parliament, which is representatively the Publike, intrusted for it, & which is like to partake and share with the Publick, being but so many private men put into authority &illegible; by common consent, for common good.

Nor is the Parliament hereby guilty of an Arbitrary Government, or is it destruct be to the Petition of Right, when as in providing for publick weale, it observes not the letter of the law; first, because as aforesaid, that law was not made betweene Parliament and people, but by the people in Parliament betweene the King and them, as appears by the whole tenour of it, both in the complaining and praying parts, which wholly relate to the King. Secondly, because of the common consent, that in the representative Body (the Parliament) is given thereunto, wherein England in her Polity imitates Nature in her Instincts, who is wont to violate particular principles for publique preservation, as when light things descend, and heavy ascend, to prevent a vacuum: and thirdly, because of the equitable power which is inherent in a Parliament, and for publique good is to be acted above and against any particular Statute, or all of them: and fourthly, because the end of making that Law, to wit, the publique preservation, is &illegible; in the breaking of it, which is lawfull in a Parliament that is chosen by the whole for the whole, and are themselves also of the body, though not in a king, for therein the Law saith, Better a mischeife then an &illegible; But it may be objected, though it be not &illegible; for the Parliament to doe against written law, yet is it not so when they go against the Kings consent, which the law, even the fundamentall law, supposeth in Parliamentary proceedings; This hath beene answered, that the King is juridically and according to the intention of the law in his Courts, so that what the Parliament consults for the publick good, That by oath, and the duty of his office, and nature of this polity he is to consent unto, and in case he do deny it, yet in the construction of the fundamentall law and constitution of this Kingdom, he is conceived to grant it, inprosing the head not to be so unnaturall to the body that hath chosen it for good and not for evill.

But it will be answered, where is the Kings Negative Voice if the Parliament may proceed without his consent; I answer. That there is no known nor written law that gives him any; and things of that nature are willingly beleeved till they be abused, &illegible; with too much violence claimed. That his Majesty hath fundamentally a right of consent to the &illegible; of laws is true, which (as aforesaid) is part of that honourable trust constituted in him: And that this royall ascent is an act of honoer and not of absolute and negative power opprorogative, appeares by these following reasons.

First, by his oath at the Coronation mentioned in one of the Parliaments Declarations where he both or should sweare to confirme and grant all such good lawes as his people shall choose to be observed, not hath chosen, for first, The word concedis in that oath were them unnecessary, the lawes formerly enacted being allready granted by foregoing Kings, and so they need no more concession as or else we must run upon this shelfe that all our laws die with the old King, and receive their being a new, by the new Kings consent. Secondly, Hereby the first and second clause in that interrogatory viz. Concedis iustas leges & permittas protegendas, are confounded and doe but idem repetere; Thirdly, Quas vulgus elegerit implies onely the act of the people in a disfunctive sence from the act or consent of the King, but laws allready made have more then quas vulgus elegerit, they have also the royall consent too, so that that phrase cannot meane them wherein the act or consent of the King is allready involved.

Secondly, by the practise of &illegible; the royall ascent even unto those very acts of subsidies which are granted to himselfe and for his owne use, which it is supposed he will accept of, and yet Honoris gratia is his roiall ascent craved and contributed thereunto.

Thirdly, by the Kings not sitting in Parliament to debate and consult lawes, nor are they at all offered him by the Parliament to consider of, but to consent to, which yet are transmitted from one house to another, as well to consult as consent to, shewing thereby he hath no part in the consultory part of them (for that it belongs onely to the people in Parliament to discerne and consult their own good,) but he comes onely at the time of enaging, bringing his Royall Authority with him, as it were to set the seale thereof to the Inventure allready prepared by the people, for the King is head of the Parliament in regard of his authority, not in regard of his reason or judgement, as if it were to be opposed to the reason or judgement of both houses (which is the reason both of King and Kingdome) and therefore do they as consult so also interpret lawes without him, supposing him to be a person replenished with honour and royall authority not skilled in lawes, nor to receive information either of law or councell in Parliamentary affaires from any, saving from that supreame court and highest councell of the King and Kingdome, which admits no counterpoint, being intrusted both as the wisest Councell and justest judicature.

Fourthly, either the choise of the people in Parliament is to be the ground and rule of the Kings assent, or nothing but his pleasure, and so all Bills though never so necessary for publique good and preservation, and after never so much paines and consultation of both houses may be rejected, and so they made meere cyphers, and we brought to that passe, as either to have no lawes, or such onely as come immediately from the King (who oft is a man of pleasure, and little &illegible; publicke affaires, to be able to judge) and so the Kingdomes great councell must be subordinated either to his meere will, and then what difference between a free Monarchy, and an absolute, saving that the one rules without Councell, and the other against it, or at the best but to a cabinet councell consisting commonly of men of private interests, but certainly of no publicke trust.

Ob. But if the King must consent to such laws as the Parliament shall chuse to nomine, they may then propound unreasonable things to him, as to consent to his own deposing, or to the lessiting his own revenew, it.

Ans. So that the issue is, whether it be fitter to trust the without and integrity of our Parliament, or the will and pleasure of the King in this case of so great and publicke concernment. In a &illegible; the king being made the fountaine of justice and protection to his people by the fundementall lawes or constitution of this Kingdome, he is therefore to give life to such acts and things as tend thereunto, which acts depend not upon his pleasure, but though they are to receive their greater vigour from him, yet are they not to be suspended at pleasure by him, for that which at first was intended by the kingdome: for an honourable way of subsistence and administration must not be wrested contrary to the nature of this Polity, (which is a free and mirt Monarchy and not an absolute) to its destruction and confusion, so that in case the King in his person should decline his duty, the king in his courts are bound to performe it, where his authority properly refines, for if he refuse that honour which the republicke by its fundamentall constitution hath conferred upon him, and will not put forth the ads of it, for the end it was given him, viz. for the justice and safety of his people, this hinders not but that they who have as fundamentally reserved a power of being wellbeing in their own handes by the concurrence of Parliamentary authority to the royall dignity, may thereby provide for their own subsistence, wherein is acted the kings juridicall authority though his personall pleasure be withheld, for his legall and juridicall power is included and supposed in the very being, and consequently in the acts of Courts of justice, whose being he may as well suspend as their power of acting, for that without this is but a cypher, and therefore neither their being nor their acting so depend upon him, as not to be able to act and execute common justice and protection without him, in case he deny to act with them, and yet both so depend upon him, is that he is bound both in duty and honour, by the constitution of this polity to act in them and they from him, so that (according to that ariome in law) the King can doe no wrong, because his iuridicall power and authority is allwayes to controle his personall unscarriages.

Se Defendendo.

GOd and nature hath ordained Government for the preservation of the governed. This is a truth so undeniable, as that none will gain-say it, saving in practice, which therefore being taken for granted, it must needs follow that to what end Government was ordained, it must bee maintained, for that it is not in the power of particular persons or communities of men to depart with selfe preservation by any covenant whatsoever, nor ought it to bee exacted by any superiours from their inferiours, either by oath or edict, because neither oathes nor statutes are obligatory further then they agree with the righteous Laws of God and nature; further then so they ought neither to be made nor kept.

Let it be supposed then for argument sake, that the Militia of the Kingdom, is in the power of the King, yet now as the case stands it is lawfull for the Parliament to reassume it, because though they passed it into his hands, for the peoples preservation, yet it was never intended that by it he might compasse their destruction, contrary to the Law of nature; whereby every man, yea every thing is bound to preserve it selfe. And thus much in effect is confessed at unawares, by the Author of the Reply to the Answer of the London Petition: who affirmeth, saying The King is invested with the sole power of Training, Arraying, and Mastering, and then gives the reason, because it is most consonant to reason, as well as grounded on Law, That he wich is bound to protect, should be able to compasse that end. Which reason overthrows both his position and intention. 1. His position, for this is no reason why the sole power of the Militia should be in the hands of the King; because he is bound to protect, except he were bound solely to protect, that is, without the counsel and advice of Parliament: but it hath beene resolved that He is not sole judge of necessity, and therefore not sole protector against it, but together with His Parliament, who consequently shares in the power of the Militia. 2. It overthrows His intention, which is so to put the power of the Militia into the hands of the King, as to enable him to do what he wil with it, when as yet he himself cannot but affirm, it is his to protect withall, for hat when he ceaseth to use it to its end, it ceaseth to be in his power for else let the man speake plain, and say, it is His to destroy as well as to protect.

Ob. But the Militia is passed to the King, absolutely without any condition of revocation expressed, or of limitation to circumscribe the use whereunto it ought to be imployed.

1. Ans. Laws of God and nature, neither are nor need to be expressed in contracts or edicts, for they are ever supposed to be supreme to humane ordinances, and to chalenge obedience in the first place, and other Laws so far onely as they are consonant to them, though these Laws be further backed with Oathes and Protestations: As for instance, I give a man a sword, and sweare I will never take it from him; yet if he actually assault me, or it manifestly appeare he intends to cut my throat, or take my purse with it, I may lawfully possesse my selfe of it again if opportunity serve, because in such agreements betwixt man & man, the laws of nature neither are nor can be exempted, but are necessarily implyed, still to be of force, because no bonds can lawfully invalid them, and id solum possumus quod jure possumus. But it may be asked how it appeares that the King intends to imploy the Militia to the destruction of his people. Why first because He hath refused to hearken to the wholsome counsel of His Parliament, the representative body, and the highest Court and Counsel of the Kingdom. 2 Because, è contrario, he hearkens to the councels of notorious Papists and Malignants, men engaged against the publike good and welfare of this Kingdome, in a diametrall opposition, so that if they perish it prospereth, and if it prosper they perish. 3. Because &illegible; hath had a deepe hand in contriving and plotting the ruine and extirpation of the Parliament, by secret and open violence, and in them of the whole Kingdome of whom they are the Epitome, and as the King is the head, so they are the heart. But further it may be replied, that the King hath promised to maintain Parliaments and governe by Law. Ans. That is so far as he knowes his own heart, and as he can be master of himselfe: He sware the same at His Coronation and promised as much when he granted the Petition of Right, but how they have beene kept God knowes, and we are not ignorant. It may be His Majesty may meane as he speakes, but 1. Temptations may change his minde, as it hath done too often and as it did his that said to the Prophet, Is thy servant a dog that he should do such things? and yet did them. The welfare of Kingdomes is not to be founded upon bare spontaneous promises, but reall contracts. 2. He himselfe sayes, he himselfe is not skild in the Laws, and we have found it true, so that he must take information of them fro some body from his Parliament (that is his people that made them) he wil not, and are any sitter to be Judges of the Law, then the highest Court; if they may be Judges that are delinquents to the Law, and Malignants against it, and have beene grievous oppressors of the People, even against the known Laws (so much cried up) we are like to have just Judges and righteous Lawyers.

2. Ans. If the Militia be so absolutely the Kings, as that all power of defence and preservation of our selves and our rights be taken from us, to what purpose do we strive for liberty & property, and laws to confirm them? these are but imaginary things, if they have no hedge to fence them; If the Militia be for the King, let us burne the Statutes we have already, and save a labour of making more. No man would thinke it a good purchase to buy land, and when he hath paid his money to have it in the power of the seller, to take it from him by his sword.

Ob. It is true that Kings are tied by oath, and legall contracts, to governe by Laws, and to maintain liberty and property to their people, which puts them under an obligation of conscience to God, so that they are responsible to him for the breach of fidelity and duty, but not to the people who may minde them of their duty, but not compell them to it.

Ans. This Objection hath two parts, First, That Kings are onely responsible to God. 2. That Subjects must suffer, wrong, but not by force maintain their right. To the first I answer. That if Kings be solely answerable to God, then contracts are in vaine, for they shall answer for all their arbitrary and unjust tyrannie over their people, though there were no contracts. That which makes us happier then other Nations, sure is not this, that the King for the breach of his duty hath more to answer at the day of judgement then other Kings have, if that bee all wee have small cause to joy in our priviledges, they are neither worth the blood that hath been shed for them, nor the money that hath beene paid for them. Secondly, Government must be considered under a twofold notion, divine and humane. The Genus which is government it selfe is divine, so that people are absolutely bound to have government, but not bound to have an absolute government, for the species or the modus gubernandi is humane, and therefore the Apostle sayes, Be subject to every ordinance of man, that is, to every such kinde of Government as your lot falls to be under, by the constitution of the Common-wealth you live in. Now Government being thus of a mixt nature, the Ordinance both of God and man it is not onely subject to God but also to men, to be regulated, amended, and maintained by the people: for as it is Gods Ordinance for their good, so doth he give them liberty to provide it bee not abused to their hurt, so that when God shall put an opportunity into their hands, they ought to improve it to the setting of government up right, or the keeping of it so from apparent violations. There was a time when both Government and the manner of governing belonged to God, to wit, amongst the Israelites, for to that people he was both a God of moralls and politiks, and therefore he tooke it so ill for them to usurpe upon his right, as to desire to change their government from Judges to Kings, but this was a peculiar right he assumed over that particular people onely. To the second I answer thus. Every Subject taken divisim, and apart from the whole, is to suffer under abused authority, and to obey passively, rather then to breake union or cause confusion, but no Subject is bound to suffer by that which is not authority, as is the will of the Magistrate: If a Court of Justice should unjustly condemne a man, he is patiently to undergoe it, but if a Judge or the King himselfe should violently set upon him to kill him, he may defend himselfe; for the Ordinance of God and man both, is affixed to the office, and not unto the person, to the authority and not unto the will, so that the person acting out of office, and by his will may be resisted, though the ordinance may not. But the representative body of the Common-wealth, (which is all men conjunctim) they may not onely oppose the person and his will, but even the office and authority it selfe when abused, and are bound to it both in conscience to God when he gives them opportunity, and in discharging of their trust to them that imployed them. For first God calls to have the wicked removed from the Throne, and whom doth he call upon to doe it but upon the people (in case the King will not) or their trustees, for as hehath originally founded all authority in the people, so he expects a discharge of it from them for his glory, & the publike weale, which are the ends of Government, from which God and nature hath ordained it. Secondly, In discharge of their trust for the whole, for order sake, making them their representative actors, and putting that universall and popular authority, that is in the body of the people, and which (for the publike good and preservation) is above every man and all Laws, into their hands, they may expect and chalenge them by vertue of their stewardship, to provide for their safety and well being, against whomsoever shall oppose it, no one being above all, and therefore ought not that universall power, which by way of trust is conveyed over to the Parliament be betrayed into the hands of any by admitting or allowing any authority to be superiour, by tollerating abuses and usurpations, as if they had not power to regulate them.



8.15. Anon., Briefe Collections out of Magna Charta (19 May, 1643)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

Anon., Briefe Collections OUT OF Magna Charta: OR, The Knowne good old LAWES OF ENGLAND. Which sheweth; That the Law is the highest Inheritance the King hath; and that if His Charter, Grant, or Pattent, be repugnant to the said Lawes, and Statutes, cannot be good, as is instanced in the Charter of Bridewell, London, and others. By which it appeares; That the King by His Charter may not alter the Nature of the Law, the Forme of a Court; nor Inheritance lineally to descend; nor that any Subject be protected from Arrests, Suites, &c.
Printed at London, for George Lindsey, and are to be sould at his Shop over against London-stone. 1643.

Estimated date of publication

19 May, 1643.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 260; Thomason E. 102 (11.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet

Collections out of MAGNA CHARTA: OR, The knowne good old Lawes of ENGLAND.

Magnalia Regni, 19. H. 6.INter Magnalia Regni; Amongst the greatest and most haughty things of this Kingdome; as it is affirmed in the 19. H. 6. Le ley est le pluis hault. Inheritance q. le Roy ad, &c. That is; the Law is the highest Inheritance that the King hath.

For by the Law both the King and all his Subjects are ruled and directed.

The Maximes to direct the King.The Maximes and Rules whereby the King is directed, are the ancient Maximes and Customes, and States of this Land.

The Maximes.The Maximes are the foundations of the Law, and the full and perfect Conclusions of reason.

The Customes of the Realm.The Customes of the Realme, are properly such things, as through much, often, and long vsage: either of simplicitie, or ignorance, getting once an Entrie; are entred and hardned by Succession, and after be defended as firme and stable Lawes.

The Statutes of the Realm.The Statutes of the Realme, are the resolute Decrees, and the absolute Judgements of the Parliament established by the King, with the common consent of the three Estates, who doe represent the whole and entire Body of the Realme of England.

To the purpose of this discourse, The law is: If any Charter bee graunted by the King, the which is repugnant to the Maximes, Customes, or Statutes of the Realme; Then is the Charter void, and it is either by Quo warranto, or by Scire facias (as learned men have left Presidents) to bee repealed. As in Anno. 19. Ed. 3.19. Ed. 3.

A Kings Grant repugnant to Satutes &c. not good.That a Kings Grant which is either repugnant to Law, Custome, or Statute, is not good nor pleadable in the Law; See what Presidents thereof have beene left by our wise Forefathers.

13. H. 6. H. 2.It is set downe in 13. H. 6. That King H. 2. had by his Charter granted to the Pryor and Monks of S. Bartholomews in London, that the Pryor and his Monks should be as free in their Church as the King was in his Crowne.

Yet by this grant was the Pryor and his Monks deemed and taken to be but as Subjects, and the aforesaid grant in that respect to be voide. For by the law the King may not any more disable himselfe of his regall superiority over his Subjects, then his subjects can renounce or avoide their subjection, against or towards their King or Superiour.

Stacyes, example.You know that Stacy would have renounced his loyalty and subjection to the Crowne of England, and would have adopted himself to have been a subject to King Philip of Spaine. But answer was made by the Court; That by the lawes of this Realme, neither may the King release or relinquish the subjection of his subject, neither may the subject revolt in his allegiance from the superiority of his Prince.

K. Ed. 3.There are two notable presidents in the time of King Edward 3. the which although they take place in someone respect; yet were they not adjudged of according to the minde of the King being the Grantor.

The L. Mountague.That is, the King granted unto the Lord William Mountague, the Isle of Wight, and that he should be crowned King of the same.

The Earle of Darby.And he also granted unto the Earle of Darby the Isle of Man, and that he should be crowned King of the same.

8. H. 4.Yet these two personages (notwithstanding the said grants) were subjects, and their Islands were under the dominion and subjection of the King, and in that respect were the grants voide.

31. H. 6.It was spoken in the 8. H. 4. Quod potestas Principis, non est inclusa legibus. That is, a Princes power is not bounded with rules or limits of the law: howsoever that sentence is so, the law agreed to the contrary.

The 31 H. 6. whereas it is agreed for law, That it is not in the Kings power to grant by his Charter, that a man seized of land in soe simple, may devise by his last Will and Testament the same lands to another, or that the youngest sonne by the custome of Burrough English, shall not inherit; or that lands being Frank see, should be of the nature of ancient demeasne.

34. H. 8. 39. Ass. 4. 8.Or that a new incorporated towne, that an assize of Fresh force should be used, or that they shall have toll, traverse, or through toll, or such like, &c. 37 H. 8. & 49. Ass. 4. 8.

See also a notable case agreed for law in 6. H. 7. where the Justices doe affirme the law to be, that Rape is made felony by statute, and that the same by the law is not inquirable but before Justices that have authority to heare and determine of the same.

In this case the King cannot by his Charter make the same offence to be enquired of in a Law day; nor the King cannot grant, that a Leet shall be of any other nature, then it is by the course of Common Law: So thereby it appeareth; that the King may not either alter the nature of the Law, the forme of a Court, or the manner or order of pleading.

Anno 8. H. 6.And in 8. H. 6. it is agreed for Law; That the King may not grant to I. S. That I. S. may be judge in his owne proper Cause; nor that I. S. shall be sued by an action at the Common Law, by any other person; nor that I. S. shall have a Market, a Faire, or a free Warrant in another mans soyle.

Hill Justice.And in the long Record by Hill the reverend Judge, it is said for Law; That whereas the King hath a prerogative, that Hee shall have the worship of the body of His Tenants (although he hold of the King but by posteriority) yet if the King grant over his Seigniory unto another with like prerogative (notwitstanding any Posteriority) the prerogative shall not passe: For (saith the Booke) the King by His Charter cannot change the Lawes.

The same Law is; That the King cannot grant unto another the prerogative of Nullum tempus occurrit Regi; nor that a Discent shall not take away an Entry; nor a Collaterall Warrant shall not bind; nor that Possessto Fratris shall not take place; nor that the wife shall not be endowed of her husbands lands; nor that Inheritance shall lineally descend; nor that any Subject shall be under protection from arrests, suits, and such like, &c. Yet doe not wee see daily in experience; That whatsoever can be procured under the Great Seale of England, is taken Quasi sanctim?

And although it be meerly against the Laws, Customes, and Statutes of this Realme; yet it is defended in such sort, that some have been called rebellious, for not allowing such voyd and unlawfull grants.

And an infinite number of such like presidents I could set downe to maintaine the aforesaid argument, but these few examples shall serve for this time.

The authority of the Governours of Bridewell.But now we have to see, if the said Charter granted to the Citie concerning the authoritie of the Governours of Bridewell, stand with the Lawes, Customes, and Statutes of this Realme or not.

The effect of which Charter in one place is; That the Governours have authority to search, enquire, and seek out idle Ruffians, Tavernehunters, Vagabonds, Beggars, and all persons of evill name and same, whatsoever they bee, men or women, and then to send and commit to Bridewell, or by any other wayes or meanes to punish or correct them, as shall seeme good to their discretions.

Here you see what the words of the said Charter are.

Now are wee to consider what the words of the Law be.

Magna Charta cap. 29.See Magna Charta of the Liberties of England cap. 29.

No Freeman shall be taken or Imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free customes, or to be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wayes destroyed, Nor wee shall not passe upon him nor condemne him, but by lawfull Judgement of men of his degree, or by the Law of the land.

Now if we doe compare the said Charter of Bridewell with the great Charter of England both in matter, sense, and meaning, you shall finde them meerely repugnant.

In the said great Charter of England, in the last Chapter amongst other things, the King granteth for him and his heires, That neither he nor his heires shall procure or do any thing, whereby the Liberties in the said Charter contained, shall be infringed or broken.

And if any thing be procured or done by any person contrary to the premisses, it shall be had of no force or effect.Stat. of Malb. cap. 3.

Here must you note also, That the said great Charter of England is not onely confirmed by the Statute of &illegible; cap. 3. but also by many other Statutes made in the time of King Edw. 3. King R. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5.King Ed. 3. R. 2. H. 4. H. 5. H. 6. and Hen. 6. Amongst sundry of which Confirmations, I do note one above the rest. The which is An. 43. Edw. 3. cap. 1. The words are these viz.

Anno 43. E. 3. cap. 1.It is assented and accorded, That the great Charter of England, and the Charter of the Forrests, shall be kept in all points: and if any Statute be made to the contrary they shall bee holden for none.

Hitherto you see it very plainly, That procurement nor Act done either by the King or any other person, or any Act of Parliament, or other thing; may in any wayes alter or change any one point contained in the said great Charter of England.

But if you will note the words, sence, matter, and meaning of the said Charter of Bridewell, you shall finde it all meerly repugnant to the said great Charter of England.

I doe note one speciall Statute made in the said 43. yeere of King Ed. 3. the which if it be well compared to the said Charter of Bridewell, it will make an end of this contention.

The words are these, viz.

Item, at the request of the Commons, by the Petition put forth, in this Parliament, to eschew the mischiefes and damages done to divers of the Commons by false Accuserss which often times have made their Accusements, more for vengeance and singular profit, then for the profit of the King and his people; of which accused persons, some have been taken and caused to come, &c. against the Law.

It is assented and accorded for the Government of the Commons, That no man be put to answer without presentment before the Justices of the King upon Record by due processe, As by Writ originall, according to the old Law of the land, And if any thing from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be void in the Law, and holden for Errour.

As I said before, so say I still; If this Statute be in force, as I am sure it is; then is the Law cleare: That the proceedings in Bridewell upon the accusation of Whoors taken by the Governours of Bridewell aforesaid; are not sufficient to call any man to answer by any Warrant by them made, without Indictment or other matter of Record, according to the old Law of the land.

Such like Commissions as this of Bridewell is, were granted in the time of King Ed. 3. by especiall procurement, to enquire of speciall Articles, the which Commissioners did make their Inquiries in secret places, &c.

Anno 42. E. 3. cap. 4.It was therefore enacted, Anno 42. Ed. 3. cap. 4. That from henceforth in all Inquiries within the Realme, Commissions should bee made to some Justices of one Bench or other, or Justices of Affize, or Justices of the Peace, with other of the most worthy of the Countie, &c.

By this Statute we may learne, that Commissioners of Inquiries ought to sit in open Courts, and not in any close or secret place, and that their Inquirie ought to be by Juries, and by no discussion or examination.

Anno 1. H. 8. cap. 8.If you looke upon the Statute of Anno H. 8. cap. 8. you shall there perceive the very cause, why Empson, Sheffeild, and others, were quite overthrown, the which was (as by the Indictments especially appeareth) for executing Commissions against due course of the Common Law, and in that they did not proceed in Justice according to the Liberties of the great Charter of England, and of other Laws and Statutes provided for the due executing of Justice.

There was a Commission granted forth in the beginning of the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth of happie memory unto Sir Ambrose Cave, Sir Richard Sackvile, and others, for the examination of Felons, and of other lewd persons. It so fell out, that many men of good calling were impeached by the accusation of Felons. Some great men and Judges also carred into the validity of the Commission, And it was thought that the Commission was against the Law, and therefore did the Commissioners give over the Commission, as all men know.

And whereas the Examination is by the Commission referred to the wisedome and discretion of the Governours of Bridewell, As touching this point, I find that the examination of robberies done by Sanctuarie men, was appointed to the discretion of the Councell, or to four Justices of the Peace; But this was not by Commission, or by Grant, but by Act of Parliament, made Anno 22. H. 8. cap. 14.

Anno 22. H. 8. cap. 14.The Justices of both the Benches have used to examine the abilities and disabilites of Attourneys, and by their discretions to place or remove them upon their misdemeanours without any solemnitie of triall at the Common-Pleas or Law, And that is and have been done by the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer touching their Attourneys.

But if you search the cause thereof, you shall finde the cause to be done by the authoritie of Parliament. An. 4. H. 4. cap. 1.

Anno 4. H. 4. cap. 1.And whereas sundry men are arrested by Latitat, Capias, Attachments, and such like Processe whereof their corporall presence is required, yet upon infirmities and other maladies, the Justices (having examined the matter) may by their discretions admit them to make Attourneyes.

Anno 7. H. 4. cap. 13.But note you in this case, that all this is done by authority of Parliament. An. 7. H. 4. cap. 13.

The Commission of Bankrupts gives power to their Commissioners to take order by their discretions both with the body and goods of the Bankrupt, and set the Bankrupt out of his house, and him to imprison, and all this is referred to the discretion of the Commissioners; But this is by authority of Parliament.Anno 13. Eliz. cap. 7. An. 13. Eliz. cap. 7.

The punishment and examination of such as countefeit Letters of privie tokens, is referred to the discretion of the Justices of peace in every Countie; But this is by Parliament. Anno 33. H. 8. cap. 1.Anno 33. H. 8. cap. 1.

The examination of Riots, Routs, and such like misdemeanours in the Star-chamber, is referred to the discretion of the Iudges of the Court;Anno 3. H. 7. cap. 1. But this is by Parliament. An. 3. H. 7. cap. 1. & An. 2. H. 8. cap. 20.

Anno 2. H. 8. cap. 20.The examination of vnlawfull hunting in Parks, warrens, &c. is referred to the discretion of the Iustices of the Peace. And if the Offender deny his hunting, then it is felony. This is also by Parliament. Anno 1. H. 7. cap. 7.

Anno 1. H. 7. cap. 7.The Rate, Taxation and punishment of servants, labourers, &c. of their wages, is referred to the discretion of the Iustices of Peace in every County, and Citie; but this is by Parliament. Anno 5. Eliz. cap. 4.

Anno 5. Eliz. cap. 4.The examination of Rogues and Vagabonds with the forme of their punishment, is referred to the Iustices, but by Parliament.

The determination of all causes in Wales, is referred to bee ended by the Kings Councell there established, by their Wisdomes and discretions; but yet this is by Parliament.

The Grant of the Pluralities, Tot quots, Qualifications, Dispensations, Licences, and Tollerations, is referred to the discretion of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; but this is by Parliament.

The dealings and examinations of High Commissioners are authorized altogether by Parliament.

And to be short, you shall find in the great volume of the Statutes, neere the number of fortie Acts of Parliament, that doe refer the examination and punishment of Offenders to the wisdome and discretion of the Iustices.

Whereupon I doe note:

Nota.That if the King by Prerogative might have done all things by Commission, or by Charter; That it had been in vaine to have made so many Lawes in Parliament for the same.

And to make the Law more manifest in this question, In ann. 42. Ed. 3. lib.Ann. 42. E. 3. lib. Assiz. 11. 5. Assiz. 11. 5. A Commission was sent out of the Chancerie to one I. S. and others, to arrest the body and goods of A. B. and him to imprison; and the Iustices gave judgement, that this Commission was directly against the Law, to take any ones body without Indictment: and therefore they took the Commission from the Commissioners,Nota. to the intent to deliver the same to the Kings Councell, Quod nota.

Anno 24. E. 3.And I doe also find in the 24. yeere of King E. 3. this president, That a Commission was granted to certaine persons, to indict all those who were notoriously standered for any felonies, trespasses, or for any other misdemeinons, yea although they were indicted for the same.

And it was adjudged that this Commission was directly against the Law.

And thus I doe conclude upon the whole matter.

That the Commission of Bridewell would bee well considered of by the learned Councell of the citie: For I do not think to the contrary; but that there bee learned, that by their great knowledge in the Law, are well able either in a Quo warranto, or any other action brought to defend the same.



8.16. Philip Hunton, A Treatise of Monarchy (24 May, 1643)

Bibliographical Information

Full title

Philip Hunton, A Treatise of Monarchie, Containing two Parts: 1. Concerning Monarchy in generall. 2. Concerning this particular Monarchy. Wherein all the maine Questions occurrent in both, are stated, disputed, and determined: And in the close, the Contention now in being, is moderately debated, and the readiest meanes of Reconcilement proposed. Done by an earnest Desirer of his Countries Peace. London, Printed for John Bellamy, and Ralph Smith, and are to be sold at the three golden Lions in Corn-hill, Anno Dom. 1643.

Estimated date of publication

24 May, 1643.

Thomason Tracts Catalog information

TT1, p. 262; Thomason E. 103 (15.)

Editor’s Introduction

(Placeholder: Text will be added later.)

Text of Pamphlet


I Write not this Discourse to soment or heighten the wofull dissention of the Kingdome; but if possible to cure, or at least to allay it: That former too many have done already, this latter, much too few.

When a Patient lies sicke under the destroying paroxismes of a Fever, every stander-by will be telling his Medicine, though he be no Physitian: O then let no Sonne of this State account it presumption in me, for putting in my judgement, and speaking that which I conceive might, if not remove, yet mitigate this fatall distemperature of our common Mother: at another time perhaps it might be censurable, but in this exigence laudable.

Something I was full of, which I conceited might doe good; here I have produced it. And now if any man can finde a better way to appeasement, for the sake of peace let him speedily declare it.

I intend not these ensuing Disputes to any highflowne judgements, who looke downe on all mens, but their owne, to censure, not to be informed, nor to any which hath designes of his owne, which on the opportunity of this Division hee meanes to follow; nor to any who is already possessed by an opinion, which hee resolves to make good: But to the calme and impartiall spirit of every judicious, peacefull man; Let him weigh my Assertions by my grounds on which I build them, and if he find them any where unsound, let him thew mee in what, and I will gladly and thankfully reforme my errour: For as I love not obstinacy in groundlesse opinions in others, so I would avoid it in my selfe.

I have not annexed my Name, not that I am ashamed to owne what I conceive to be the truth; but because I know who I am, and that my Name could adde no estimation to the Treatise: Nor do I desire it should: They who search for Truth must regard Things, not Persons: Give me therefore the now common Liberty to goe namelesse; many have taken it for worse ends. If any condemn me for any thing here, it must be for endevouring a thanklesse Moderation ’twixt two Extremes. But I will detaine you no longer at the doore.

The Contents of the ensuing Treatise.

  • Part. 1.  Of Monarchy in generall.
    • Cap. 1.  Of Politicall Government.
      • ITs Originall: How farre forth is is from God? Sect. 1.
      • Its end: whether the end of government be the peoples good? Sect. 2.
      • Its division into severall sorts. Sect. 3.
    • Cap. 2.  Of the division of Monarchy into absolute and limited.
      • Whether absolute Monarchy be a lawfull Government? Sect. 1.
      • Of three degrees of absolutenes in Monarchy. Sect. 2.
      • Whether Resistence be lawfull in absolute Monarchy? Sect. 3.
      • What it is which constituteth a Monarchy limited? Sect. 4.
      • How farre subjection is due in a limited Monarchy? Sect. 5.
      • How farre resistence is lawfull in a limited Monarchy? Sect. 6.
      • Who shall be Iudge of the excesses of a limited Monarch? Sect. 7.
    • Cap. 3.  Of the division of Monarchy into elective and successive.
      • Elective and successive Monarchies, what they are? Sect. 1.
      • Whether all Monarchy be originally from the peoples consent? Sect. 2.
      • Of Monarchy by divine Institution. Sect. 3.
      • Of Monarchy by prescription. Sect. 4.
      • Of Monarchy by Conquest. Sect. 5.
      • Whether Conquest can give a just Title? Sect. 5.
      • Whether a successive Monarch may be also limited? Sect. 6.
    • Cap. 4.  Of the division of Monarchy into simple and mixed.
      • Simple and mixed Monarchy what they are? Sect. 1.
      • What it is which constituteth a Monarchy mixed? Sect. 2.
      • How farre the Princes power extends in a mixed Monarchy? Sect. 3.
  • Part 2.  Of this particular Monarchy.
    • Cap. 1.  Whether the power wherewith our Kings be invested be an absolute or limited and moderated Power?
      • The Question stated. Sect. 1.
      • Proved radically limited. Sect. 2.
      • Contrary Arguments answered. Sect. 3. & 4.
    • Cap. 2.  Wherein and how this Monarchy is limited and defined?
    • Cap. 3.  Whether it be of a simple or mixed constitution?
      • It is proved to be fundamentall mixed. Sect. 1.
      • The Arguments for the contrary are answered. Sect. 2.
      • Whether the Authority of the two Houses be subordinate and derived from the Kings? Sect. 3.
      • The Question resolved and cleared. Sect. 4.
    • Cap. 4.  How farre forth this Monarchy is mixed, and what part of the power is referred to a mixed subject?
    • Cap. 5.  How farre forth the two estates may oppose the Will and proceedings of the Monarch?
      • The Question duly stated. Sect. 1, 2.
      • Whether Resistence of Instruments of illegall Commands be lawfull? Sect. 3.
      • Proved lawfull. Sect. 3.
      • Contrary Arguments dissolved. Sect. 4.
    • Cap. 6. 
      • In what cases the other Estates may assume the Armes of the Kingdome for resistence of Instruments of arbitrary Commands? Answered negatively. Sect. 1.
      • Affirmatively. Sect. 2.
    • Cap. 7. 
      • Where the legall power of finall Iudging of these cases doth reside, the three estates differing about them?
      • The Question is stated and determined. Sect. 1.
      • Arguments contrary are answered. Sect. 2.
      • What to be done in such dissention. Sect. 3.
    • Cap. 8. 
      • The former Truths brought home to the present contention. Sect. 1.
      • A moderate debate concerning the present contention. Sect. 2.
      • The speediest meanes of Reconcilement proposed. Sect. 3.


Part. I.

Cap. I.

Of Politicall Government, and its Distinction into severall Kinds.

Sect. 1.GOvernment and Subjection are Relatives, so that what is said of the One, may in proportion be said of the other: Which being so, it will be needlesse to treat of both: because it will be easie to apply what is spoken of one to the other. Government is Potestatis Exercitium, the exercise of a Morall Power. One of these is the Root and Measure of the other; which if it exceed, is exorbitant, is not Government, but a Transgression of it. This Power and Government is differenced with respect to the Governed to wit, a Family, which is called Oeconomicall: or a publike society, which is called Politicall, or Magistracie. Concerning this Magistracie we will treat 1. in generall. 2. Of the principall kind of it.

In generall concerning Magistracie. There are two things about which I find difficultie and difference, viz. the Originall and the End.

Authority, how farre from God, how farre from Men.First for the Originall: There seem to be two extremes in Opinion; while some amplifie the Divinitie thereof: Others speak so slightly of it, as if there were little els but Humane Institution in it. I will briefly lay down my apprehensions of the evident truth in this point: and it may be, things being clearly and distinctly set down, there will be no reall ground for contrariety in this matter. Three things herein must necessarily be distinguished, viz. 1. The Constitution of Power of Magistracie in generall. 2. The Limitation of it to this or that kind. 3. The Determination of it to this or that Individuall Person or Line.

For the first of these, 1. It is Gods expresse Ordinance that in the societies of Mankind, there should be a Magistracie or Government. At first when there were but two, God ordeyned it, Gen. 3. 16. St. Paul affirmes as much of the Powers that be, none excepted, Rom. 131. 2. This Power where ever placed ought to be respected as a participation of divine Soveraignty, Psal, 82. 1. 6. and every soule ought to be subject to it for the Lords sake 1 Pot. 2. 13. that is, for conscience sake of Gods Ordinance, Rom. 13. 5. and under penaltie of Damnation, v. 2. These are Truths against which there is no colour of opposition. Indeed this Power may be claymed by them who have it not; and where there is a limitation of this Power, subjection may be claymed in cases which are without those limits: But to this Ordinance of Power where it is and when it requires subjection, it must be given; as before.

For the second. 1. In some particular communities the Limitation of it to this or that kind, is an immediate Ordinance of God: so Kingly Power was appointed to the Jewes on their desire, 1 Sam. 8. 9. whether they had not a kind of Monarchicall Government before, I will not stand on it: but it is evident that then, on their earnest desire God himselfe condescended to an establishment of Regalitie in that state. 2. But for a generall binding Ordinance, God hath given no word, either to command or commend one kind above another: Men may according to their Relations to the forme they live under to their affections and judgements in divers respects, preferre this or that form above the rest; but we have no divine limitation: and it were an absurditie to think so; for then we should uncharitably condemne all the Communities which have not that form for violation of Gods Ordinance and pronounce those other Powers unlawfull. 3. This then must have another and lower fountain to flow from, which can be no other then Humane. The higher Power is Gods Ordinance: That it resideth in One, or more, in such or such a way is from humane designment: for when God leaves a matter indifferent, the restriction of this indifferencie is left to secondary causes. And I conceive this is St. Peters meaning, when he calls Magistracie α&illegible;νrhosymbolωπί η kappav&illegible;σος, Humano Creature; S. Paul calls it Gods Ordinance, because the Power is Gods: S. Peter calls it humane Ordinance, because the specification of it to this or that form, is from the societies of Mankind. I confesse it may be called a humane Creature, in regard of its subject, which is a Man, or Men: or its End which is to rule over Men for the good of Men, but the other seems more naturall: and it induces no disparagement to Authority, being so understood. But how ever you take that place, yet the thing affirmed stands good, that God by no word binds any people to this or that form, till they by their own Act bind themselves.

For the third: the same is to be said of it as of the second: some particular men we find whom God was pleased by his own immediate choise to invest with this his Ordinance of Authority: Moses, Saul, David, yea God by his immediate Ordinance determined the Government of that people to Davids posteritie and made it successive; so that that People after his appointment and word was made known to them, and the room voyd by Sauls death was as immediately bound by divine: Law to have David, and his Sonnes after him to be Magistrates, as to Magistracie it selfe. But God hath not done so for every people: ascriptumest cannot be alledged for the endowing this or that person or stock with Soveraignty over a community: They alone had the priviledge of an extraordinary Word. All others have the ordinary and mediate hand or God to enthrone them: They attaine this determination of Authority to their Persons by the tacite and virtuall, or else expresse and formall consent of that Society of men they governe, either in their owne persons, or the root of their succession, as I doubt not, in the sequele it will be made appeare. But let no man thinke that it is any lessening or weakning of Gods Ordinance in them to teach that it is annexed to their Persons by a humane Meane: for though it be not so full a title to come to it by the simple Providence of God, as by the expresse Precept of God: yet when by the disposing hand of Gods Providence a Right is conveyed to a person or family, by the meanes of a publique Fundamentall Oath. Contract and Agreement of a State, it is equivalent then to a Divine Word; and within the bounds of that publique Agreement the conveyed Power is as Obligatory, as if an immediate word had designed it. Thus it appears that they which say there is divinum quiddam in Soveraignes, and that they have their power from God, speake in some sence truth; As also they which say that originally Power is in the People, may in a sound sence be understood. And in these things we have Dr. Ferns consent in his late discourse upon this subject. Sect. 3.

Sect. 2.For the end of Magistracie; to set out that is no hard matter,Whether the end of Government be the peoples good? if we consider what was looked at when God ordeyned it. That was the Good of the society of men over which it is set: So Saint Paul, Rom. 13. 4. σοι εipsgrς τogrgr apsgrγαθogrgrν. God aymed at it in the Institution of Government: and so do all men in the choice of it, where they may be choosers: such a Government, and such persons to sway it, as may most conduce to publique Weale. Also it is the measure of all the Acts of the Governour: and he is good or bad according as he uses his Power to the good of the State wherewith he is intrusted. That is the end: but not the sole end; The preservation of the Power and Honour of the Governour is an end too: but I thinke not co-ordinate, but subordinate to the other: because doubtles in the Constitution of Government, that is first thought on, and this in congruity to that; Also the reason why the Power and Honour of the Magistrate must be preserved, is for the publique societies sake because its welfare depends thereon: And if it fall out that one of them must suffer: every good Magistrate will descend something from his greatnes be it for the good of the Community: On the other side, though every subiect ought for the honour and good of the Magistrate to give up his private; yet none ought to advance the greatnes of his Soveraign with the publique detriment. Whence in my apprehension the end of Magistracie is the good of the whole Body, Head, and Members conjunctly: but if we speak division, then the good of the Society is the Ultime end: and next to that, as conducent to that, the Governours Greatnes and Prerogative. And herein also accordeth Dr. Fern with us. Sect. 3. Where he sayes, That the people are the end of the governing Power. There is another question of mainer concernment, here in our generall discourse of Authority fitly to be handled. viz. How farre subjection is due to it? but because it hath a great dependance on the kinds and States of Power, and cannot be so well conceived without the Precognition thereof: I will referre it to after opportunities.

Sect. 3.For the division of this Power of Magistracie. It cannot be well divided into several species; for it is one simple thing an indivisible beame of Divine Perfection;Division of Magistracie. yet for our more distinct conceaving thereof, Men have framed severall distinctions of it. So with respect of its measure, it is absolute or limited: In respect of its manner. It is, as St. Peter divides it, Supreame, or Subordinate. In respect of its Meane of acquiring, it is Elective, or successive; for I conceive that of Conquest, and Prescription of usuage are reducible to one of these, as will appeare afterwards. In respect of its degrees it is Nomotheticall or Architectonicall and Gubernative or Executive. And in respect of the subject of its residence there is an ancient and usuall distinction of it into Monarchicall, Aristocraticall and Democraticall. These either simple or mixt of two, or all three together, of which the Predominant gives the denomination. These are not accurate specificative, Divisions of Power, for it admits none such, but partitions of it according to divers respects. The course of my intention directs me to speak only of Monarchicall Power, which is the chiefe and most usuall forme of Government in the world; The other two being apt to resolve into this, but this not so apt to dissolve into them.

Chap. II.

Of the Division of Monarchy into absolute and limited.

Sect. 1.NOW we must know that most of those distinctions which were applyed to Power in generall are appliable to Monarchy because the respects on which they arise are to be found in it. But I will insist on the three main divisions: for the handling of them will bring us to a cleare understanding of what is needfull to be known about Monarchicall Power.

First, of the distinction of Monarchy into Absolute and Limited. Absolute Monarchy is when the Soveraignty is so fully in one that it hath no Limits or Bounds under God, but his owne Will. It is when a people are absolutely resigned up or resigne up themselves to be governed by the will of one man. Such were the ancient Easterne Monarchies, and that of the Persian and Turke at this day, as farre as we know. This is a lawfull GovernmentWhether absolute Monarchy be a lawfull government. and therefore where men put themselves into this utmost degree of subjection by Oath and Contract, or are borne and brought unto it by Gods Providence it binds them and they must abide it because an Oath to a lawfull thing is Obligatory. This in Scripture is very evident as Ezek. 17. 16. 18. 19. Where Iudgement is denounced against the King of Iudab for breaking the Oath made to the King of Babylon; and it is called Gods Oath, yet doubtles this was an Oath of absolute subjection. And Rom. 13. the power which then was, was absolute; yet the Apostle not excluding it calls it Gods ordinance, and commands subjection to it: so Christ commands tribute to be paid, and payes it himselfe; yet it was an arbitrary taxe, the production of an absolute power. Also the soveraignty of masters over servants was absolute, and the same in Oeconomy as absolute Monarchy is in policie, yet the Apostle enjoynes not masters called to Christianity to renounce that title as too great and rigid to be kept but exhorts them to moderation in the exercise of it; and servants to remaine contented in the condition of their servitude. More might be said to legitimate this kinde of government, but it needs not in so plaine a case.

Sect. 2.This absolute Monarchy hath three degrees, yet all within the state of absolutenesse. The first, when the Monarch, whose will is the peoples Law,Three degrees of absolutenesse. doth set himselfe no stated Rule or Law to rule by, but by immediate Edicts and commands of his owne will governes them, as in his owne and Councels judgement he thinks fit. Secondly, when he sets downe a Rule and Law by which he will ordinarily govern, reserving to himselfe liberty to vary from it, wherein, and as oft as in his discretion he judges fit: and in this the Soveraigne is as free as the former, onely the people are at a more certainty what he expects from them in ordinary. Thirdly, when he not onely sets downe an expresse Rule and Law to governe by, but also promiseth and engages himself in many cases not to alter that rule: but this engagement is an after condescent and act of grace, not dissolving the absolute oath of subiection, which went before it, nor is intended to be the rule of his power, but of the exercise of it. This Ruler is not so absolute as the former in the use of his power, for he hath put a bond on that, which he cannot breake without breach of promise; that is, without sin: but he is as absolute in his power, if he will sinfully put it forth into act, it hath no politick bounds, for the people still owe him absolute subiection, that not being dissolved or lessened by an act of grace comming afterwards.

Sect. 3.Now in governments of this nature, How far obedience is due, and, Whether any resistance be lawfull, is a question which here must be decided. For the due effecting whereof, we must premise some needfull distinctions to avoid confusion. Obedience is twofold; first, Positive and active,Whether resistance be lawfull in absolute Monarchy. when in conscience of an authority we doe the thing commanded: secondly, Negative and passive, when though we answer not Authority by doing, yet we doe it by contented undergoing the penalty imposed. Proportionably resistance is twofold: first. Positive, by an opposing of force: secondly, Negative, when onely so much is done as may defend our selves from force, without returne of force against the Assailant. Now this negative resistance is also twofold: first, In inferiour and sufferable cases: secondly, or in the supreme case and last necessity of life and death: and then too it is first, either of particular person or persons; secondly, or of the whole community. And if of particular persons, then either under plea and pretence of equity assaulted; or else without any plea at all, meerly for will and pleasure sake; for to that degree of rage and cruelty sometimes the heart of man is given over. All these are very distinguishable cases, and will be of use either in this or the ensuing disputes.

Assert. 1.To the question I say. First, Positive obedience is absolutely due to the will and pleasure of an absolute Monarch, in all lawfull and indifferent things: because in such a State the will of the Prince is the supreme Law, so that it binds to obedience in every thing not prohibited by a superiour, that is. Divine Law: for it is in such case the higher power, and is Gods ordinance.

Assert. 2.Secondly, When the will of an absolute Monarch commands a thing forbidden to be done by Gods Law then it bindes not to active obedience; then is the Apostles rule undoubtedly true, It is better to obey God then men: For the Law of the inferiour gives place to the superiour. In things defined by God, it should be all one with us for the Magistrate to command us to transgresse that, as to command us an impossibility; and impossibilities fall under no Law. But on this ground no man must quarrell with Authoritie, or reject its commands as unlawfull, unlesse there be an open unlawfulnesse in the face of the act commanded. For if the unlawfulnesse be hidden in the ground or reason of the action, inferiours must not be curious to enquire into the grounds or reasons of the commands of superiours; for such licence of enquiry would often frustrate great undertakings, which much depend on speed and &illegible; of execution. I speak all this of absolute government, where the will and reason of the Monarch is made the higher power, and its expression the supreme Law of a State.

Assert. 3.Thirdly, suppose an absolute Monarch should so degenerate into Monstrous unnaturall Tyranny, as apparently to seeke the destruction of the whole community, subject to him in the lowest degree of vassallage, then such a community may negatively resist such subversion: yea, and if constrained to it by the last necessity, positively resist and defend themselves by force against any instruments whatsoever, imployed for the effecting thereof. 1. David did so in his particular case, when pursued by Soul: he made negative resistence by flight, and doubtlesse he intended positive resistence against any instrument, if the negative would not have served the turne: else why did he so strengthen himselfe by Forces? sure not to make positive resistance, and lay violent hands upon the Person of the Lords Anointed, as it appeared; yet for some reason he did it doubtlesse, which could be none other, but by that force of Armes to defend himselfe against the violence of any mis-imployed inferiour hands. If then he might doe it for his particular safety, much rather may it be done for the publike. 2. Such an act is without the compasse of any the most absolute Potentate; and therefore to resist in it can be to resist no power, nor the violation of any due of subjection. For, first, the most submisse subjection ever intended by any community, when they put themselves under anothers power, was the command of a reasonable will and power; but to will and command the destruction of the whole body over which a power is placed, were an act of will most unreasonable and &illegible; destructive, and so not the act of such a will, to which subjection was intended by any reasonable creatures. Secondly, the publike good and being is armed at in the &illegible; bond of subjection; for in the constitution of such unlimited soveraignty, though every particular mans good and being is subjected to the will of One supreme yet certainly the conservation of the whole Publike was intended by it; which being invaded; the intent of the constitution is overthrowne: and an act is done which can be supposed to be within the compasse of no politicall power: So that did Nero as it was reported of him in his immanity thirst for the destruction of whole Rome; and if he were truly what the Senate pronounced him to be, Humazi generos hostes, then it might justifie a negative resistance of his person; and a positive, of any Agent should be set on so inhumane a service. And the united Provinces are allowed in resisting &illegible; 2d. though he had bin their absolute Monarch, if he resolved the extirpation of the whole people, and the planting the countrey with Spaniards, as it is reported he did. And that assertion of some, that All resistance is against the Apostles prohibition. Resistance by power of Armes is utterly unlawfull, cannot be justified in such a latitude. But of this more will be spoken in the current of this discourse.

Assert. 4.Fourthly, suppose by such a power any particular person or persons life be invaded, without any plea of reason or cause for it, I suppose it hard to deny him liberty of negative resistance of power; yea, and positive, of any Agents, in such assault of murther: for though the case be not so cleare as the former yet it seemes to me justified by the fact of David, and the rescuing of Jonathan from the causlesse cruell intent of his Fathers putting him to death. As also such an act of will carrying no colour of reason with it, cannot be esteemed the act of a rationall will, and so no will intended to be the Law of Soveraignty. Not that I thinke a Monarch of such absolutenesse is bound to yeeld a reason why he commands any man to be put to death, before his command be obeyed; but I conceive the person so commanded to death may bee justified before God and men for protecting himselfe by escape, or otherwise, unlesse some reason or cause bee made knowne to him of such command.

Assert. 5.Fifthly, Persons subject to an unlimited dominion must without resistance subject their Estates, Liberties, Persons, to the will and pleasure of their Lord, so it carry any plea or shew of reason and equity. First, it seemes to me evident, 1 Pes. 2. 18, 19, 20. if well doing be mistaken by the reason and judgement of the power for ill doing, and we be punished for it, yet the Magistrate going according to his misguided reason, it is the command of a reasonable will, and so to be submitted to, because such a one suffers by Law, in a State where the Lords will is the Law. Secondly, In commands of the power where is the plea of reason and equity on the part of the commander, whether it be such indeed, some power must judge, but the constitution of absolute Monarchy resolves all judgement into the will of the Monarch, as the supreme Law: so that if his will judicially censure it just, it must be yeelded to as if it were just without repeale or redressement by any created power. And let none complaine of this as a hard condition, when they or their Ancestors have subjected themselves to such a power by oath, or politicall contract: If it be Gods ordinance to such, it must be subjected to and its exorbitances born, as he sayes in &illegible; as men beare famine, pestilence, and other effects of Gods displeasure.

Assert. 6.Sixthly in absolute Monarchy the person of the Monarch is above the reach of just force and positive resistance: for such a full resignation of mens selves to his will and power, by the irrevocable oath and bond of politicall contract, doth make the person as sacred as the Unction of Saul or David. In such a State all lawful power is below him, so that he is uncapable of any penall hand, which must be from a superiour, or it is uniust. I have bin the longer on this absolute Monarchy, because though it doth not concerne us, yet it will give light to the stating of doubts in governments of a more restrained nature: for what is true here in the full extent of power, is there also as true within the compasse of their power.

Sect. 4.In moderate or limited Monarchy it is an enquiry of some weight to know,What make a Monarchy limited? What it is which constitutes it in the state of alimitted Monarchy.

Assert. 1.First, A Monarchy may be stinted in the exercise of its power, and yet be an absolute Monarchy, as appeared before in our distinction of absolute Monarchy: If that bounds be a subsequent act, and proceeding from free will and grace in the Monarch; for it is not the exercise, but the nature and measure of power, wherewith he is radically invested, which deneminates him a free, or conditionate Monarch.

Assert. 2.Secondly, I take it, that a limited Monarch must have his bounds of power ab excerno, not from the free determination of his owne will. And now Kings have not divine words and binding Lawes to constitute them in their Soveraignty, but derive it from ordinary providence, the sole meane hereof is the consent and fundamentall contract of a Nation of men, which consent puts them in their power, which can be no more nor other then is conveyed to them by such contract of subiection. This is the root of all soveraignty individuated and existent in this or that person or family; till this come and lift him up he is a private man, not differing in state from the rest of his brethren; but then he becomes another man, his person is sacred by that soveraignty conveyed to it, which is Gods ordinance and image. The truth hereof will be more fully discovered, when we come to speake of Elective and Successive Monarchy.

Assert. 3.Thirdly, He is then a limited Monarch, who hath a Law beside his owne will for the measure of his power. First, the supreme power of the State must be in him, so that his power must not be limited by any power above his; for then hee were not a Monarch, but a subordinate magistrate. Secondly, this supreme power must be restrained by some Law, according to which this &illegible; was given, and by direction of which this power must act; else he were not a limited Monarch, that is, a liege Soveraigne, or legall King. Now a Soveraignty comes thus to be legall, or defined to a rule of Law, either by originall constitution, or by after-condescent. By originall constitution, when the society publike conferres on one man a power by limited contract, resigning themselves to his government by such a Law, reserving to themselves such immunities: In this case, they which at first had power over themselves, had power to set their owne termes of subiection; and hee which hath no title of power over them but by their act, can de jure have no greater then what is put over to him by that act By after-condescent, viz. when a Lord, who by conquest, or other right, hath an absolute arbitrary power; but not liking to hold by such a right, doth either formally or virtually desert it, and take a new legall right as judging it more safe for him to hold by, and desirable of the people to be governed by. This is equivalent to that by originall constitution; yea, is all one with it: for this is in that respect a secondary originall constitution. But if it be objected, that this being a voluntary condescent is an act of grace, and so doth not derogate from his former absolutenesse, as was said before of an absolute Monarch, who confines himselfe to governe by one rule; I answer. This differs essentially from that: for there, a free Lord, of grace yeelds to rule by such a Law, reserving the fulnesse of power, and still requiring of the people a bond and oath of utmost indefinite subjection; so that it amounts not to a limitation of radicall power: whereas here is a change of title, and a resolution to be subiected to, in no other way, then according to such a frame of government; and accordingly no other bond or oath of allegeance is required, or taken, then according to such a Law: this amounts to a limitation of radicall power. And therefore they speak too generally, who affirme of all acts of grace proceeding from Princes to people, as if they did not limit absolutenesse: ’Tis true of acts of grace of that first kinde; but yet you see, an act of grace may be such a one, as may amount to a resignation of that absolutenesse, into a more milde and moderate power, unlesse we should hold it out of the power of an absolute Lord to be other; or that by free condescent, and act of grace, a man cannot as well part with, or exchange his right and title to a thing, as define himselfe in the use and exercue; which I thinke none will affirme.

Sect. 5.In all Governments of this allay and legall Constitution there are three Questions of speciall moment to be considered.

How farre subiection is due in a limited Monarchy?First, How farre subjection is due? As farre as they are Gods Ordinance, as farre as they are a power and they are a power as farre as the Contract fundamentall from which under God their authority is derived, doth extend. As absolute Lords must be obeyed as farre as their Will enjoynes, because their Will is the measure of their Power, and their subjects Law: so these in the utmost extent of the Law of the Land, which is the measure of their power, and their subjects duty of obedience. I say so farre, but I doe not say no further: for I believe, though on our former grounds it clearely followes that such Authority transcends its bounds. if it command beyond the Law: and the Subject legally is not bound to subjection in such case, yet in Conscience a Subject is bound to yeeld to the Magistrate, even when he cannot de jure, challenge obedience, to prevent scandall or any occasion of slighting the power which may sometimes grow, even upon a just refusall: I say, for these causes a subject ought not to use his liberty, but more us gerere, if it be in a thing in which he can possibly without subversion, and in which his act may not be made a leading case, and so bring on a prescription against publique Liberty.

Sect. 6.Secondly, how farre it is lawfull to resist the exorbitant Illegal Commands of such a Monarch? 1. As before in lighter cases, in which it may be done, for the reasons alledged, and for the sake of publique peace,How farre it is Lawfull to resist we ought to submit, and make no resistance at all, but de jure receaere.

Pos. 1.2. In cases of higher nature Passive resistance, viz. By appeale to Law, by Concealment, by Flight, is lawfull to be made, because such a Command is politically powerles,Pos. 2. it proceeds not from Gods Ordinance in him: and so we sin not against Gods Ordinance in such Non-submission, or Negative resistance.

Pos. 3.3.For instruments or Agents in such commands, if the streight be such, and a man be surprized, that no place is left for an appeale nor evasion by Negative resistance; I conceive, against such Positive resistence may be made: because authority failing or this Act in the Supreame Power, the Agent or instrument can have none derived to him; and so is but in the nature of a private person, and his Act as an offer of private violence, and so comes under the same rules for opposition.

Pos. 4.4. For the person of the Soveraigne, I conceive it, aswell above any Positive Resistence, as the Person of an absolute Monarch; Yea, though by the whole Community, (except there be an expresse reservation of Power in the body of the State, or any deputed Persons or Court, to use in case of intolerable exorbitance. Positive Resistence, which, if there be, then such a Governour is no Monarch, for that Fundamentall Reservation destroyes it’s being a Monarchy, in asmuch as the Supreame Power is not in one.) For where ever there is a Soveraigne Politique Power constituted, the person or persons who are invested with it are Sacred, and out of the reach of Positive Resistance or Violence: which, as I said, if just, must be from no inferior or subordinate hand. But it will be objected, that sith every Monarch hath his power from the consent of the whole body, that consent of the whole Body hath a Power above the Power of the Monarch, and so the resistance which is done by it, is not by an inferior power and to this purpose is brought that Axiome. Quiequia efficit tale est magia tale. I answer, That rule even in naturall causes is lyable to abundance of restrictions: And in the particular in hand it holds not. Where the cause doth bereave himselfe of that perfection by which it works, in the very act of causing, and convey it to that effect, It doth not remain more such then the effect, but much lesse, and below it, as if I convey an estate of Land to another, it doth not hold that after such conveyance I have a better Estate remayning in me then that other, but rather the contrary; because what was in one is passed to the other: The Servant who at the year of Iubile would not go out free, but have his eare boared, and given his Master a full Lordship over him: can we argue, that he had afterward more power over himselfe then his Master, because he gave his Master that power over him, by that act of Oeconomicall Contract. Thus the Community whose consent establishes a Power over them cannot be said universally to have an eminencie of Power above that which they constitute; sometimes they have, sometimes they have not: and to judge when they have when not respect must be had to the Origiginall Contract and Fundamentall Constitution of that State, if they have constituted a Monarchy, that is invested one man with the Soveraignty of Power; and subjected all the rest to him; Then it were unreasonable to say, they yet have it in them selves; Or have a power of recalling that Supremacie which by Oath and Contract they themselves transferred on another: unles we make this Oath and Contract lesse binding then private ones, dissoluble at pleasure, and so all Monarchs Tenants at will from their people. But if they in such Constitution reserve a power in the body to oppose and displace the Magistrate for exorbitancies, and reserve to themselves a Tribunall to trie him in, that man is not a Monarch but the Officer and Substitute of him or them to whom such Power over him is reserved or conferred. The Issue is this, If he be a Monarch he hath the Apex or Culmen Potestatis, and all his Subjects divesim and conjunctions, are below him: They have devested themselves of all superiority and no Power left for a Positive Opposition of the Person of him whom they have invested.

Sect. 7.Thirdly, Who shall be the Iudge of the Excesses of the Soveraigne Lord in Monarchies of this composure? I answer, A frame of Government cannot be imagined of that perfection but that some inconveniencies there will be possible for which there can be provided no remedie:Who shall be the Iudge of the excesses of the Monarch? Many miseries to which a people under an absolute Monarchie are lyable are prevented by this Legall Allay and definement of Power. But this is exposed to one defect from which that is tree, that is an impossibility of &illegible; a Judge to determine this last controversie, viz. the Soveraignes transgressing his fundamentall limits. This Judge must be either some Forraigner, and then &illegible; lose the freedome of the State, by subjecting it to an externall power in the greatest case: or else within the body: If so than neither the Monarch himselfe, and then you destroy the frame of the State, and make it absolute; for to define a Power to a Law, and then to make him Judge of his Deviations from that Law, is to absolve him from all Law Or else the Community and their Deputies must have this power: and then, as before, you put the apex Potastants, the &illegible; apsgr rhosymbolχ&illegible;ς in the whole body, or a part of it, and destroy the being of Monarchy: The Ruler not being Gods immediate Minister but of that Power, be it where it will to which he is &illegible; for his actions. So that I conceive, in a limited legall Monarchy, there can be no stated internall Judge of the Monarchs actions, if there grow a fundamentall Variance betwixt him and the Community. But you will say, It is all one way to absolutenesse to assigne him no Judge as to make him his own Judge. Answ. I say not simple in this case there is no Judge: But that there can be no Judg legall and constituted within that frame of Government: but it is a transcendent case beyond the provision of that Government, and must have an extraordinary Judge, and way of devision.

In this great and difficult case, I will deliver my apprehensions freely and clearly, submining them to the centure of betten Iudgements. Suppose the controversie to happen in a Government fundamentally legall, and the people no further subjected then to Government by such a Law.Pos. 1.

1. If the act in which the exorbitance and transgression is supposed to be, be of lesser moment, and not striking at the very being of that Government it ought to be borne by publique patience, rather then to endanger the being of the State be a contention betwixt the head and body Politique.

2. If it be mortall and such as suffered, dissolves the frame and life of the Government and publique liberty.Pos. 2. Then the illegality and destructive nature is to be set open, and redresment sought by Petition; which if failing, Prevention by resistance ought to be. But first that it is such must be made apparent; and if it be apparent, and an Appeale made ad &illegible; generu humans, especially of these of that Community, then the fundamentall Lawes of that Monarchy must iudge and pronounce the sentence in every mans conscience; and every man (as farre as concernes him) must follow the evidence of Truth in his owne soule, to oppose, or not oppose, according as he can in conscience acquit or condemne the act of carriage of the Governour. For I conceive in a Case which transcends the frame and provision of the Government they are bound to. People are unbound, and in state as if they had no Government; and the superiour Law of Reason and Conscience must be Judge: wherein every one must procced with the utmost advice and impartiality: For if hee erre in iudgement hee either resists Gods Ordinance, or puts his hand to the subversion of the State and Policy he lives in.

And this power of judging argues not a superiority in those who Judge, over him who is Judged: for it is not Authoritative and Civill, but morall, residing in reasonable Creatures and lawfull for them to execute, because never devested and put off by any act in the constitution of a legall Government, but rather the reservation of it intended: For when they define the Superiour to a Law, and constitute no Power to Judge of his Excesses from that Law it is evident they reserve to themselves, not a Formall Authoritative Power, but a morall Power, such as they had originally before the Constitution of the Government; which must needs remaine, being not conveyed away in the Constitution.

Chap. III.

Of the division of Monarchy into Elective and Successive.

Sect. 1.THe second division of Monarchy, which I intend to treat of, is that of Elective or Successive. Elective Monarchy is that, whereby the fundamentall constitution of the State the supreme power is conveyed but to the person of him whom they take for their Prince;Elective and Successive Monarchy what they are? the people reserving to themselves power, by men deputed by the same constitution to elect a new person on the decease of the former. Successive is, where by the fundamentall constitution of the State, the Soveraignty is conferred on one Prince; and in that one, as a root and beginning to his heires, after a forme and line of succession, constituted also by the fundamentals of that Government. In the first, the Peoples oath and contract of subiection extends but to one person: In the other, to the whole Race and Line of Successors; which continuing, the bond of subjection continues; or which failing, the people returne to their first liberty, of choosing a new person, or succession to be invested with Soveraignty.

Sect. 2.I doe conceive that in the first originall all Monarchy, yea any individuall frame of Government whatsoever, is elective: that is, is constituted, and drawes its force and right from the consent and choice of that Community over which it swayeth. And that triple distinction of Monarchy into that which is gotten by Conquest.All Monarchy whether originally from consent? Prescription, or Choice is, not of distinct parts unlesse by Choice be meant full and formall Choice: my reason is, because man being a voluntary agent and subiection being a morall act it doth essentially depend on consent so that a man may by force and extremity be brought under the power of another, as unreasonable creatures are, to be disposed of, and trampled on, whether they will or no: But a bond of subjection cannot be put on him, nor a right to claime Obedience and Service acquired, unlesse a man become bound by some act of his owne Will. For, suppose another, from whom I am originally free, be stronger then I, and so bring mee under his mercy doe I therefore sin if I doe not what he commands me? or can that act of violence passe into a morall title, without a morall principle?

Sect. 3.But this will be more manifest, if by induction I shew how other titles resolve into this. I will begin with that of divine institution. Saul and David were by the Secrament of anointing designed to the Kingdome, as it were by Gods owne hand;Monarchy by divine institution. which notwithstanding, they were not actually Kings till the Peoples consent established them therein: That unction was a manifestation of the appointment of God, and when it was made knowne to the People, I thinke it had the power of Precept to restraine the Peoples choice to that person; which if they had not done, they had resisted Gods ordinance. Yet they were not thereby actually endowed with Kingly power, but remained as private men, till the Peoples choice put them in actuall possession of that Power, which in Doves was not till after many yeares.

Sect. 4.Then for that of Usuage or Prescription; if any such did ever constitute a Monarchie, it was by vertue of an Universall consent by that Usuage and Prescription proved and implyed:Monarchy by prescription. For in a Popular state, where one Man in the Communitie, by reason of great estate, Wisdome, or other Perfection is in the eye of all the rest, all reverence him and his advice they follow: and the respect continues from the People to the house and family, for divers generations. In this case, subjection at first is arbitrary in the people; and if in time it become necessary, it is because their Custome is their Law; and its long continuance is equivalent to a formall Election: so that this Tenure and Right, if it be good and more then at pleasure, as it was at first, the considerate must needs ascribe it to a consent, and implicite choyce of the People.

Sect. 5.But the mayn Question is concerning Monarchy archieved by Conquest; where at first fight the Right seems gotten by the Sword, without the consent and Choyce of the People, yea against it. Conquest is either 1. Totall where a full Conquest is made, by a totall subduing a people to the Will of the Victor: or 2. Partiall,Monarchy by conquest. where an entrance is made by the Sword: But the People either because of the Right claymed by the Invader; or their unwillingnesse to suffer the Miseries of Warre, or their apparent inability to stand out in a way of Resistance, or some other consideration, submit to a composition and contract of subjection to the Invader. In this latter it is evident, the Soveraignes Power is from the Peoples consent; and the Government is such as the Contract and fundamentall agreement makes it to be, if it be the first Agreement, and the pretender hath no former Title which remaines in force, for then this latter is invalid, if it include not and amount to a relinquishing and disanulling of the Old. But the difficulty is concerning a full and meere Conquest; and of this I will speak my mind clearly. Such a Warre and Invasion of a People, which ends in a Conquest, 1. it is either upon the pretence or claim of a Title of Soveraignty over the People invaded: and then, if the pretender prevaile, it is properly no Conquest, but the vindication of a Title by force of Armes. And the Government is not Originall, but such as the Title is by which he claymes it. 2. Or it is by One who hath no challenge of Right descending to him to justifie his claim and Invasion of a People: Then if he subdue, he may properly be said to come to his Government by Conquest.

Whether conquest give a iust title?And there be who wholly condemne this title of Conquest as unlawfull, and take it for nothing else but a Nationall and publike robbery: so one of the Answerers to Doctor Ferne, saies in his p. 10. Conquest may give such a right as Plunderers use to take in houses they can waster.—— It is inhumane to talke of right of Conquest in a Civill, in a Christian State. But I cannot allow of so indefinite a Censure: rather I think the right of Conquest is such as the precedent Warre was: if that were lawfull, so is the Conquest: For a Prince may be invaded, or so farre injured by a neighbour People, or they may be set on such a pernicious enmitie against him and his people, that the safety of himselfe and people may compell to such a Warre, which warre if it end in Conquest, who can judge such Title unlawfull? Suppose then Conquest may be a lawfull way of acquisition: yet an immediate cause of right of Soveraignty; that is, of a Civill power of Government to which obedience is due, it cannot be: I say, an immediate cause, for a remote impulsive cause it oft is, but not an immediate formall cause; for that must ever be the consent of the people, whereby they accept of, and resigne up themselves to a Government, and then their Persons are morally bound, and not before. Thus far the force of conquest may goe; it may give a man title over, and power to possesse and dispose of the Countrey and Goods of the Conquered; yea, the Bodies and lives of the Conquered are at the Will and Pleasure of the Conquerour: But it still is at the Peoples choice to come into a morall condition of subiection or not. When they are thus at the mercy of the Victor, if to save life they consent to a condition of servitude or subiection, then that consent, oath, or covenant, which they in that extremity make, being in re licita, bindes them, and they owe morall Duty. But if they would rather suffer the utmost violence of the Conquerour, and will consent to no termes of subjection as Numantia in Spaine, and many other People have resolved; they die or remaine a free People. Be they captived or possessed at pleasure, they owe no duty, neither doe they sin in not obeying; nor doe they resist Gods ordinance, if at any time of advantage they use force to free themselves from such a violent possession: yea perhaps, if before by contract they were bound to another, they should sin if to avoid death or bondage they should sweare or covenant fralty to a Conquerour, and it were more noble and &illegible; to die in the service, and for the faith to their naturall Soveraigne. Thus I am perswaded it will appeare an uncontrolable truth in Policie, that the consent of the People, either by themselves or their Ancestors is the only mean in ordinary providence by which soveraignty is conferred on any Person or Family: neither can Gods ordinance be conveyed and People engaged in conscience by any other means.

Sect. 6.It hath been affirmed by some, that mixture and limitation is inconsistent to successive Monarchy; as if where ever Soveraignty is entailed to a succession, it must needs be absolute: But I must professe I cannot see how it can stand with truth: Rather I thinke, that both Elective and Hereditary Monarchy are indifferently capable of absolutenesse or limitation.Whether a Monarch by succission may not be limited? If a free, and not pre-ingaged People to any Government, by publike compact yeeld up themselves to a Person, to be commanded by his Will as their supreme Law, during his naturall life, and no longer, can it be denied but that he is an absolute, and yet Elective Monarch? unlesse you will say, he is not absolute, because he cannot by his Will, as by a Law, bind them to elect his sonne to succeed him, and change their Government into hereditary. But his being limited in this Clause doth not disparage his Soveraignty, or make his power of Government limited, because this belongs not to present Government, but is a meere provision for the future. Againe, if the power of Ruling according to a Law, be by consent conveyed to one Person, and his heires to succeed after him, how this should come to be absolute and the entailement should overthrow the constitution, I cannot imagine: If the whole latitude of power may be by a People made hereditary sure a proportion may as well; unlesse the limitation be such as includes a repugnancy to be perpetuall. Indeed this enstating of a succession makes that power irrevocable, during the continuance of that succession but it makes it neither greater nor lesse in the Successor then was in his Progenitors, from whom hee derives it.

Sect. 7.In a successive Monarchy the Successor holds by the originall Right of him who is the root of succession; and is de jure King the immediate instant after his Predecestors decease: Also the people are bound to him, though they never take any Oath to his person. For as he commands in vertue of the originall Right, so they are bound to obey by vertue of the originall Covenant, and nationall Contract of Subjection: the new oath taken either by King or People, is but a reviving of the old; that the Conscience of it by renewing might be the more fresh and vigorous: it neither gives any new power, nor addes or detracts from the old, unlesse by common agreement an alteration be made; and so the foundation in that clause is new, which cannot be without the content of both parties.

Chap. IIII.

Of the Division of Monarchy into Simple and Mixed.

Sect. 1.THe third division is into Simple and Mixed. Simple is when the Government absolute or limited is so intrusted in the hands of one, that all the rest is by deputation from him; so that there is no authority in the whole Body but his,Simple and mixed Monarchy, what? or derived from him: And that One is either individually one Person, and then it is a simple Monarchy: Or one associate Body, chosen either out of the Nobility, whence the Government is called a simple Aristocracy: or out of the Community, without respect of birth or state, which is termed a simple Democracy. The supreme authority residing exclusively in one of these three, denominates the Government simple which over it be.

Now experience teaching People, that severall inconveniences are in each of those, which is avoided by the other: as aptnesse to Tyranny in simple Monarchy: aptnesse to destructive Factions in an Aristocracy: and aptnesse to Confusion and Tumult in a Democracy. As on the contrary, each of them hath some good which the others want, viz. Unity and strength in a Monarchy; Counsell and Wisedome in an Aristocracy; Liberty and respect of Common good in a Democracy. Hence the wisedome of men deeply seene in State matters guided them to frame a mixture of all three, uniting them into one Forme, that so the good of all might be enjoyed, and the evill of them avoyded. And this mixture is either equall, when the highest command in a State by the first Constitution of it is equally seated in all three; and then (if firme Union can be in a mixture of Equality) it can be called by the name of neither of them but by the generall stile of a Mixed State: or if there be priority of Order in one of the three, (as I thinke there must be or else there can be no Unity it may take the name of that which hath the precedency. But the firmer Union is, where one of the three is predominant and in that regard gives the denomination to the whole: So we call it a Mixed Monarchy, where the primity of share in the supreme power is in one.

Sect. 2.Now I conceive to the constituting of Mixed Monarchy (and so proportionately it may be said of the other.)What it is which constitutes a mixed Monarchy?

1. The Soveraigne power must be originally in all three, viz. If the composition be of all three so that one must not hold his power from the other,Pos. 1. but all equally from the fundamentall Constitution: for if the power of one be originall, and the other Derivative, it is no mixture, for such a Derivation of power to others is in the most simple Monarchy: Againe, the end of mixture could not be obteyned; for why is this mixture framed, but that they might confine each other from exorbitance, which cannot be done by a derivate power, it being unnaturall that a derived power should turne back, and set bounds to its owne beginning.

Pos. 2.2. A full equality must not be in the three estates, though they are all sharers in the Supreame power; for if it were so, it could not have any ground in it to denominate it a Monarchie, more then an Aristocracie or Democracie.

Pos. 3.3. A power then must be sought wherewith the Monarch must be invested, which is not so great as to destroy the mixture; nor so titular as to destroy the Monarchy; which I conceive may be in these particulars.

1. If he be the head and Fountaine of the power which governs and executes the established Lawes, so that both the other States as well conjunction as division, be his sworne subjects, and owe obedience to his commands, which are according to established Lawes.

2. If he hath a sole or chiefe power in capacitating and putting those persons or societies in such States and conditions, as whereunto such Supreme power by the foundations of the Government doth belong, and is annexed: so that though the Aristocratical and Democraticall power which is conjoyned to his, be not from him: yet the definement and determination of it to such persons is from him, by a necessary consecution.

3. If the power of convocating or causing to be put in existence, and dissolving such a Court or Meeting of the two other estates as is authoritative, be in him.

4. If his authority be the last and greatest though not the sole, which must establish and adde a consummatum to every Act. I say these or any of these put into one person makes that State Monarchicall, because the other, though they depend not on him quoad essentians et act as formales, but on the prime constitution of the Government, yet quoad existentiam et determinationem ad subject a, they doe.

The Supreme power being either the Legislative or the Gubernative. In a mixed Monarchy sometimes the mixture is the seate of the Legislative power, which is the chiefe of the two: The power of constituting officers for governing by those Lawes being left to the Monarch: Or else the Primacie of both these powers is jointly in all three: For if the Legislative be in one, then the Monarchy is not mixed but simple, for that is the Superiour, if that be in one, all else must needs be so too: By Legislative, I meane the power of making new Lawes, if any new be needfull to be added to the foundation: and the Authentick power of interpreting the old; For I take it, this is a branch of the Legislative and is as great, and in effect the same power.

Sect. 3.Every mixed Monarchy is limited: but it is not necessary that every limited should be mixed: For the Prince in a mixed Monarchy, were there no definement of him to a Law but onely this: that his Legislative acts have no validity without the allowance and joint authority of the other: this is enough to denominate it exactly a limited Monarchy: and so much it must have, if it be mixed. On the other side, if in the foundations of his Government he be restrained to to any Law besides his own Will, he is a limited Monarch, though that both the Legislative and Gubernative power (provided he exceed not those Lawes) be left in his owne hands: But then the Government is not mixed.

Sect. 4.Now concerning the extent of the Princes power, and the subjects duty in a mixed Monarchy, almost the same is to be said, which was before in a limited:How far the Princes power extends in a mixed Monarchy? for it is a generall rule in this matter: such as the Constitution of Government is, such is the Ordinance of God: such as the Ordinance is, such must our duty of subjection be. No Power can challenge an obedience beyond its owne measure; for if it might, we should destroy all Rules and differences of Government, and make all absolute and at pleasure. In every mixed Principality.

Assert. 1.First, Looke what Power is solely entrusted and committed to the Prince by the fundamentall Constitution of the State, in the due execution thereof all owe full subjection to him, even the other Estates, being but societies of his subjects bound to him by Oath of Allegeance as to their liege Lord.

Assert. 2.Secondly, those acts belonging to the power which is stated in a mixed Principle if either part of that Principle, or two of the three undertake to doe them it is invalid it is no binding Act; for in this case all three have a free Negative voice: and take away the priviledge of a Negative Voice, so that in case of refusall the rest have power to doe it without the third, then you destroy that Third, and make him but a Looker on: So that in every mixed Government, I take it, there must be a necessity of concurrence of all three Estates in the production of Acts belonging to that power, which is committed in common to them: Else suppose those Acts valid which are done by any major part, that is, any two of the three, then you put it in the power of any two, by a confederacy at pleasure to disanull the third, or suspend all its Acts, and make it a bare Cypher in Government.

Assert. 3.Thirdly, in such a composed State, if the Monarch invade the power of the other two, or run in any course tending to the dissolving of the constituted frame, they ought to employ their power in this case to preserve the State from ruine; yea that is the very end and fundamentall aime in constituting all mixed Policies: not that they by crossing and jarring should hinder the publike good; but that, if one exorbitate, the power of restraint and providing for the publike safety should be in the rest: and the power is put into divers hands, that one should counterpoize and keep even the other: so that for such other Estates, it is not onely lawfull to deny obedience and submission to illegall proceedings, as private men may, but it is their duty, and by the foundations of the Government they are bound to prevent dissolution of the established Frame.

Assert. 4.Fourthly, the Person of the Monarch, even in these mixed Formes, (as I said before in the limited) ought to be above the reach of violence in his utmost exorbitances: For when a People have sworne allegeance, and invested a Person or Line with Supremacy, they have made it sacred, and no abuse can devest him of that power, irrevocably communicated. And while he hath power in a mixed Monarchy, he is the Universall Soveraigne, even of the other limiting States: so that being above them, he is de jure exempt from any penall hand.

Assert. 5.Fifthly, that one inconvenience must necessarily be in all mixed Governments, which I shewed to be in limited Governments, there can be no Constituted, Legall, Authoritative Judge of the fundamentall Controversies arising betwixt the three Estates. If such doe arise, it is the fatall disease of these Governments, for which no salve can be prescribed; For the established being of such authority, would ipso facto overthrow the Frame, and turne it into absolutenesse: So that if one of these, or two, say their power is invaded, and the Government assaulted by the other, the Accused denying it, it doth become a controversie: of this question there is no legall Judge, it is a case beyond the possible provision of such a Government. The Accusing side must make it evident to every mans Conscience. In this case, which is beyond the Government, the Appeale must be to the Community, as if there were no Government; and as by Evidence mens Consciences are convinced, they are bound to give their utmost assistance. For the intention of the Frame in such States, justifies the exercise of any power, conducing to the safety of the Universality and Government established.


Of this particular MONARCHY.

Chap. I.

Whether the Power wherewith our Kings are invested, be an Absolute, or Limited and Moderated Power?

Sect. 1.HAving thus far proceeded in generall, before we can bring home this to a stating of the great controversie, which now our sins, Gods displeasure, and evill turbulent men have raised up in our lately most flourishing but now most unhappy Kingdome. Wee must first looke into the Frame and Composure of our Monarchy; for till we fully are resolved of that, we cannot apply the former generall Truths, nor on them ground the Resolution of this ruining contention.

Concerning the Essentiall Composure of this Government, that it is Monarchicall, is by none to be questioned: but the enquiry must be about the Frame of it. And so there are seven great questions to be prosecuted.

Quest. 1. stated.First, whether it be a Limited Monarchy, or Absolute? Here the question is not concerning Power in the Exercise, but the Root and being of it: for none will deny but that the way of Government used, and to be used in this Realme, is a designed way: Onely some speake as if this Definement were an act of Grace from the Monarchs themselves, being pleased at the suit, and for the good of the People, to let their power run into act through such a course and current of Law: whereas, if they at any time shall thinke fit on great causes to vary from that way, and use the full extent of their power, none ought to contradict, or refuse to obey. Neither is it the question, Whether they sin against God if they abuse their power, and run out into acts of injury at pleasure, and violate those Lawes which they have by Publike Faith and Oath promised to observe; for none will deny this to be true, even in the most absolute Monarch in the world. But the point controverted is punctually this, Whether the Authority which is inherent in our Kings be boundlesse and absolute, or limited and determined, so that the acts which they doe, or command to be done without that compasse and bounds, be not onely sinfull in themselves, but invalid and non-authoritative to others?

Sect. 2.Now for the determining hereof, I conceive and am in my Judgement perswaded, that the Soveraignty of our Kings is radically and fundamentally limited,Assert. and not onely in the Use and Exercise of it: And am perswaded so on these grounds and Reasons.

First, Because the Kings Majesty himselfe,Reas. 1. who best knowes by his Councell the nature of his own power, sayes, thata the Law is the measure of his power: which is as full a concession of the thing as words can expresse. If it be the measure of it, then his power is limited by it; for the measure is the limits and bounds of the thing limited. And in his Answer to both the Houses concerning the Militia, speaking of the men named to him, sayes, If more power shall be thought sit to be granted to them, then by Law is in the Crowne it selfe, His Maiesty holds it reasonable, that the same be by some Law first vested in him, with power to transferre it to these persons, &c. In which passage it is granted that the Powers of the Crown are by Law, and that the King hath no more then are vested in him by Law.

Reas. 2.Secondly, because it is in the very Constitution of it mixed, as I shall afterwards make it appeare, then it is radically limited; for as I shewed before, every mixed Monarchy is limited, though not on the contrary: for the necessary connexion of other power to it, is one of the greatest limitations. A subordination of Causes doth not ever prove the supreme Cause of limited virtue; a co-ordination doth alwayes.

Reas. 3.Thirdly, I prove it from the ancient, ordinary, and received denominaitons; for the Kings Majesty is called our Liege, that is, Legall Soveraigne; and we his Liege that is his Legall Subjects: what doe these names argue, but that his Soveraignty and our subjection is legall that is, restrained by Law?

Reas. 4.Fourthly, had we no other proofe, yet that of Prescription were sufficient: In all ages, beyond record the Lawes and Customes of the Kingdome have been the Rule of Government: Liberties have been stood upon, and Grants thereof, with limitations of Royall power, made and acknowledged by Magna Charta, and other publike and solemne acts; and no Obedience acknowledged to be due but that which is according to Law, nor claimed but under some pretext and title of Law.

Reas. 5.Fifthly, the very Being of our Common and Statute Lawes, and our Kings acknowledging themselves bound to governe by them, doth prove and prescribe them Limited: for those Lawes are not of their sole composing nor were they established by their sole Authority, but by the concurrence of the other two Estates: so that to be confined to that which is not meerly their owne, is to be in a limited condition.

Pleaders for defensive armes Sect. 2. & 4.Some there be which have lately written on this subject, who take another way to prove our Government limited by Law, viz. by denying all absolute Government to be lawfull; affirming that Absolute Monarchy is not at all Gods Ordinance, and so no lawfull power secured from resistance. What is their ground for this? God allowes no man to rule as he lift, nor puts mens lives in the pleasure of the Monarch: It is a power arbitrary and injurious. But I desire those Authors to confider, that in absolute Monarchy there is not a resignation of men to any Will or lift, but to the reasonable Will of the Monarch, which having the Law of reason to direct it, is kept from injurious acts. But see for defence of this Government, Part 1. cap. 2.

Sect. 3.Having set downe those Reasons on which my Judgement is setled on this side, I will confider the maine Reasons wherby some have endeavoured to prove this Government to be of an absolute nature, and will shew their invalidity. Many Divines perhaps inconfiderately, perhaps wittingly for self ends, have beene of late yeares strong Pleaders for Absolutenesse of Monarchicall Power in this Land; and pressed Obedience on the Consciences of People in the utmost extremity, which can be due in the most absolute Monarchy in the world; but I seldome or never heard or read them make any difference of Powers but usually bring their proofes from those Scriptures, where subjection is commanded to the higher Powers, and all resistence of them forbidden and from Examples taken out of the manner of the government of Israel and Judah: as if any were so impious to contradict those truths, and they were not as well obeyed in Limited Government as in Absolute; or as if Examples taken out of one Government do alwayes hold in another, unlesse their aime were to deny all distinction of Governments, and to hold all absolute, who have any where the supreme power conveyed to them.

Among these, I wonder most at that late discourse of Dr. Ferne, who in my Judgement avoucheth things inconsistent, and evidently contradictory one to the other: For in his Preface he acknowledges our Obedience to be limited and circumscribed by the Lawes of the Land, and accordingly to be yeelded or denied to the higher Power; and that he is at much against an absolute Power in the King and to raise him to an arbitrary way of Government, as against resistence on the Subject’s part: also, that his power is limited by Law, Sect. 5. Yet on the other side he affirmes, That the King holds his Crown by conquest; that it is descended to him by three Conquests, Sect. 2. that we even our Senate of Parliament hath not so much plea for resistence as the ancient Romane Senate had under the Romane Emperours, whose power we know was absolute, Sect, 2. that in Monarchy the judgement of many is reduced to one: that Monarchy settles the chief power and finall Judgment in one, Sect. 5. what is this but to confesse him limited: and yet to maintain him absolute?

Arguments on the contrary dissolved.But let us come to the Arguments. First, say they, our Kings came to their right by Conquest; yea, saies the Dr. by three Conquests: He meanes the Saxons, Danes, and Normans, as appears afterwards: Therefore their right is absolute. Here, that they may advance themselves, they care not though it be on the ruine of publique liberty, by bringing a whole Nation into the condition of conquered slaves: But to the Argument. 1. Suppose the Antecedent true, the Consequution is not alwaies true; for as is evident before in the first Part. All Conquest doth not put the Conqueror into an absolute right. He may come to a right by Conquest: but not sole Conquest; but a partiall, occasioning a Right by finall Agreement; and then the right is specificated by that fundamentall agreement: Also he may by sword prosecute a claime of another nature: and in his war intend only an acquiring of that claimed right, and after conquest rest in that: Yea farther, he may win a Kingdome meerly by the Sword and enter on it by right of Conquest: yet considering that right of conquest hath too much of force in it to be safe and permanent; he may thinke conquest the best meane of getting a Kingdome, but not of holding, and in wisdome for himselfe and posterity, gaine the affections of the people by deserting that Title, and taking a new by Politique agreement, or descend from that right by fundamentall grants of liberties to the people, and limitations to his own power: but these things I said in effect before, in the first part, only here I have recalled them, to shew what a non sequitur there is in the Argument. But that which I chiefly intend, is to shew the infirmity or falsehood of the Antecedent: it is an Assertion most untrue in it selfe; and pernitious to the State: Our Princes professe no other way of comming to the Crown, but by right of succession to rule free subjects in a legall Monarchy. All the little shew of proofe these Assertors have, is from the root of succession: So William commonly called the Conquerour. For that of the Saxons was an expulsion not a Conquest, for as our Histories record, They comming into the Kingdome drove out the Britaines, and by degrees planted themselves under their Commanders; and no doubt continued the freedome they had in Germany: unles we should thinke that by conquering they lost their own Liberties to the Kings for whom they conquered and expelled the British into Wales. Rather I conceive, the Originall of the subjects libertie was by those our fore-fathers brought out of Germany: Where, as Tacitus reports,Tacit. de Morib. German. Sect. 3. & 5. nec Regibus infinita aut libera potestas: Their Kings had no absolute but limited power: and all weighty matters were dispatched by generall meetings of all the Estates. Who sees not here the antiquity of our Liberties and frame of Government? so they were governed in Germany, and so here to this day, for by transplanting themselves they changed their soyl; not their manners and Government: Then, that of the Danes was indeed a violent Conquest; and, as all violent rules, it lasted not long; when the English expelled them they recovered their Countrey and Liberties together. Thus it is clear, the English Libertie remained to them till the Norman Invasion, notwithstanding that Danish interruption. Now for Duke William, I know nothing they have in him but the barestile of Conqueror, which seems to make for them: The very truth is, and everie intelligent reader of the Historie of those times will attest it, that Duke William pretended the grant and gift of King Edward who died without children: and he came with forces into this Kingdome, not to Conquer but make good his Title against his enemies: his end of entring the Land was not to gaine a new absolute Title but to vindicate the old limited one whereby the English Saxon: Kings his Predecessors held this Kingdome. Though his Title was not so good as it should be,&illegible; Britan. Norma. yet it was better then Harolds, who was onely the Sonne of Goodwyn, Steward of King Edwards house; Whereas William was Cousen to Emma mother to the said King Edward; by whom he was adopted; and by solemne promise of King Edward was to succeed him: Of which promise Harola himselfe became surety, and bound by oath to see it performed: Here was a faire Title, especially Edgar Atholing the right Heire being of tender age, and dis-affected by the people. Neither did he proceed to a full Conquest, but after Harola who usurped the Crown was slain in battle, and none to succeed him, the Throne being void, the people chose rather to submit to William and his Title, then endure the hazzard of ruining war, by opposing him, to set up a new King: It is not to be imagined, that such a Realme as England could be conquered by so few, in such a space, if the peoples voluntary acceptance of him and his claime had not facilitated and shortned his undertaking. Thus we have it related in Mr. &illegible; that before Harola usurped the Crown, most men thought it the wisest Policie to set the Crown on Williams head, that by performing the Oath and promise, a Warre might be prevented: And that Harola by assuming the Crown, provoked the whole Clergy and Ecclesiasticall State against him: and we know how potent in those daies the Clergy were in State affaires. Also that after one battle fought wherein Harola was slain, he went to London, was received by the Londoners, and solemnly inaugurated King as unto whom by his own saying the Kingdome was by Gods Providence appointed, and by vertue of a gift from his Lord and Cousen King Edward, the glorious, granted: so that after that battell the remainder of the war was dispatched by English forces and Leaders. But suppose he did come in a Conqueror, yet he did not establish the Kingdome on those termes, but on the old Lawes, which he reteyned and authorized for himselfe and his Successors to governe by. Indeed after his settlement in the Kingdome, some Norman Customes he brought in, and to gratify his souldiers dispossessed many English of their estates, dealing in it too much like a Conqueror: but the triall by twelve men, and other fundamentalls of Government, wherein the English freedome consists, he left untouched, which have remained till this day. On the same Title he claimed and was inaugurated, was he King which was a title of rightfull succession to Edward: therfore he was indeed King not as Conqueror, but as Edwards Successor, and on the same right as he and his Predecessors held the Crowne. As also by the grant of the former Lawes and forme of Government, he did equivalently put himselfe and successors into the State of legall Monarchs, and in that Tenure have all the Kings of this Land held the Crown till this day, when these men would take up, and put a Title of Conquest upon them, which never was claimed or made use of by him who is the first root of their succession.

Sect. 4.Another reason which they produce is the successive nature of this Monarchy: for with them, to be elective and limited, and to be successive and absolute, are equipollent: They conceive it impossible that a Government should be Hereditary and not absolute: But I have enough made it appear, Part 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. That succession doth not prove a Monarchie absolute from limitation, though it proves it absolution from interruption and discontinuance, during the being of that succession to which it is defined. And that which they object that our Kings are actually so before they take the Oath of governing by Law, and so they would be, did they never take that Oath; wherefore it is no Limitation of their royall power, is there also answered in the next Sect. and that so fully, that no more need be said. The same Law which gives the King his Crown immediatly upon the decease of his Predecessor, conveyes it to him with the same Determinations and Prerogatives annexed, with which his Progeintors enjoyed it, so that he entring on that Originall Right, his subjects are bound to yeild obedience, before they take any Oath: And he is bound to the Lawes of the Monarchy, before he actually renewes the bond by any Personall Oath. There is yet another argument usually brought to this purpose, taken from the Oath of Allegiance: but of that I shall have occasion to speake hereafter.

Chap. II.

Supposing it be in the Platforme limited, Wherein, and how far forth it is limited and defined?Quest. 2.

Pos. 1.I Conceive it fundamentally limited in five particulars. First, in the whole latitude of the Nomotheticall power; so that their power extends not to establish any Act, which hath the Being and state of a Law of the Land: nor give an authenticke sense to any Law of doubtfull and controverted meaning, solely and by themselves, but together with the concurrent Authority of the two other Estates in Parliament.

Pos. 2.Secondly, in the Governing Power, there is a confinement to the Fundamentall Common Lawes, and to the superstructive Statute Lawes, by the former concurrence of Powers enacted, as to the Rule of all their Acts and Executions.

Pos. 3.Thirdly, in the power of constituting Officers, and meanes of governing; not in the choice of Persons for that is intrusted to his Judgement, for ought I know, but in the constitution of Courts of Judicature: For as hee cannot Judge by himselfe or Officers, but in Courts of Justice; so those Cours of Justice must have a constitution by a concurrence of the three Estates: They must have the same power to constitute them, as the Lawes which are dispensed in them.

Pos. 4.Fourthly, in the very succession; for though succession hath been brought as a Medium to prove the Absolutenesse of this Government yet if it be more throughly considered, it is rather a proofe of the contrary; and every one who is a successive Monarch is so far limited in his power, that he cannot leave it to whom he pleases, but to whom the Fundamentall Law concerning that Succession hath designed it. And herein though our Monarchy be not so far limited as that of France is said to be, where the King cannot leave it to his Daughter, but to his Heire male, yet restrained it is; so that should he affect another more, or judge another fitter to succeed, yet he cannot please himselfe in this, but is limited to the next Heire borne, not adopted or denominated: which was the case ’twixt Queene Mary and the Lady Jane.

Pos. 5.Lastly, in point of Revenue wherein their Power extendeth not to their Subjects Estates; by Taxes and Impositions to make their owne what they please, as hath been acknowledged by Magna Charta, and lately by the Petition of Right, the case of Ship-money, Conduct-money, &c. Nor, as I conceive, to make an Alienation of any Lands, or other Revenues annexed by Law to the Crowne. I meddle not with personall limitations, whereby Kings, as well as private men, may limit themselves by Promise and Covenant, which being particular, bind onely themselves; but of those which are radicall, and have continued during the whole current of succession from unknowne times. Other limitations, it is likely, may be produced by those who are skilfull in the Lawes: but I beleeve they will be such as are reducible to some of these, which I take to be the principall and most apparent limitations of this Monarchy, and are a most convincing induction to prove my Assertion in the former Chapter, That this Monarchy, in the very Mold and Frame of it, is of limited constitution.

Chap. III.

Whether it be of a Simple or Mixed Constitution?Quest. 3.

Sect. 1.WHen the Government is simple, when mixed: also where the mixture must be, which denominates a mixed Government, is explained Part 1. Cap. 3. Now I conceive it a cleare and undoubted Truth, that the Authority of this Land is of a compounded and mixed nature in the very root and constitution thereof. And my judgement is established on these grounds.

Reas. 1.First, It is acknowledged to be a Monarchy mixed with Aristocracy in the house of Peeres, and Democracy in the house of Commons.Answer to the 19. Proposit. Now (as before was made appeare in the first Part) it is no mixture which is not in the Root and Supremacy of Power: for though it have a subordination of inferiour Officers, and though the Powers inferiour be seated in a mixed subject, yet that makes it not a mixed Government; for it is compatible to the simplest in the world, to have subordinate mixtures.

Reas. 2.Secondly, that Monarchy where the legislative power is in all three, is in the very Root and Essence of it compounded and mixed of those three; for that is the height of power, to which the other parts are subsequent and subservient: so that where this resideth in a mixed subject that is in three distinct concurrent Estates, the consent and concourse of all most free, and none depending on the will of the other, that Monarchy is in the most proper sense and in the very modell of it of a mixed constitution: but such is the state of this Monarchy, as appeares in the former question, and is self-apparent.

Reas. 3.Thirdly, that Monarchy, in which three Estates are constituted, to the end that the power of one should moderate and restrain from excesse the power of the other, is mixed in the root and essence of it: but such is this, as is confessed in the answere to the said Propositions. The truth of the major will appeare, if we consider how many wayes provision may be made in a Politicall Frame to remedy and restraine the excesses of Monarchy. I can imagine but three wayes. First, by constituting a legall power above it, that it may be regulated thereby, as by an over-ruling power: Thus wee must not conceive of our two houses of Parliament, as if they could remedy the exorbitances of the Prince by an Authority superiour to his, for this were to subordinate him to the two Houses, to set a superiour above the Soveraigne, that is, to destroy the being of his Monarchicall power. Secondly, by an originall conveyance to him of a limited and legall power so that beyond it he can doe no potestative act; yet constituting no formall legall power to refraine or redresse his possible exorbitances; here is limitation without mixture of another constituted power: As the former of these overthrowes the power of the Soveraigne, so this makes no provision for the iudemnity of the people. Thirdly, now the never enough to be admired wisedome of the Architects and Contrivers of the frame of Government in this Realme (who ever they were) have found a third way, by which they have conserved the Soveraignty of the Prince; and also made an excellent provision for the Peoples freedome, by constituting two Estates of men, who are for their condition Subjects, and yet have that interest in the Government, that they can both moderate and redresse the excesses and illegalities of the Royall power, which (I say) cannot be done, but by a mixture, that is, by putting into their hands a power to meddle in acts of the highest function of Government; a power not depending on his will, but radically their owne, and so sufficient to moderate the Soveraignes power.

Sect. 2.Now what can reasonably be said in opposition to these grounds, proving a fundamentall mixture, I cannot devise. Neither indeed is a mixture in the Government denied by the greatest Patrons of irresistibility; onely such a mixture they would faine make it, which might have no power of positive resistence. I will therefore set down what they probably may or do object to this purpose, and will shew the invalidity thereof.

Object. 1.First, this mixture seems not to be of distinct powers but of a Power & a Councell; authority in the Prince to give power to Acts, and counsell in the two Houses to advise and propose wholesom Acts; as if the royall power alone did give life to the Law: onely he is defined in this power, that he cannot animate any Act to the being of a Law, but such as is proposed unto him by this great and Legislative Councell of Parliament. Sol, This were probable, supposing the Parliament were onely in the nature of a Counsell; but we know it is also a Court, the High Court of Parliament: Now it is evident that a Court is the seat and subject of Authority and power, and not barely of counsell and advice.

Object. 2.Secondly, the two Houses together with the King, are the supreme Court of the Kingdome; but taken divisely from the King, it is no Court, and consequently hath no power. Sol. Suppose them no entire Court divided from the King, yet they are two Estates of the three which make up the supreme Court; so that they have a power and authority, though not complete and sufficing to perfect an Act, without the concourse of the third: For it appeares by the Acts of that Court, that every of the three Estates hath a Legislative power in it; every Act being enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty, and by the Authority of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament.

Sect. 3.Thirdly, they have an authority, but in subordination to the King and derived from him, as his Parliament. Indeed this is a maine Question, and hath very weighty Arguments on both sides, viz. Whether the authority of both the Houses be a subordinate authority,Object. 3. and derived from the King as its originall? Three Reasons seeme strong for the affirmative: First, because it is his Parliament, so called and acknowledged: If his Court, then the power whereby they are a Court is his power,Whether the authority of the two Houses be derived from the King? derived from him, as the power of other Courts is. Secondly, because he hath the power of calling and dissolving it. Thirdly, because he is acknowledged in the Oaths of Allegeance and Supremacy to be the Head, and of supreme authority in the Kingdome, and all subject to him.

Treatise entitituled, A fuller Answer to Dr. Ferne.And whereas some make answere that he is Singulis major, but &illegible; minor, so the Answerer to Doctor &illegible;, I wonder that the Proposition of the Observator, that the King is &illegible; minor, should be so much exploded. Every member &illegible; is a subject, but all &illegible; in their houses are not: And hee sayes simply, the Houses are co-ordinate to the King, nor subordinate; that the Lords &illegible; Comites, or Peeres, implies in Parliament a co-ordinative society with his Majesty in the Government. I conceive this Answerer to avoid one extreme falls on another; for this is a very overthrow of all Monarchy, and to reduce all Government to Democracy; For looke where the apex &illegible; in there is the Government. Also it is against Common Reason: For the King, is he not King of the Kingdome? and what is the Kingdome but all united? all the particulars knit together in one body politick? so that if he be King of the Kingdome, he is &illegible; major too; for the King is major, and the Kingdome is the united universe of the People. Thus those expressions are some of them false, some though secundum quid true; yet spoken simply, and in that manner, are scandalous and incompatible to Monarchy. Thus you see what may be said on the one side, to prove the King to be the originall of all power, even of that which is in the Houses of Parliament assembled.

On the other side are as weighty Arguments to prove the contrary, viz. That the two Houses authority is not dependent, nor derived from the Royall power. First, the authority of the Houses being Legislative, is the supreme, and so cannot bee derived. Three concurrent Powers producing one supreme act, as con-cause, joint causes of the same highest effect cannot have a subordination among themselves in respect of that casualty; it not being imaginable how a power can cause the supreme effect, and yet be a subordinate and derived power. Secondly, the end of constituting these two Estates being the limiting and preventing the excesses of the third, their power must not be totally dependent and derived from the third, for then it were unsuitable for the end for which it was ordained: For to limit an Agent by a power subordinate and depending on himself, is all one as to leave him at large without any limitation at all. Thirdly, that which hath beene spoken of a mixed Monarchy doth fully prove that the two other powers which concurre with the Monarch, to constitute the mixture, must not be altogether subordinate to it, and derived from it. I must professe these Reasons to prevaile with me, that I cannot conceive how the authority of the two Houses can in the whole being of it, be a dependent and derived power.

Sect. 4.That we may find out the truth amidst this potent contradiction of both sides, recourse must be had to the Architecture of this Government, whereof I must declare my self to be so great an Admirer, that what ever more then humane wisedom had the contriving of it, whether done at once, or by degrees found out and perfected, I conceive it unparalleld for exactnesse of true policy in the whole world;Resolution of the Question. such a care for the Soveraignty of the Monarch, such a provision for the liberty of the People, and that one may bee justly allayed, and yet consist without impeachment of the other, that I wonder how our Forefathers in those rude unpolished times could attain such an accurate composure. First then suppose a people, either compelled to it by conquest, or agreeing to it by free consent, Nobles and Commons set over themselves by publike compact one Soveraigne, and resigne up themselves to him and his heires, to be governed by such and such Fundamentall Lawes: there’s a supremacy of power set up, though limited to one course of exercise. Secondly, then because in all Governments after cases will come, it requiring an addition of Lawes, suppose them covenanting with their Soveraigne, that if cause be to constitute any other Lawes, hee shall not by his sole power doe that worke, but they reserve at first, or afterwards it is granted them (which is all one) a hand of concurrence therein, that they will be bound by no Lawes, but what they joyne with him in the making of. Thirdly, because though the Nobles may personally convene, yet the Commons (being so many) cannot well come together by themselves to the doing of such a worke, it be also agreed, that every Corporation of the Commons shall have power to depute one or more to be for the whole in this publike legislative businesse; that so the Nobles by themselves, the Commons by their Deputies assembling, there may be representatively the whole body, having Commission to execute that reserved authority for establishing new Lawes. Fourthly, because the occasion and need of making new Lawes, and authentick expounding the old, would not be constant and perpetuall, and it would carry an appearance of a Government in which were three Heads and chiefe Powers, they did not establish these Estates to be constantly existent, but occasionally, as the causes for which they were ordained should emerge and happen to be. Fifthly, because a Monarchy was intended and therefore a Supremacy of power (as farre as possible) must be reserved for one, it was concluded that these two Estates should be Assemblies of his Subjects, sworne to him, and all former Lawes; the new, which by agreement of Powers should be enacted, were to be his Lawes, and they bound to obey him in them as soone as established: And being supposed that he who was to governe by the Lawes, and for the furtherance of whose Government the new Lawes were to be made, should best understand when there was need, and the assembling and dissolving the two Estates meeting, was a power of great priviledge, it was put into the Princes hand by writ to convocate and bring to existence, and to adjourne and dismisse such meetings Sixthly, in processe of time Princes not caring much to have their Government looked into, or to have any power in act but their own, took advantage of this power of convocating those Estates, and did more seldome then need required make use of it; whereon provision was made, and a time set within which an Assembly of Parliament was to be had. Now when you have made these suppositions in your minde, you have the very modell and platforme of this Monarchy, and we shall easily find what to answer to the arguments before produced on either side. For first it is his Parliament, because an assembly of his subjects, convocated by his Writ, to be his Councell, to assist him in making Lawes for him to govern by: yet not his, as other Courts are altogether deriving their whole authority from the fulnesse which is in him. Also his power of assembling and dissolving proves him thus far above them, because in their existence they depend on him; but their power and authority quoad specificationem, the being and kind of it, is from originall constitution: for they expect no Commission and authority from him, more then for their meeting and reducing into existence; but existing they worke according to the priviledges of their constitution, their acts proceeding from their conjunct authority with the Kings, not from its subordination to the Kings. The oath of Allegeance binds them, and respects them as his subjects, to obey him, governing according to established Lawes: it supposes and is built upon the foundations of this Government, and must not be interpreted to overthrow then; he is thereby acknowledged to be supreme so far as to rule them by Lawes already made; not so far as to make Lawes without them, so that it is no derogation to their power; and I beleeve of these things none can make any question. Therein consists the accurate Judgement of the Contrivers of this Forme they have given so much into the hands of the soveraign as to make him truly a Monarch; and they have reserved so much in the hands of the two Estates, as to enable them to preserve their owne liberty.

Chap. IIII.

How farre forth it is mixed; and what parts of the Power are referred to a mixed Principle?Quest. 4.

I Shall be the briefer in this, because an answer to it may be easily collected out of the precedent Questions: for he who knowes how farre this Government is limited, will soon discerne how farre it is mixed, for the Limitation is mostly affected by the mixture:Three points of mixture. but distinctly, I conceive that there are three parts of the power referred to the joint concourse of all three Estates: So that either of them not consenting or suspending its influence the rest cannot reduce that power ordinarily and legally into act.

1.The first is the Nomotheticall power, understanding by it the power of making, and authentick expounding Lawes, so that I believe an act cannot have the nature and forme of a Law of the Land, if it proceed from any one, or two of these, without the positive concurrence of the third.

2.Secondly, The power of imposing taxes and payments on mens estates: that the King by himself cannot assume mens properties by requiring impositions not granted him by Law, is often contested: And that the other Estates cannot doe it by themselves, I conceive it as unquestionable: For it were strange to give that to the secondary and assisting Powers, which is denied to the Soveraigne and principall. It it be objected that every Corporation electing Deputes, and authorizing them to be vice totius Communitatis, do thereby grant them power, and entrust them as to make laws to bind them, so to dispose of any part of their estate, either by rate or payment for the publique good: I answer, that they are by that deputation enabled as for one, so for the other; that is, according to the fundamentall usage of the Kingdome, that is, by the joint consent of the other estates, for though the house of Commons is chosen by the people, and they represent the people, yet the representation doth not give them a power which was not in the people. Now the people have no power to doe an act which either directly, or by consequence doth put it in the will and pleasure of any one or two of the Estates, to overthrow the other. But this power of opening and shutting the Purse of the Kingdome is such a power, that if it be in one or two of the Estates, without the third, then they by that power might necessitate that other to doe any act, or disable it from its owne defence. This and the Legislative power have such a neernesse, that they cannot be divided, but must be in the same subject: this is so great a power, that put it absolutely in any Estate single, you make that Estate in effect absolute, making the rest dependent and beholding to it for their subsistence.

3.Thirdly, the power of dispatching the affaires of the Kingdome which are of greatest difficulty and weight, the ardua regni, which the Writ for convocating the other Estates doth mention, supposing thereby that such difficulties are not to be dispatched by the power of one alone; for if they were, why then are the two other convocated to be assisting? I acknowledge many matters of great moment may be done by the Regall power, and in such case it may be said, that the other Estates are gathered ad &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; &illegible; that the advise and sense of the Community may be for direction. But I conceive there be two sorts of affaires, which ought not to be transacted without the concurrence of all three. First, such as concerne the publike safety and weale, so far as stable detriment or advantage comes to the whole body by the well or ill carriage thereof; for then there is the same reason as in making new Lawes: For why was not the power of making any new Lawes left in the hands of one, but reserved for the concurrence of all three? save because the end of the Architects was, that no new thing which was of so much concernment as the stable good and dammage of the Kingdome, should be introduced without the consent and advice of the whole: so that if any businesse be of that moment, that it is equipollent to a Law in the publike interest, it should be managed by such an authority and way as that is. Secondly, such as introduce a necessity of publike charge, be it matter of War or else, if to the effecting of it the Purse of the Kingdome be required, it is evident that it ought to be done by the concurrence of all, because they onely jointly (as appeares before) have power to impose a publike charge on the estates of men. And it were all one to put the power of our estates in the hands of one, as to put the power of such undertakings in his sole hands, which of necessity bring after them an engagement of publike expence.

Chap. V.

How far forth the two Estates may oppose and resist the will of the Monarch?Quest. 5.

Sect. 1.THis Question is in the generall already handled in the first Part, so that it will be easie to draw those Answers there to this particular here: Therefore conformably to what I then affirmed, I will answere this Question by divers Positions.

Pos. 1.First, the Monarch working according to his power not exceeding the Authority which God and the Lawes have conferred on him, is no way to be opposed either by any or all his Subjects, but in conscience to Gods ordinance obeyed. This is granted on all sides.

Pos. 2.Secondly, if the will and command of the Monarch exceed the limits of the Law, it ought for the avoidance of scandall and offence be submitted to, so it be not contrary to Gods Law, nor bring with it such an evill to our selves, or the publike, that we cannot be accessary to it by obeying. This also will find no opposition. Disobedience in light cases, in which we are not bound, makes an appearance of slighting the power, and is a disrespect to the person of the Magistrate. Therefore Christ, to avoyd such offense, would pay tribute, though he tells Peter, He was free, and need not have done it.

Pos. 3.Thirdly, if hee command a thing which the Law gives him no authority to command, and it be such as would bee inconvenient to obey, in this case obedience may lawfully be denied: This also findes allowance from them which stand most for royall power. Doctor Ferne in his Preface acknowledges obedience to be limited and circumscribed by the established Lawes of the Land, and accordingly to bee yeelded or denied. And Sect. 1. sayes he, We may and ought to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God, yea by the established Laws of the land. Here he sayes more then we say; yea more then should be said, as appeares in the second Position: it is not universally true, that we ought.

Pos. 4.Fourthly, if he exceed the limits of the Law. and proceed in courses illegall, meanes there are which it is agreed upon the Subjects may use to reduce him to legall Government; so much Doctor Ferne allowes Sect. 4. Cries to God, Petition to the Prince, Deniall of Obedience, Deniall of Subsidie, &c.

Pos. 5.Fifthly but the point in controversie is about positive and forcible resistance, the lawfulnesse of which some doe utterly deny and others doe as confidently maintaine: but yet this point might be brought to a narrower state then in the confused handling of it, it usually is: by distinguishing twix’t forceable resistence used against the Kings own person, or against inferiour Officers and Instruments advising to, or executing the illegall commands.

Sect. 2.For the first, as I have before expressed my selfe, force ought not to be used against the person of the Soveraigne, on any pretence whatever, by any or all his subjects; even in limited and mixed Monarchies: for if they be truly Monarchs, they are irrevocably invested with Soveraignty, which sets their persons above all lawfull power and force. Also the Soveraign power being so conferred on that person: The person and power cannot be really sundred, but the force which is used to the one, must also violate the other: for power is not in the Soveraigne as it is in inferiour Officers: as water is otherwise in the spring then in the channells, and pipes deriving it: It is not inseperably in them, and therfore they offending force may be used against them without violation of the Ordinance of Authority. These Arguments prove it unlawfull in any: That which the Dr. brings, I approve as strong against all private force, where he allowes defence against the person of the Prince himselfe, so farre as to ward his blowes, but not to returne blowes, no though for naturall defence: because the Common-Wealth is concerned in his person, Sect. 2. And to divert a private evill by inducing a publique, is unjust and unlawfull: so that for this point of force against the person of the Prince: I thinke there ought to be no contention. If any have bin so rash to hold it lawfull on these grounds, that the whole Kingdome is above him because they make him King, and that by miscarriage he may make a forfeiture, and so lay himselfe open to force: I do iudge these grounds very insufficient: unles the Kingdome reserve a superiority to it self, or there be a fundamentall clause of forfeiture on specified causes; and then it is not properly a Monarchy: but all this hath been already handled in the generall Part.

Secondly, for Instruments of oppression of publique liberty if the wrong be destructive, and no other meanes of prevention, but force, be left; I am perswaded it may be used, and positive resistence made against them; And if I find any contradiction from the most rigid Patrones of Royalty, it must be only in this point. And here I must complaine of the indistinct dealing of that Doctor in this matter; who mingleth both these points together: and scarce speakes any thing to resolve mens consciences in this: But speakes either in generall, or else of force against the Princes owne person: Whereas I thinke, the case which sticks most on the conscience at this time, is this latter: Of opposing, mis-leading and mis-imployed subjects, which he speaks very little to. Nay, he seems to me, after all his disclaiming of resistence, to come home to us, and though sparingly, yet to assent to lawfullnes of resistence in this point. For Sect. 2. speaking of Devids guard of armed men: He saies. It was to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul, if sent to take away his life: He meanes to secure it by force, for Souldiers are for force: He meanes no negative securing by flight, for that may be done even against Saul himselfe: but he speaks of such a securing, which might only be against cut-throats. So then he grants securing by force against these: But they went on Sauls command, and mostly with his presence. Againe, in the instance of Elisha, he seemes to acknowledge lawfullnesse of personall defence against the sudden and illegall assaults of Messengers, he means by force, for he speaks of such which he will not allow in publique, which can be understood of none, but by force: But it appears the Doctor in his whole discourse hath avoided this point of resistence of mis-imployed subjects; which yet is the alone point which would have given satisfaction: for before it appeares, we agree in all the rest, and in this too for ought I know, he having not distinctly said any thing against it.

Sect. 3.Now concerning this case of forceable resistence of inferiour persons mis-imployed to serve the illegall destructive commands of the Prince. I will doe two things.Whether resistence of Instruments of will be lawfull? 1. I will maintaine my Assertion by convincing Arguments. 2. I will shew the invalidity of what is said against it.

Assert. 1.This then is my Assertion: The two Estates in Parliament may lawfully by force of Armes resist any persons or number of persons advising or assisting the King in the performance of a command illegall and destructive to themselves, or the publique.

Arg. 1.1. Because that force is lawfull to be used for the publique conservation which is no resistence of the Ordinance of God; for that is the reason condemning the resistence of the Powers: Now this is no resistence of Gods Ordinance: For by it neither the person of the Soveraigne is resisted, nor his power: Not his person, for we speak of Agents imployed, not of his own person: Nor his power; For the measure of that, in our Government, is acknowledged to be the Law: And therefore he cannot confer Authority to any beyond Law: so that those Agents deriving no Authority from him: are meere Instruments of his Will: Unauthorized persons; in their assaults Robbers, and, as Dr. Ferne calls them, Cut-throats. If the case be put, What if the Soveraigne himselfe in person be present with such Assaylants, joining his personall assistence in the execution of his Commands? It is much to be lamented, that the will of the Prince should be so impetuous in any subverting Act, as to hazzard his own person in the prosecution of it. Yet supposing such a case, all councells and courses must be taken, that no violence be offered to his person, and Profession of none intended: But no reason the presence of his person should priviledge ruining Instruments from suppression, and give them an immunity to spoil and destroy subjects, better themselves; His person being secured from wrong; His power cannot be violated in such an Act, in which none of it can be conferred on the Agents And sure David, though he avoided laying hands or using any violence against the person of Saul, and on no extremity would have done it: Yet for the Cut-throats about him, if no other means would have secured him, he would have rescued himselfe by force from their outrage: Though Saul was in their company: Else what intended he by all that force of Souldiers: And his enquiry of God at Keilah: by which it is plain, He had an intent to have kept the place by force, if the people would have stuck to him: Neither is it to the purpose which the Dr. saies, Sect. 2. That his example was extraordinary, because he was anointed and designed to succeed Saul, for that being but a designation, did not exempt him from the duty of subjection for the present, or lessen it, as is plain by the great conscience he made of not touching Saul: But he knew it was one thing to violate Sauls Person and Power, and another to resist those Instruments of Tyranny, the Cut-throats which were about him.

Arg. 2.Secondly, Because without such power of resistence in the hands of subjects, all distinction and limitation of Government is vain: and all formes resolve into absolute and arbitrary; for that is so, which is unlimited; and that is unlimited, not onely which hath no limits set: but also which hath no sufficient Limits, for to be restrained from doing what I will, by a power which can restrain me no longer nor otherwise then I will, is all one, as if I were left at my own Will. I take this to be cleare: Now it is as cleare, that without this forceable resistence of Instruments of usurped power be lawfull, no sufficient limits can be to the Princes Will, and all Lawes bounding him are to no purpose. This appeares by enumerating the other meanes, Prayer to God: Petition to the Prince: Deniall of obedience: Deniall of Subsidie: a moderate use of the power of denying as Doctor Ferne calls it: These are all: but what are these to hinder, if a Prince be minded to overthrow all, and bring the whole Government to his own Will? For Prayer, and Petition, these are put in to fill up the number: They are no limitations, they may be used in the most absolute Monarchy; for deniall of obedience, that may keep me from being an Instrument of publique servitude; but Princes Wills never want them which will yeild obedience, if I deny it; Yea enough to destroy all the rest, if nothing be left them but to suffer: Then for deniall of Subsidie, if he may be thousands of Instruments take all, or what he, or they please, and I must not resist: what need he care whether the people deny or grant: If a Prince be taught, that he may do it: cases and reasons will soon be brought to perswade him; that in them he may lawfully doe it; as late experiences have given us too much Testimonie: Thus it is apparent, that the deniall of this Power of Resistence of Instruments overthrowes and makes invalid all Government, but that which is absolute: and reduces the whole world de jure to an absolute subjection, that is, servitude: for the end of all constitution of moderated forms is not that the supreme power might not lawfully exorbitate, but that it might have no power to exorbitate.

The Dr. is conscious hereof; and therefore tells us in his Sect. 5. This is the very reason which is made for the Popes power of curbing and deposing Kings in case of heresie: because else the Church, saies the Papist, hath no meanes for the maintenance of the Catholique Faith, and its own safety: But who sees not the vast difference ’twixt these two? and that the same reason may be concluding here, which is apparently non concluding there; For 1. They thereby would draw to the Pope an authoritative power: we no such superiour power: but only a power of resistence for self-conservation which nature and the Law of reason gives to every one; and may stand with the condition of subjection and inferiority. 2. They on this reason give the Pope a Power over the very person of the King; we only of resisting of unauthorized invading destroyers, comming under the colour of an authority which is not in the Soveraigne to be derived. 3. They prove a civill right for spirituall reasons, we onely for civill reasons. 4. The Church and the faith are constituted in their very formall being from Christ himselfe, who is the head and great Shepheard immediately in his owne person: and as it is his owne family; so he keeps the power of preserving it in his owne hands; having made direct and particular promises to assure us of their upholding against all subvertion, by his own power: so that here is assurance enough, without visible meanes of force for a spirituall body, which lives by faith. But in a civill State there is no such assurance, nor supporting promises: power onely in the undefined being of it, being Gods immediate Ordinance, and not in this specificated or determinate being: wherefore it hath no such immediate provision made for its preservation no promise of a divine power for its standing: but as it is left by God to mens wisdome to contrive the frame, so to their providence to establish meanes of preservation. As the body is outward and Civill, so the upholding meanes must be such; spirituall and infallibly assuring a Formed State hath not, as the Church and Faith have; if there be none of outward force and power neither, then none at all it hath, and is in all case indeed. But there is an art full of venome, when a truth can not bee beaten downe by just reasoning, then to make it odious by hatefull comparisons: so in this case aspersions are cast, as if the Patrons of Resistence did borrow the Popish and Jesuiticall grounds, and their Positions as dangerous to Kings, as the Jesuites hell-bred and bloudy Principles: whereas it appeares by all this discourse, and I am perswaded is written in Capitall Letters in the very Conscience of them which despitefully object it, that there is no congruity at all ’twixt their Doctrines, no more then ’twixt Light and Darknesse.

Arg. 3.Thirdly, because such power is due to a publike State for its preservation, as is due to a particular person: But every particular person may lawfully by force resist illegall destructive Ministers, though sent by the command of a legall Soveraigne, provided no other meanes of selfe-preservation be enough. This Assumption the Doctor seemes to grant; he denies it to be lawfull against the Person of the Prince, but in effect yeelds it against subordinate persons: But the main is against the Proposition, and the Doctor is so heavie a friend to the State that he thinkes it not fit to allow it that liberty he gives every private man. But whose Judgement will concurre with his herein, I cannot imagine; for sure the Reason is greater, the publike safety being far more precious, and able to satisfie the dammages of a publike resistence, then one particular mans is of a private. But of this more in answer to his Reasons.

Arg. 4.Fourthly, because it is a power put into the two Estates by the very reason of their Institution; and therefore they not onely may, but also ought to use it for publike safety: yea they should betray the very trust reposed in them by the Fundamentals of the Kingdome if they should not. An authority Legislative they have: Now to make Lawes and to preserve Lawes are acts of the same power; yea, if three powers jointly have interest in making of Lawes, surely either of these severally have, and ought to use that power in preserving them. Also that the authority which the Houses have is as well given them for preserving the government by established lawes as for establishment of lawes to govern by is a truth proved by the constant use of their power to that end, in correcting the exorbitance of inferiour Courts questioning delinquent Judges and Officers of State for violations, and much is done in this kinde by the sole authority of the Houses without the concurrence or expectance of Royall power: so then, supposing they have such an authority for safety of publike Government, to question and censure inferiour Officers for transgressions, though pretending the Kings authority, can it be denied but that their authority will beare them out to use forcible resistence against such, be they more or fewer.

Arg. 5.Fifthly, the Kings Warrant under his hand exempts not a Malefactor from the censure of a Court of Justice, nor punishment imposed by Law, but the Judge must proceed against him according to Law: for the Law is the Kings publike and authoritative Will; but a private Warrant to doe an unlawfull act, is his private and unauthoritative Will: wherefore the Judge ought to take no notice of such Warrant, but to deale with the Offendor as no other then a private man. This proves that such Instruments thus illegally warranted, are not authorized; and therefore their violence may be by force resisted, as the assaults of private men, by any; and then much rather by the Houses of Parliament: which, supposing them divided from the King to have no complete authority, yet sure they have two parts of the greatest Legislative authority. But I feare I shall seeme superfluous, in producing Arguments to prove so cleare a truth: Is it credible that any one will maintaine so abject an esteeme of their authority, that it will not extend to resistence of private men, who should endevour the subversion of the whole frame of Government, on no other Warrant then the Kings Will and Pleasure? Must they be meerly passive? Is patience, and the deniall of their Votes to a subversion, all the opposition they must use, if a King (which God forbid) should on his Royall pleasure send Cut-throats to destroy them as they fit in their Houses? Is all their authority (if the King desert them or worse) no more then to Petition, and suffer; and by a moderate use of their power of denying, dissent from being willing to be destroyed? If power of resisting by force of subverters armed by the Kings Will (for by his Authority they cannot) be unlawfull for them, all these absurdities must follow: yea, the vilest Instrument of Oppression, shewing but a Warrant from the King to beare him out, may range and rage all his dayes through a Kingdome, to waste and spoile, taxe and distraine, and at utmost of his insolence must have no more done to him by the Parliament it selfe, then to stay his hand, as the basest Servant may his Masters, or the meanest Subject the Kings owne hand; by the Doctors own confession. Consider then and admire, if any men of learning will deny this power of forcible resistence of Ministers, of subverting commands to be lawfull. I have thus far confirmed my assertion, not that I finde any openly opposing it, but because the Doctor and some other seeme to have a mind that way, and doe strike at it, though not professedly and in open dispute.

For the severall proofes brought in behalfe of Resistence, some of them prove as much as is here asserted; others are not to the purpose. Particularly, that of the Peoples rescuing Jonathan from his Fathers bloudy resolution proves lawfulnesse of hindering unreasonable self-destructive purposes, even in absolute Monarchies, if it prove any thing. That of Vzziah thrusting out by the Priests, is not to the purpose: but Davids raising and keeping Forces about him, and his purpose at Keilah, proves the point directly viz. Lawfulnesse of forcible resistance of Cut-throats even though Saul himselfe were in presence: This the Doctor sees plainly, and therefore &illegible; it off, by saying, His example is extraordinary; as if he were not a present Subject, because he was designed by Gods revealed counsell to be a future King. And he confesses Etisha’s example of shutting the doore against the Kings messenger proves personall defense against sudden illegall assaults of messengers, which is the thing in Question.

Sect 4.Let us now view the strength of what is said against resistence whether any thing comes home against this Assertion. The Doctors proofes from the old Testament: come not to the matter: Moses, and afterwards the Kings, were of Gods particular designation, setting them absolutely over the people, on no condition or limitation; so that did they prove any thing, yet they concerne not us, respecting a Government of another nature.The following marginalia text is unreadable and Liberty Fund has made no effort to partially transcribe it. But particularly, that of Corah and the Princes rebelling against Moses, is not to the matter; it was a resistence of Moses owne Person and Office; and doubtlesse penury of other proofes caused this and the rest here to be alledged: For that 1 Sam. 8 18. how inconsequent is it, to say, the people should cry unto the Lord, therefore they had no other meanes to helpe them but cries to God; though (I confesse) in that Monarchy they had not. That speech 1 Sam. 26 9. was most true there, and is as true here, but not to the purpose, being spoken of the Kings owne Person. But the maine authority brought against resistence is that Rom. 13. and on that Doctor Ferne builds his whole discourse: Let us therefore something more largely consider what is deduced out of that Text. First, he supposes the King to be the Supreme in Saint Peter, and the Higher power in Saint Paul. Secondly, hee collects All persons, every soule is forbidden to resist. Thirdly, that then was a standing Senate, which not long before had the supreme Power in the Romane State: It is confessed; but that they could challenge more at that time when Saint Paul writ then our great Councell will or can, I deny: For that State devolving into Monarchy by Conquest, they were brought under an Absolute Monarchy, the Senate it selfe swearing full subjection to the Prince; his Edicts and Acts of Will were Lawes, and the Senates consent onely pro forma, and at pleasure required. He who reads Tacitus cannot but see the Senate brought to a condition of basest servitude, and all Lawes and Lives depending on the will of the Prince: I wonder then the Doctor should make such a parallel. Indeed the Senate had been far more then ever our Parliaments were or ought to be: but now that was far lesse then our Parliament hath been, or (I hope) ever will be: They were become the sworne Vassals of an absolute Emperour, ours the sworne Subjects of a Liege or Legall Prince. Fourthly, he sayes, then was more cause of Resistence, when Kings were Enemies to Religion, and had overthrown Lawes and Liberties. I answere, There were no causes for Resistence: Not their enmity to Religion, had they but a legall power, because Religion then was no part of the Laws and so its violation no subversion of established government. And for the overthrow of Lawes and Liberties, that was past and done, and the government new, the Senate and all the rest actually sworne to absolute Principality: Now an Ordinance of absolute Monarchy was constituted, the sacred bond of an Oath had made it inviolate. But what would he inferre hence, all being granted him? Sure this he doth intend, That every soule among us, severall, and conjoyned in a Senate, must be subject for conscience, must not resist, under paine of Damnation: All this, and what ever besides he can justly infer out of that Text, we readily grant: But can any living man hence collect, that therefore no resistence may be made to fellow-subjects: executing destructive illegall acts of the Princes will in a legall Monarchy? Will he affirme that the Ordinance of God is resisted, and Damnation incurred thereby? Gods Ordinance is the Power, and the Person invested with that power; but here force is offered to neither as before I have made it appeare. And herein we have B. &illegible; consenting, where he sayes,&illegible; of &illegible; p. 94, & 280. that the superiour power here forbidden to be resisted, is not the Princes will against his Lawes but agreeing with his Lawes. I thinke the day it selfe is not more cleare then this satisfaction, to all that can bee concluded out of that Text: so the foundation of all that discourse is taken from it, if his intent were thence to prove unlawfulnesse of Resistence of Instruments of Arbitrarinesse in this Kingdome.

Let us also consider the force of his Reasons, whether they impugne this point in hand. He sayes, such power of resistence would be no fit meanes of safety to a State, but prove a remedy worse then the diseases. His Reasons, first, because it doth tend to the overthrow of that order, which is the life of a Common-wealth; it would open a way to People, upon the like pretences, to resist and even overthrow power duly administred. 2. It may proceed to a change of government. 3. It is accompanied with the evills of Civill-Warre. 4. On the same ground the two Houses proceed against the King, may the people proceed to resistence against them; accusing them not to discharge their trust. Lastly, seeing some must be trusted in every State. It is reason the highest and small trust, should be in the highest power. These are his main reasons on which he builds his conclusion against resistence.

To his first, I say it were strange if resistence of distructive disorder should tend to the overthrow of Order: It may for the time disturbe, as Physick while it is in working disturbes the naturall bodie, if the peccant humors make strong opposition: but sure it tends to health, and so doth this resistence of disorder to Order. Neither would it open a way for the people to violate the Powers; for doing right can open no way to the doing of wrong. If any wicked seditious spirits should make use of the Vail of Justice to cover unnaturall Rebellion: Shall a peoples right and liberty be taken from them to prevent such possible abuse? Rather let the foulnesse of such pretences discover it selfe, so God and good men will abhorre them: such Cloakes of Rebellion have in former ages been taken off, and the Authors brought to just confusion, without the expence of the liberties of this Kingdome.

To the second; must not Instruments be resisted, which actually intend, and seeked a chang of Government: because such resistence may proceed to a chang of Government? Is not an unlikely possibility of change to be hazarded, rather then a certaine one suffered? But I say, It cannot proceed to a chang of Government, unles it exceed the measure of lawfull resistence: yea it is impossible, that resistence of Instruments should ever proceed to a change of Government; for that includeth the greatest resistence and violation of the person and power of the Monarch, the lawfullnesse of which I utterly disclaime.

Thirdly, it is not ever accompanied with the evills of Civill Warre: But when the Princes Will findes enough Instruments of their Countreys ruine to raise it. And then the mischife of that war must light on those which raise it: But suppose it may ensue, yet a temporary evill of war is to be chosen rather then a perpetuall losse of liberty, and subversion of the established frame of a Government.

In the fourth, I deny the parity of reason: for the two Houses are bodies constituted and endowed with legislative authority, and trust of preservation of the frame, by the Fundamentalls of the Kingdome: which the people out of those Houses are not. Againe the Government being composed of a threefold consenting power, one to restraine the exorbitance of another: All three together are absolute and equivalent to the power of the most absolute Monarch: The concurrent Will of all three, makes a Law, and so it is the Kingdomes Law.

To the last, I answer, In every State some must be trusted, and the highest trust is in him who hath the Supreame power: These two the Supreame Trust, and the Supreame Power are inseperable: And such as the power is, such is the trust: An absolute power supposes an absolute trust: A Power allayed with the annexion of another power as here it is, supposeth a trust of the same nature. A joynt trust, yet saving the supremacie of the Monarch, so far forth as it may be saved, and not be absolute and the others authority nullified. It may be further argued:How farre forth the sword is in the hand of the Monarch? that it being the Prerogative Royall to have the managing of the sword, that is, legall force, in the Kingdome; none can, on any pretence whatever use lawfull force, either against him, or any, but by his Will: for it is committed to him by law, and to none but whom he assignes it to: so that the Lawes of the Kingdome putting all power of force and Armes into his trust, have placed him, and all those who serve him, in a state of irresistiblenes in respect of any lawfull force. This is a point much stood on and on this ground, the Parliament now assuming the disposing of the Militia by an Ordinance, it is complained on, as a usurping of what the Law hath committed to the King as his Prerogative; The opposing of which Ordinance by a Commission of Array, was the beginning of this miserable Civill-Warre. I will distinctly lay down my Answer hereto, submitting it to every impartiall judgement.

Pos. 1.1. The power of the Sword being for defence of the Lawes, by punishing violators, and protecting subjects, it is subservient to Government, and must needs belong to him who is entrusted with the Government, as a necessarie requisite without which he cannot performe his trust.

Pos. 2.2. As it is an appendix to the power of Government, and goes along with it, so it goes under the same termes: belonging to the Prince, as the other doth: sc. absolutely, to use at will, where the Monarchie is absolute; or with limitation, to use according to Law, where the Monarchy is limited: so that, in this Government the Armes and sword of the Kingdome is the Kings, to a defined use committed to him; viz. For defence of the Lawes and Frame of Government established, and not for arbitrary purposes, or to enable Ministers to execute commands of meer Will.

Pos. 3.3. The two Houses in virtue of the Legislative authority, in part residing in them, are interested in the preservation of Lawes and Government, as well as the King: And in case, the King should misimploy that power of Arms to strengthen subverting Instruments: Or in case the Lawes and government be in apparent danger, the King refusing to use the sword to that end of preservation for which it was committed to him: I say, in this case, the two Estates may by extraordinary and temporary Ordinance assume those Armes, wherewith the King is entrusted, and performe the Kings trust: And though such Ordinance of theirs is not formally legall, yet it is eminently legall, justified by the very intent of the Architects of the Government, when for these uses they committed the Armes to the King. And no doubt they may command the strength of the Kingdome to save the being of the Kingdome: for none can reasonably imagine the Architectonicall Powers, vvhen they committed the power of government and Armes to one to preserve the Frame they had composed, did thereby intend to disable any, much lesse the two Estates, from preserving it, in case the King should faile to doe it in this last need. And thus doing the Kings Worke, it ought to be interpreted as done by his Will: because as the Law is his Will, so that the Law should be preserved is his Will, which he expressed when he undertooke the government: Tis his deliberate Will, and ought to be done, though at any time he oppose by an after-Will, for that is his sudden Will, as Doctor Ferne himselfe Sect. 1. doth teach us to distinguish.