The Case of our affairs, IN LAW, RELIGION, And other Circumstances briefly Examined, and Presented to the CONSCIENCE. Tudor Rose Scottish Thistle Printed in the year, 1643. The Case of our affairs in Law, Religion, and other Circumstances briefly examined, &c. THough the Bonds of all duty are originally and principally founded in God, and tied by Religion; yet seeing all civil Duties relate to the particularity of the human Ordinance, and according to the nature of it, is with more or less importance to be exacted. What Subject soever would find the true rule and bond of his obedience, must in the first place look what the State is wherein he lives, and in whom the sovereignty is to which his obedience and faith is inevitably bound. Our State of England (even by the declaration of our laws) is a Kingdom, an Empire, a well regulated monarchy; 25. H. 8. cap. 22. 24 H 8. cap. 12. 26. H. 8. cap▪ 2. 1. Eliz. 1. 1. Iac. 1. Co. 5. Codry case, fol. 9 b. vide the Parl. writ. the Head thereof a Supreme Head, a sovereign, a King whose Crown is an imperial Crown, the Kingdom His Kingdom, His realm, His Dominion, the People His People, the Subject His Subject, not only as they are single men, but even when being in Parliament assembled, they make the body Representative of the whole Kingdom considered apart without the King, so that the very Parliament itself is also by our laws called His Parliament: the King alone by Law hath power to call together in Parliament that Representative body, and at His pleasure to dissolve it; He personally hath Homage and Oath of fidelity of all the peers as of His Barons, and all the Commons in Parliament do by Law swear allegiance to Him as to the only Supreme governor, and to assist and defend all Jurisdictions, 1. Eliz. 1. & 5. El. 1. privileges, preeminences, and Authorities, belonging to Him, His heirs and successors, or annexed to the imperial Crown of the realm. By the same Oath also is every Officer of considerable trust in Church and commonwealth assured to His majesty; and not only they, but every single man of twelve years of age ought by Law in some or other of His majesty's Leetes to swear allegiance to His majesty: and never in our Law have we known an Oath of obedience to be made unto the Parliament, or any other Power in any case, either of misgovernment or danger, how extraordinary soever. This sovereignty in the King appears not only by that Oath of supremacy, but by the constant acknowledgement of our Acts of Parliament both ancient and modern, which always style the King Our sovereign Lord the King, that is, not sovereign Lord to every single man only (as the Observer traitorously and foolishly would make it) but the universality of us, even to our body Representative in Parliament. For we must note that though we have among us many that are called Lords even by our Acts of Parliament themselves, yet being Lords without relation to the community or public they are never called Our Lords, but The Lords, with addition of such or such place or Office; and they indeed are Lords singulis, not universis, for every particular man may call such a Lord My Lord, but the community may not call him Our Lord, for to be Our Lord is to be Lord of the community, and that belongeth only to Our sovereign Lord the King. Our very Acts of Parliament declaring this State to be a right imperial Kingdom, a Kingdom (we know) consisteth of no more than two formal parts only, that is to say, a sovereign Head, and a Subject body; and than it clearly followeth that what cooperation soever there be of any of the Members with the Head for the doing of any necessary Act of State, whatsoever necessity there be of the concurrence of those Members; and howsoever they may seem to be Parties, Orders, or States, coequally authorised in the power of acting with the Head, yet plainly there neither is, nor can be any coordination, nor coequality of any Estate, Order, or Degree, of the Subject with the sovereign, nor any competition of the Subjects power (in his concurrence) with the virtual and primary influence of the sovereign's power; but a plain subordination and subjected ministration of the one under the sovereignty of the other, as in the further examination of their differing interests will manifestly appear. We see the sovereignty of this State clearly vested in the King, by Law established in Him, Lo. Cha. Egertons Post nati 73. b. and inseparably annexed to His Person, by which He hath also inseparably both the sovereign power and sovereign judgement: but as in judging and determining matters of private interest, His power is not absolute, but is restrained to judgement, (not judgement arbitrary in His own Person but judgement to be administered by the proper sworn Judges of His Courts of Law) so in matters of public affair, for so much as concerns the making of Law; His power and judgement are so restrained to the concurrence of the Nobles, and Commons in Parliament, as that He cannot make any settled Law without their consent▪ but then in all other things that are not expressly restrained by any Law, as in providing for the present safety against sudden danger, which Senates are so unapt to do, as that the famous Roman Senate was ever fain to choose a Dictator to do it for them; likewise in levying of arms, suppressing of tumults and rebellions, convoaking of Parliaments, and dissolving of them, making of peers, granting liberty of sending Burgesses to Parliament, treating with foreign States, making of War, League, and Peace, granting safe conduct and protection, indenizing, giving of Honour, rewarding, pardoning, coining, and the like: in all these and divers other points of regality, the sovereignty both of judgement and power ever hath been and still is in the King alone, freely and at his own discretion is secured to him by t●● Oath of supremacy, whereby as aforesaid, the whole Representative of Commons, all Magistrates and men in place both in Church and commonwealth swear To assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences, and authorities belonging to the Kings. For it is plain, that seeing that by the law of God and Nations, Psal. 60, 7. Gen. 49.10 Deut. 33.4. & 5. to be King is to be Supreme Judge and lawgiver; whosoever is King is supreme in every thing wherein he is not especially restrained, and his restraint being by the peculiar laws of his kingdom, he can be no further restrained than the known laws thereof expressly manifest. The great restraint of regal absoluteness in our State is in the two points of declaring and making of law, in neither of which doth the King depart with any whit of his sovereignty. In the point declaring of law, the King is restrained ordinarily to the mediation of his Judges, who to declare the law by delivery of the genuine sense and interpretation of law according to to art and rules of science, are in their respective Courts the proper and authorised Judges, and Interpreters of Law, and do by their interpretation and judgement then bind both the King and Subject. Next above them upon error supposed in their judgement, the House of Lords (who anciently were exercised in the laws and learned in them, Lo. Cha. Egertons Post nati fol. 22. & 23. sect. 4. and are assisted with all or most of the Judges of the Benches) do upon Writs of error in Parliament revise, and by the advice of the Judges affirm or reverse the Sentence of the next inferior Courts, where the judgement whither given for the King or for a common person, may be reversed, and as well the King as the common person bound by their reversal and judgement, unless they be relieved by express Act of Parliament. Other way of Declaring Law, in true propriety of speech (that is, to declare the genuine sense and dictate of the Law as it naturally ariseth from the force of laws in being) there is none: for as for declaring Law by Act of Parliament, though that of all other be most authentic, yet it is not authentic for accurate judgement in interpretation supposed to be in the two Houses there, so much as for authority legislative administered by the three Orders of that high Court: for should the three Orders declare Law contrary to what were Law indeed, yet could not their Declaration be erroneous, for that it thenceforth altered the Law and made their dictate Law though it were none before. Such Declaration of Law therefore being never possible to be made but by the full legislative power of all the three Orders, is not so properly a Declaring or interpreting of Law, as rather the making of it, and is therefore to be referred to the point of restraint in making of Law. And this is clear that in such declaring of Law the King's power is so much less restrained than it is by declaring of Law by their inferior Courts as that in this he himself hath ever a personal Vote in the Declaration, but in other he hath none at all. As to the restraint of regal absoluteness in point of making Law. When our wise and pious Christian Princes had once brought the Kingdom to an happy frame of just and regular Government, and sought by all means the establishment of that good condition, which promised both prosperity to their people, and stability to their own Dominion. (Change and Innovation being thenceforth more to be feared than any other thing) They for preservation of what they had done, began to yield the absoluteness of their power, without which they could never have brought the State into any perfect frame, unto some retardation of motion, and regulation of power; and came by degrees not only to use the advice of the Bishops and Barons in making of their laws, but their consents also; and then not only their advice and consents, but the advice and consents of the Commons also; condescending at last that as to the power of making Law, their sceptre should thenceforth be locked up under the cautelous ward of a triple hand; so as no new Act whatsoever should obtain the authority of a positive Law without the agreement of the King, the peers, and the Commons; to the end that no unadvised Law, not well examined and found agreeing with the interests of every of the three formal parts of this Kingdom, might in any part maim or enfeeble the established frame, which yet did not so much coop up or curb the regal power from any due work or office that belongeth to it; as rather close and fence it in, within the bounds of safety and of preservation. Now this restraint being at first collateral and accidental to the sovereign power, did not in the beginning otherwise bind our Princes than by their voluntary and pious submission of their wills, till constant custom becoming a Law made that usage which was at first at their will, become an absolute and inevitable limitation of their power, so as that at this day no positive Law can now be made by the King, without the consent of the peers and of the Commons: and yet for all this necessity now of their concurrence and consent, not any part of the sovereignty (to which the legislative power is inseparably incident) is in any sort transferred, or communicate unto them: but as in our Copy hold Estates, the Copy holder of a mere Tenant at Will, comes by custom to gain a customary inheritance, and so to limit and restrain the will and power of the Lord, as that he cannot make any determination of the Copy-holders estate otherwise than according to the custom of the manor: yet does not he deprive the Lord of his Lordship in the Copy hold, nor participate with him in it, neither yet divest the Fee and franktenement out of the lord, but they still remain in him and are ever parcel of the Lords demean. So in this restraining of the King's legislative power to the concurrence of the peers and Commons: though the custom of the Kingdom hath so fixed and settled the restraint, as that now the King cannot in that point use his sovereign power without the concurrence of the peers and Commons according to the custom of the Kingdom, yet still the sovereignty (and with it the inseparable legislative power) does solely reside in the King. As for the peers and Commons they being merely Instruments of Regulation and qualification of the King's legislative absoluteness, are no sharers with him in the sovereignty, but always remain (as our very legislative Acts of Parliament do always speak them) His majesty's Subjects. And His majesty for all this restraining power of theirs remains (as they themselves in the legislative Acts, and not without an Oath, acknowledge Him their true and only sovereign. Apparently therefore the sovereignty or regal power being thus in matters of private interest restrained to the rule, jurisdiction, and administration of Law, as well by inferior Courts as by the House of Lords; and in the public affair of making Law, restrained to the concurrence of the Peers and Commons, is not so properly said to be restrained, as regulated. For neither is any of the King's just and necessary power to the prejudice of the Crown taken from Him (for the Law in no sort suffers any diminution of the just and due sovereignty) neither is there any partenership of the supremacy thereby thrust upon the King, when the Law, notwithstanding the restraint expressly declares Him The only Supreme governor. Neither yet is any of the irregular and exorbitant absoluteness, which the Law separates from the regality, any way transferred to the Courts or persons that are the instrumentals of the regulation, but the Law separating all irregular licentiousness from the regality, utterly annihilates and makes null all practice and exercise thereof. In sum, all that is effected by this regulation is, the King as He ever was, so still remains, wholly and solely sovereign of the Kingdom only, not of a licentious and illegal, but of a regular and legitimate Dominion. But when the power and authority of Parliament is acknowledged to be the highest, most absolute, and most sovereign power in the Kingdom, and seems repugnant to that which we have alleged, that the sovereignty is wholly and solely in the King; We shall easily reconcile that apparition of contradiction, if we consider that we use the word Parliament to divers senses, and that in two senses wherein we use the word Parliament there is no sovereignty to be ascribed to it. We sometimes use the word Parliament for the House of Lords only. As when upon Writs of error any Judgement in the King's Bench is examined in the House of Lords, and there affirmed or reversed, the Judgement is said to be affirmed or reversed by Parliament. And yet though in that sense, the House of Lords is well enough called The Parliament, yet is it not the high Court of Parliament, which is the supreme Judgement, power, and authority of the kingdom, and that we may easily see in this, that though the Lords have power there to reverse the Judgements of their inferior Courts, yet have they not power to reverse their own Judgements, nor to restore again any Judgement that they have reversed; for they judging ministerially, and not soveraignely, do as well bind their own hands as the hands of their inferiors, whereas the absolute sovereign power doth not so, but may reverse any judgement that they themselves have given, and again restore the judgement that they themselves reversed, for the absolute supreme Court having Juris dandi dictionem, can never be at the last period of her jurisdiction; but looking ever forward to the present occasion, whatsoever passed before, it pro re natâ legislatively judgeth, maketh, and declareth Law. But the House of Lords (though the most superior of all Courts of ministerial jurisdiction) and all other inferior Courts, (they having no other jurisdiction than only juris dati dictionem,) in using their jurisdiction do consummate it, and bring it to a period, beyond which they cannot go. Besides the House of Lords is nor universally to all occasions a judicatory, and therefore not sovereign, but is the distinct Court of the King's Barons of Parliament of particular and ministerial jurisdiction, in which the King (though one of the three Voters in Parliament) yet in those things which come by process of Law to receive determination there only, hath no Vote at all, no more than in all other Courts of ministerial jurisdiction. Sometime we use the word Parliament for the two Houses of Parliament only, and that in regard they are the gross of the body, whereof the Parliament consists, there wanting only the sovereign Head to complete it. But the two Houses alone without the King are so far from being the supreme and high Court of Parliament, as that they are not at all a complete Court, neither can they so unite or conjoin as to be an entire Court of either sovereign or ministerial jurisdiction. But are two distinct Courts (if so be the House of Commons which cannot minister an Oath, nor fine, nor imprison any but their own Members) may be called a Court, then are they Courts, not otherwise cooperating, than by concurrence of Votes in their several Houses, for preparing matters in order to an Act of all the three Orders of the Parliament, which when they have done their Votes, are so far from having any legal authority in the State, as that in Law there is no stile, nor form of their joint Acts, nor doth the Law so much as take notice of them, until they have the royal assent, which if the King refuses, he yet doth no injury to any, for that every of the three Orders that are the formal parts of the high Court of Parliament, (that is, the King, the peers, and Commons) are every of them by Law trusted for their own respective interests to be the only assured conservators of the rights that do belong unto them, and may therefore every one of them freely dissent from the Votes of the other two, nor is their any danger that it should be so, but contrarily the most assured safety that may be, for the consequence of their not agreeing can be no worse, than that their several interests shall still remain in the condition that they were before, until such time as that they shall all three agree upon the state of alteration. Now when the two Houses alone do no way make an entire body, House, or Court, and when their is no known stile, nor form of any Law, or Edict by the Votes of them two only, nor any notice of them taken by the Law, it is apparent there is no sovereignty in their two Votes alone. To argue now as some do, that the King must not deny His Vote, for if by denying it He may frustrate the Votes of the two Houses, by the same reason may He frustrate the Votes of all inferior Courts, and open a way to the most boundless tyranny that ever was, is a most perverse and absurd falsity; there being no affinity nor resemblance of the course of those Courts with that of Parliament. For in inferior Courts the Judges sit and give Judgement for the King, and not for themselves; and the Law there authorises them to give the King's Judgement, and none but them, and therefore the King's Dissent or Countermand cannot frustrate their Judgements. But in Parliament the peers and Commons neither sit nor Vote for the King, but for themselves. And the Law appoints the King himself to give His own Vote there (which if the peers and Commons in His absence could have supplied, the Statute 33. H. 8.21. needed not have provided that His Consent or Vote by His Letters under His Great seal should be as effectual, as if He himself in Person had assented.) Besides the Judgement given by the Judges in inferior Courts, is complete in Law without the assent of the King, and therefore cannot be frustrate by the King's dissent; but the Votes of the two Houses are therefore to be frustrated for want of the King's assent, because without it they are not complete nor perfect. The high Court of Parliament therefore resembling a chair of three feet, the two Houses make but two of the three, which without the third is lame and useless (as to making of Law) but with the third becomes a firm and useful seat, and makes that sacred Tripos from whence the Civil Oracles of our Law are delivered. When therefore we speak of the sovereign power and authority of the Parliament, that never is to be understood of the power of the two Houses only, nor any such sovereign power to be ascribed unto them▪ Now in the last place, we use the word Parliament for the three Orders of Parliament agreeing in their Votes; then, and then only use we the word Parliament properly, and in that sense only is the Parliament the supreme Court, the highest judicatory, and most sovereign power, and authority in the Kingdom. But we must ever understand, that it is not the most sovereign Court, for any sovereignty placed in the two Houses, and from them transferred or communicated to His majesty, by their joining or consenting with him; but it is therefore the most sovereign Court, because every complete and perfect Act of it is the Act of the personal will, and power of the sovereign himself, Standing in His highest Estate royal, Crompt. ●ur. 10. b. The speech of H. 8. in Parl. by information of the Judges. and (through the concurrence of those that are the instrumentals of His restraint) more freely and absolutely working there, than in any other time and place he can do. For as a man that yieldeth himself to be bound by keepers, hath the use of his strength taken from him, but none of the natural strength itself, much less any of it transferred to them that bound him, but whensoever they lose his bonds, he again works and acts by virtue of his own natural strength, and not by any received from them: So the natural right and interest of the sovereignty being solely in the King, and the peers and Commons being only interessed in the Office of restraining, for the regular working of true legitimate sovereignty, in whatsoever the peers and Commons by consenting remit the restraint, the King in that willeth and worketh absolutely by the power of his own inherent sovereignty. And whatsoever Act of the Court so passeth the hands of all the three Orders, does in truth virtually proceed from the King, as from the true and proper efficient thereof: which does not obscurely nor rarely appear in our Acts of Parliament, Stat. West. 1, 3. E. 1.1.3. E. 1.3. & 6▪ & 42. Stat. of Merch. 13. E. 1. Westm. 3.18. E. 1.1. Stat. of waste 20. E. 1. of appeal, 28. E. 1.1. E. 2.1. and all the Titles of the Acts of our Parliament. but plainly and frequently throughout the whole body of our ancient laws, The King Willeth, the King Commandeth, the King Ordaineth, Provideth, Establisheth, Granteth, &c. And yet though properly they be the Acts of the King in Parliament; yet are they also truly the Acts of the whole high Court of Parliament, because that every of the three Estates contribute their power according to the diversity of their office and interest, the two Houses by remitting through the consenting the restraint, and the King by using his then unrestrained power. We are also to consider, that though this high Court of the three Orders be the supreme judicatory of the kingdom, yet it hath not that superiority of judgement ascribed to it, for any sovereign faculty it hath in discerning the true dictate and result of Law, no more than of any other particular Science (as of divinity, Vnicuique in suà arte credendum, 11. H 7.9.34. H. 6 14 philosophy, physic, mathematics, &c.) for the judgement of Sciences belongeth to the professors thereof, and the judgement of Law as well as of other Sciences. But the high Court of Parliament is the supreme judge, for the great trust the Law reposeth in the concurrence of all the three Orders, (who have means to have the best information of Law that the whole profession doth afford, and are supposed to use it) and likewise for the great power they have to bind all other judgement, and to make their sentence Law, though (as we have said) it were not Law before. But we are further to observe that in the point of making of Law, the Law restraining thus the sovereign power to the consent of the peers and Commons, the more that by this regulation it purged it from destructive exorbitances, the more tender it grew of the just and legitimate rights thereof remaining, and therefore considering the person of the sovereign to be single, and his power counterpoised by the opposed wisdom of the two numerous Bodies of the two Houses, it allowed unto the King power to swear unto himself a body of council of State (which our laws sometime call His Grand council) and to swear unto him also counsellors at Law, 25. E. 3.4.37. E. 3.18 42. E 3.3.17. R. 2. Vide the Oath of the Justices, an. 18 E. 3. Ye shall swear &c. that lawfully ye shall counsel the King in his business, and ye shall not counsel nor assent to any thing which may turn him in damage, &c. and ye shall do and procure the profit of the King, and of his Crown, with all things, where ye may reasonably do the same, and if ye be found in default, &c. ye shall be at the Kings will, of body, goods, and lands, thereof to do as shall please him. So help, &c. Vide the Statute de Big●m. even the Judges themselves, and others learned in the Law, faithfully to advise him in his Government, that he may neither do nor receive wrong, especially not in Parliament, where the wrong may be perpetual. And if upon a general pretence of evil counsel, without any instance in what, his majesty be deprived of the use and assistance of and assistance of any of his sworn counsel (especially in Parliament time, when the sovereignty may be so easily overmatched) it will make such a breach of the privilege of the first of the three Orders in Parliament, as will destroy the true frame of Parliaments, diminish the power of the Crown, and bring the settled estate of the kingdom into the calamitous innovation of an unsettled and ever changing form of Government, and so into all manner of misery and confusion. The sovereignty in the King alone, is so clearly acknowledged by our Law, as that (Unless we would reject the judgement and recognition of all our Parliament, and especially of all our most sincere and unquestioned Parliaments all the time of Queen Elizabeth, and ever since, all which do not only affirm but swear it) it would be idle to go about to make praise of it. But when the incredible perverseness of some, and in particular of him that writes, The treachery and disloyalty of Papists, &c. does not only affirm the contrary, but would pretend to prove it. It cannot be a digression in a word or two to give some answer to his reasonings. I shall pass over Minshaw's dictionary, Speed, Stowe, vowel, Fox, and others, whose authority he is not ashamed to cite for determining matter in Law, and which (if indeed it were a question) were of the greatest consequence that ever was stirred in Law. And because he so much insists upon Bracton, I shall briefly examine Bracton, and the authors integrity in citing him and others. And first, that all men may know how little authority in Law Bracton either now hath, or anciently hath had. Our yeare-bookes tell us that in the 35. H. 6. It was declared by the whole Court, that Bracton was never held an author in our Law, 35. H. 6. Fitz▪ A●r. tit. guard. 72. pag. 3: Braect. li. 1: c 16. par● 3 fol. 34. and then it is not material what is the opinion of one that is of no authority. But if he were; yet those words in Bracton so much insisted on, Rex habet superiorem Deum, Legem, item Curiam suam▪ &c. are not indeed Bracton's assertion. For Bracton speaking of the King's Deeds and Charters, and affirming (which we would be loath should be Law at this day) that Neither the justices nor private men may dispute the King's Deed, but that if there be doubt of his Deed, or Charter, the resolution must come from the Kings own interpretation and will, &c. Then goes he on thus; But some may say (saith he) that the King may do justice, and well: and if so, he may by the same reason do ill, and so put a necessity upon him, that he mend the injury, lest both King and justices fall into the judgement of the living God for the injury. The King hath a superior, to wit, God: also the Law, by which he is made King: also His Court, to wit, the Earls and Barons, &c. Now whosoever considers the place, it is all a reasoning which Bracton supposes some other to make, and no affirmation of his own, and that is also plain by his words in another place, where speaking of the King, Bract. li. 1. c▪ 8 p. 5. If justice (saith he) be demanded of him, seeing no Writ lies against him, one must petition, that he would correct and amend what he had done. Which if he do not, it is sufficient for his punishment, that he must expect God to be the Avenger of it. Not a word of the Courts avenging or rectifying of the injury, or of their enforcing the King to do it himself. Again, speaking of Earls, though with little judgement he would seem to derive their Office from the etymology of the Latin name Comes (which was but a late borrowed translation brought in use by the conqueror) and would so make them a kind of Companions with the King; yet does he not make them Companions thrust upon the King by Law, but the Kings (saith he) do associate such to themselves for advice and government. Every one truly is under him, and he under none but God, and he hath no Peer in his Kingdom, for than he should lose the Command, when as one Peer hath no command over another, much less hath any one command over his superior, for so he should be inferior to his own Subjects: and the King ought not to be under man, but under God, and the Law: now these words of Bracton tell us that the other are neither his assertion nor approbation. And whereas by those words of Bracton, that The King ought to be under the Law, he would infer a direct sovereignty over the King, he very much corrupts the meaning of Bracton, for it is one thing to be subject to Law, and to the administration of Law, and another thing to be a subject to those that have the administration of Law as to his sovereigns. Our Saviour Christ was subject to the Law, and to the administration of the Law in the hands of them that were the Ministers of it: yet was not Christ the Subject of those Ministers, nor they his sovereigns, but contrary he theirs, he being Borne King of the Jews. And Bracton's reason that the King must be under the Law is, because he is Christ's Vicar on earth. And Christ himself was under the Law; so as plainly Bracton means not the King, otherwise under the Law, then as our Saviour Christ was, who did subject himself to the just execution of the positive laws of the Kingdom, of which he himself was the Head and Fountain, not that he should be subject to the administration of any arbitrary Law, residing in the people, who should in the last resort be sovereigns over their own King: for that was not suitable to one that should be Vicar of Christ, but to a Vicar of the people. Neither is the King more subject to any judgement that can be given in Parliament, than He is to judgements given in inferior Courts, to which if you will say the Parliament is superior to those Courts, and the superiority that is but subordinately in them is soveraignely in the Parliament; truly the superiority (if it may so be called) that is subordinately in the inferior Courts, is but more superiourly in the House of Lords than them, but it is not soveraignely neither in the Lord's House, nor any other part of Parliament, till we come to the judgement of all the three Estates, (where the Kings will is the efficient formal of the Law) and there you may see that the Vicar of Christ the King, like Christ His Lord, whom He representeth; in being subject to the Law, of which He is sovereign, becomes at last subject to none but himself: for that high Court of Parliament speaketh not without Him. But ere we give over his citation of Bracton, we must not forget his unfaithful application of it. For as for those words, The King hath a superior (that is to say) God, also the Law, also His Court, to wit, the Earls and Barons. He would not only have them Bracton's words, and have them understood to carry sovereignty over the King, but would have that sovereignty placed in the two Houses, when as Bracton expressly expounds that the Court which he means is the Earls and Barons, that is to say, the House of Lords only, and not the Commons too; plainly showing that he means no other superiority than such as is incident to the regular course of Justice in the way of legal suit and process, which in that course never goes further than the House of Lords: there is no form of prosecution in that kind in the two Houses, and therefore neither sovereignty nor superiority in that kind can be ascribed to them. Pag. 38. Neither may we pass over his falsehood and shuffling to extenuate the Oath of supremacy, that security may make men swallow their perjury and never know it: for though it be true, that the Oath was pricipally intended against papacy, (because the papacy was the first that ever pretended sovereignty over Kings) and the clause of renouncing runs against foreign powers only, as those that then were only feared to be pretenders under the papacy; yet the recognition itself, that The King is the only Supreme governor. And the Oath itself, to bear faith and true allegiance to the King, His heirs, and successors, and to assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences, and authority belonging to them, &c. are clearly general, absolute, and unrestrained to any particularity of papacy, foreigners, or any thing else whatsoever. But to come to that that is the main authority, scope, and drift of his book, and which he would by all means inculcate though but under the show of telling what popish Parliaments have done, lest otherwise his horrible intention might appear, he brings us precedents that the two Houses of Parliament have upon all occasion soveraignely disposed of the Crown, and of all the rights that do belong unto it, and that even our Kings themselves have submitted their sovereign rights to the determination of the two Houses. 2 Tim. 3.13. Good God How evil men and Seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. He that writ the Observations upon His majesty's Answers and Expresses had so much ingenuity left him as to acknowledge, that There was never King deposed by any Parliament lawfully assembled; and that the Acts of the Parliament, R. 2. were not so properly the Acts of the two Houses as of H. 4. and His victorious army. But this man being not ashamed to lick up what his fellow vomited out, presents the world with a cull of all the irregular times of our unfortunate Princes, in which (by the consent of all men) the Acts of neither side are to be drawn into example, and bring us for judicial Authorities, Ed. 2. Pag. 8. to pag. 15. the horrid facts of irregular power, in the Times of King John, R. 2. H. 4. H 6. &c. And is so supine in his purpose, that with the factious Parliaments in the Times of H. 3. E 2. and R. 2. (which he citys to have exercised authority over Kings) he sticks not to couple the Rebellions in the North, against H. 4. and the rebellious Insurrections of jack Cade, jack Straw, Wat Tyler, doctor mackerel, Ket, and others, Pag. 15. as Acts that made equal proof of the sovereign power of the peers and Commons: indeed in both there were much what the same pretences, and both had much what the same warrant. But all those Parliaments as they were called in the troublesome Times of Faction, and civil War, so were they ever swayed by those that were the Heads of the most potent Faction, and while they always acted in favour of them and their design, they are so far from being instances of the power, and authority of the two Houses, as that clean contrary, they are plain instances of the weakness and unsteadiness of them; when forsaking the moderation and guidance of their natural Head, they suffered themselves to be led by the private conduct of every popular pretender; Pag. 33, 34, 35, 35▪ and so even among the precedents which he citeth, we see that when Canutus prevailed by his arms, he could have a Parliament resolve that his Title was the best. When Hen. 4. had an army of 60000 he could have a Parliament depose R. 2. and confer the Crown upon himself. When Edw. Duke of York grew potent, he could have a Parliament be the instrument of determining the reign of H. 6. and leave him only the name of King for his life, but give the Duke the very Kingdom, under the names of protector and Regent, Edw. 4. could by Parliament procure H 4. H. 5. & H. 6. to be declared Kings in fact, but not in right: R. 3. though an Usurper, could procure a Parliament to declare him a lawful King. Henry 7. could procure the forementioned Acts in favour of Edw. 4. &. R. 3. to be adnulled. Hen. 8. could have a Parliament authorise his Divorces. And Queen Elizab. could by Parliament make it High Treason to say, that the Queen could not by Act of Parliament bind and dispose the rights and Titles which any person whatsoever might have to the Crown; when yet we know that no Act of Parliament, no not an Attainder by Parliament, Adjudged H. 7. can disable the right heir to the Crown, because the descent of the Crown upon Him purges all disabilities whatsoever, and makes Him capable of it. This is the sum and true estimate of all the Authorities which he citys, in which if the Acts could be granted to be the mere Acts of the two Houses; yet did they no more prove the sovereign power to be in the two Houses, than the Popes deposing of Kings proves the right of deposing them to be in him, that the things were done, is no proof that they were lawfully done: and yet as idle and vile a collection of examples (not to be imitated) as he hath made, Pag. 4. he is fain to belie them to makem seem to serve his turn; for truly though he affirms that the popish Parliaments, etc challenged, or claimed, greater jurisdiction over Kings, than any ever since, yet his instances prove no more claim of sovereignty than a robber claims when he exercises an arbitrary power over a man's person and fortunes: what they did they did de facto, upon some inferior reasons, not upon claim of the sovereignty; they neither taught, nor ever learned that Jesuitique depth of Satan, that the sovereignty over the sovereign is placed in the body Representative of the Subject. All claim therefore of either the sovereignty itself, or of the rights thereof by any Representative of the Subject, is a transcendent impiety beyond the parallel of all his unimitable examples, in which I cannot but the more wonder that he should ascribe the Acts unto the two Houses, when by making the Acts theirs, he makes all the long misery and bloodshed that ensued upon those Acts to have been brought upon the Land by the mere Act of the two Houses. Considering therefore the every way faulty Argument of that Book, both in citing and applying, I am forced to conclude with the same words that in the frontispiece of his Book he begins with The treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt exceeding treacherously. As for the second part of the same Author that came since forth under a title that pretends to show the lawfulness of a defensive war; that answers itself, that it comes nothing to the case in question, where the War is acknowledged to be an Invasive War to take from His majesty certain counsellors, pretended to be evil counsellors. If possibly therefore he should prove what he undertakes to maintain that Subjects may make a Defensive War against their sovereign, yet being nothing to our case deserves at all no answer here, I therefore return again unto my purpose. That the sovereignty (with all the rights claimed by His majesty) is in the King inseparably inherent in the person of His majesty; Co. 5. de jure & Ecc. fol. 9 b. we have not only the forementioned testimonies and reasons, but we have the witness of the two Houses themselves, for whom our deceiving Pamphlets do now make all the new arguments of pretence. For first, we have (as I have said) the whole current and body of our very Acts of Parliament acknowledging it in these very terms, Our sovereign Lord the King. 25 H. 8.21▪ We have the Parliament 25. H. 8 declaring thus, This Your grace's realm recognising no superior under God but Your Grace. 16. R 2, 5. The Parliament 16. R. 2.5. affirming The Crown of England hath been so free at all times▪ that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediately to God, in all things touching the regality of the said Crown, and to none other. 25. H, 5. In the 25. H. 5. both Houses declare That it belongeth to the King's regality to grant or deny what petitions in Parliament he pleaseth. 15. E. 3. In the 15. E. 3. The King being unwillingly drawn to consent to certain Articles prejudicial to the Crown, and to promise to seal the Statute thereupon made, lest otherwise his affairs in hand might have been ruinated. Another Statute the same year reciting the matter enacted in these words, 5. E. 3. It seemed to the said Earls, Barons, and otherwise men, that since the Statute did not of Our free will proceed, the same be void, and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Statute, and therefore by their counsel and assent We have decreed the said Statute to be void, &c. In the Statute of Banishment of H. Spencer, the first Article against him, is for making a Bill, wherein he affirmed Homage and allegiance to the King is more by reason of their own, Vide Ola Mag. Cha. D●ar. H. 4. than of the person of the King. The word hath a note of a Parliament roll diary of H. 4. The Commons in Parliament pray the King that They may not be made parties to any judgement in Parliament, but where in rei veritate they are parties, for that the judgement belongs only to the King, except where it is given by Statute. As for the Militia, the ships and Forts of the Kingdom. The King and His predecessors have not only been ever in possession of them, commanded and disposed of them even during the sitting of Parliaments, but have enjoyed that possession without any claim of right made by the two Houses, and our Law hath not a surer badge of right than continual and unquestioned possession. Besides, the Parliament itself, 7. E. 1. declares unto the King, that To him of right belongs straightly to defend (that is, 7. E. 1. to forbid) all force of arms, and thereunto they are bound to assist him as their sovereign Lord. The Statute 11. H. 7 18. reciteth, 3. E. 3. De queux ils nont pas cognizance 25. E. 3.2. Where every Subject by the duty of his allegiance is bound to serve assist his Prince and sovereign Lord at all seasons when need shall require, &c. In the 3. of Edw. 3. The House of Commons disclaim the having cognizance of such matters, as the guarding of the Seas and Marches of the Kingdom. And by the Statute 25. E. 3.2. It is made High Treason for any to meddle with the Militia, so far as To levy war against the King, or to aid them that do it. And we all know that to levy war without Commission from the King, or to give aid unto it, is by our Law to levy War, and give aid against our sovereign Lord the King, His Crown and dignity. And we never knew of any exception out of that Law in case the war were levied by authority of the two Houses? And when we have not in our power to search the Parliament rolls for clearing these things. If (besides our published Statutes) our law-books have any authority, 3. E. 3. Fitz, tit. Cor. sta 〈…〉. pl▪ Cor. 153. Bract. ti. 2. cap. 22. fol. 52. a. Rex parem non habet, nec vicinum nec superiorem. we have not only Bracton (whom they insist upon) but other authentic law-books concurring with him who all speaking of the King and the Houses do expressly say, that seeing The King hath no peer, The King cannot be judged by them. So that whatsoever authority is in the constant practice of the Kingdom, and whatsoever authority in the known and published laws and Statutes, all do conclude the sovereignty in the person of the King, and the allegiance, faith, obedience of the Subject even of the Subject virtually united in the body Representative, to be inevitably devinct and obliged to the person of the King. The sovereignty both of the frame of the State and positive laws of the kingdom being fixed in the person of the King, and the allegiance of the Subject by Law inevitably thither assigned, than comes in Religion, and fortifies, and enforces all those bonds of duty and obedience, and that under the severe menace of damnation, which when it is in divers precepts and examples (well known unto us) abundantly set forth in the Scriptures. It will not be safe for us to let slip the consideration of two examples especially. The Children of Israel being redeemed out of Egypt, baptised in the Red Sea, and brought for trial into the wilderness as they were the type of the Church of God in all kingdoms whatsoever in this world: so Moses their governor was the type of that regal power under which the Church of God in this world was generally to be governed: so as though he were not a King in point of interest, (for the people were not yet in the country that was to be the Kingdom, neither was Moses of the Tribe to whom the Kingdom was promised) yet (saith the Text) He was King when the heads of the people were assembled. Deut. 33.5. Moses so personating the kingly Office, when as yet there was no express command concerning obedience and subjection, more than Honour thy father and thy mother, and he that curseth father or mother let him die the death. It happened that Corah, Dathan, and Abiram rebelled against him, and their rebellion was but this: they in the behalf of the Congregation of the Lord, because that it was holy every one of them, Numb. 16.3. and the Lord among them, question Moses his sovereignty, charge him and Aaron that they exalted themselves above the Congregation of the Lord, and that Moses had not kept touch with them to bring them to a Land that flowed with milk and honey, but sought to starve them in the wilderness, while blinding the eyes of the people he might in the mean time make himself a Prince over them, and out of jealousy of this they refused obedience to Moses, ib. v. 13. and would not come at him when he sent to call them, and so much was their cause believed to be just and right: as that they were seconded with two hundred and fifty Princes of the assembly famous in the Congregation: ib. v. 2. all of them so confident, that they durst join issue with Moses, and put themselves upon trial by God's immediate judgement in the case, and they were also backed with many thousands of the people. This was the Rebellion: the Judgement we all know to be most exemplar Judgement that ever was given in any case. The Heads of the Rebellion Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, with their wives, their children, and all their substance, were swallowed up of the earth, they went down quick into Hell (saith the Psalmist. Psal▪ 106.17. ) The two hundred and fifty that invaded the holy Office were slain with fire from Heaven, and fourteen thousand and seven hundred of the people (that favoured their attempts and murmured at the Judgement) were in an instant (in less than Aaron could get his Censer with fire from the Altar and run among them) consumed in a speedy plague. It will be objected that Moses was a man of extraordinary calling, and that Rebellion against an ordinary governor (though a sovereign King) is not like Rebellion against a governor of so extraordinary calling and privilege; all that granted, yet this exemplar Judgement comes home to manifest the heinous sin of rebelling against Kings at this day. Moses had an extraordinary calling, he could not else have been a type of regal authority, Deut. 33.5. but in type He was King when the heads of the people were assembled. He had the Priest made subordinate to him, He shall be unto thee instead of a mouth, Exo. 4.16. and thou shalt be unto him instead of God. And had the magistracy, derived from his authority, to bear the burden with him, Numb. 11.15. God took off the spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy two Elders. So Moses was clearly endued with regal power; and for trangression against that very authority of his was the Judgement made so exemplar. It could not be exemplar in regard of any other authority which he had then, and no other since either had or could have: but that we may know the Judgement was exemplar against Rebellion, against regal Dominion, which would often be committed in the later days, the holy Ghost speaking against the seducers & deceivers which in the later days should make perilous times, describes them not only by being Cursed speakers, disobedient to parents; (that is, 2 Tim. 3▪ 2. & 4. 2 Pet. 2.10 Jude 8.10. & 11. as well to Civil parents as Natural) traitorous, heady, high-minded, resisting the truth: like them that resisted Moses; Despising Dominion, despising Government, speaking evil of Dignities, of those that are in authority, of those things which they know not, &c. but by this likewise that They perish in the gainsaying of Corah. The other example is that of David. Saul was a wicked apostate King, 1 Sam. 16.14. verse 1. from whom The Spirit of God (the inward anointing) was departed. Saul rejected from reigning over Israel. So by God himself declared. David in his stead by God provided to be King: and to that end by God's command anointed; by all which David's privilege than was more above the privilege of all Subjects now, than Saul's privilege of that time was above the privilege of Kings at this day; and yet David for all those circumstances so much authorising him, and disauthorizing Saul, did not know Who could lay his hands upon the Lord's Anointed and be guiltless. Nay, 1 Sam. 26.9. he did but lay his hand upon Saul's garment to cut off the lap for a testimony of his loyalty, Afterward David was touched in heart because he had cut off the lap of Saul's garment. 1 Sam. 24.6. and innocent intention toward Saul, and yet even for that (saith the Text) his heart smote him; that he cried out, The Lord forbid I should do that thing to my Master, to lay mine hand upon the Lord's Anointed: his reason we may know in the other words of his, The Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battle, and perish: the Lord keep me from laying mine hand upon him: plainly inferring, that to call Princes to account belongs only to God: that God hath time and ways of his own to do it in, and will do it: and that therefore man must not meddle with the doing of it: for if anointed David might not intermeddle with rejected Saul, much less may common Subjects meddle with their unrejected sovereigns. Sufficiently therefore do these examples show the heinousness of subjects lifting up themselves, and resisting the person of their sovereign, upon what pretence soever. Now while the severity of these examples, and other passages of Scripture, justly striking terror into every soul, does make us wonder what great straight of human affairs could be so violent an impulsive with us, as to make Christian subjects contrary to sworn Faith, to Law, and to Religion, not only disobey their sovereign, but resist, invade the sovereign rights, and employ their sovereign's Militia, ships, Forts, arms, Treasure, yea and his own sworn subjects too against Him; truly all that the most searching thought can find to secure his conscience with, against the horror of so foul a guilt, is, that otherwise we fear (or pretend to fear) that His majesty, seduced by evil counsellors, by popishly affected Prelates, Courtiers, and Cavaliers, should destroy our Law, our Parliaments, our established form of Government, and change them into tryanny, and the true Protestant Religion into popery. This, this fear or pretence of Fear alone is all the warrant we can find for our unparalleled proceedings against our sovereign. And if this before the tribunal of God, and of our own laws be not sufficient for our excuse, then have we nothing to discharge us of the guilt of public violence, robbery, murder, perjury, treason, resistance of the Ordinance of God, and of forcing others against their consciences by act or aid to resist with us. Now all these evils are universally committed all over the kingdom, and all these evils upon no other warrant done, than that the good of Reformation (as is pretended) may come thereon. So make we the Word of God of none effect, while we entertain and prefer the Jesuitique tradition before it, and maintain that what is for the good of the Church must be done, notwithstanding any bonds of duty, of Faith, or Oath whatsoever to the contrary. And if we examine the grounds of this fear, and what just suspicion and probability of such an innovation, as is pretended to be feared, is given. We see for our assurance to the contrary, that His majesty (after once He was truly informed of our grievances) condescended not only to give us ease of them, but to make His Acts of Grace in them at once exceed the Acts of all His predecessors since the granting of our Magna Charta; and did not only in present relieve our sufferings, but (often invoking the Sacred majesty of God, as a severe witness of His purpose for the time to come) tie himself for ever to settle matters of Religion according to the purest times of the Protestant Church of England (with such ease for tender Consciences, as by a lawful judgement of the clergy should be judged fit) and to govern according to the known laws of the Land. Here is little sign of one led by evil counsel, or of a mind that would subdue Law & Religion to the satisfaction of His private will. This shows our Fear to be both groundless and wicked; and indeed, after this if jealousy itself could yet make scruple of any thing, how easy were it for the wisdom of the body Representative, by preparing a Law of severity against the instruments of innovation, exposing their persons and fortunes to certain ruin, nullifying the innovations themselves, and discharging the subject from all obedience and conformity unto them, to have secured the Kingdom against all manner of fear in that kind, when as His majesty freely offers His Gracious assent to any Act that should in that behalf be necessary. But (if what cause, what ground, what reason of duty soever we find, though constantly and universally received for true, both by the judgement of our Law, and by the authority of our Religion, we must notwithstanding reject all to believe the all concluding judgement of the body Representative, whom we never knew to have such supremacy of judgement, till itself bearing witness of itself did tell us so) it cannot yet but make much to the satisfaction of the conscience, to examine how well the two Houses, now sitting, do attain the condition of a full and free assembly of the two Houses of Parliament, that pretend to have such judgement. And first it is known that the House of Commons now sitting, however elected, was never yet perfected by a right determination of Elections, but that some set as Members there that ought not to have been returned, and some are not received that yet were rightly chosen, some are excluded for having hands in Monopolies, and projects; and others (as much interessed in them) for their assured affection retained: the greatest part of both Houses, by means of popular menacings, tumults, posting up of names, branding men with the name of Malignants, (things never known before in Parliaments) and again undeserved expellings from the House, or imprisonings, have been so overawed, that they have been forced to suppress their Votes, to give them contrary to their judgements, to hide themselves, or to fly from the Houses; the residue of both Houses, (and among them the Knights and Burgesses which the Countries sent to reside in Parliament, that there the whole Representative advising together, might with the more safety Vote and consent for us) they make over their Countries trust to a few Committees of their own, and wholly betake themselves to martial Offices and employments, exercising in them a new found arbitrary power over those that sent them. And then the remainder of the peers and Commons (which are scarce a fourth part of them) call themselves the Parliament, and all the known rights of sovereignty does this Epitome of Parliament assume unto themselves and exercise; yea, the House of Commons alone (notwithstanding their Protestation to God for the Defence of the laws and liberty of the Subject) by warrant under their Speakers hand, beyond all Law and example, imprison Subjects, that were never Members of their House, and deny them their Habeas Corpus. And not only invade the liberty of the Commons, but press upon the House of Lords, the voting of things which in a full House they had before, upon mature advice, orderly rejected. They seconded a tumultuous Petition that demanded the names of the Lords that had dissented from the Commons House, though the dissenters were the major part of the House of Lords. This Epitome of Parliament hath taught that which never Parliament knew before, That their Members may not without the Order of their House be restrained, no not for Treason. And, professing tender care of the King's Honour and safety, hath authorised books, The Book of Observations, treachery and disloyalty of Papists, &c. wherein His sovereignty is made subject to the Representative of His subjects, and wherein the deposing of our English Kings by their subjects is declared warrantable; and upon the authority and warrant of this Parliament must the poor Christian subject that is under their power (against his Conscience) act and give aid to the army, which against the King's express Command and Proclamations they have levied; when though conscious horror and shame will not suffer it to be acknowledged to be raised against the King; yet are their soldiers sure they shall meet with no other opposite than with their rightful sovereign, and His Followers arming for the safety of His Person, for defence of the just rights of the Crown, for the due privileges of the first of the three Orders of Parliament, and for the necessary power wherewith He is to protect Religion, laws, and subjects of His Kingdom. Who that makes conscience of what he does, as one that must make account for it before the great Tribunal (where a little integrity (though now despised) and a little innocence of cause shall bring one more support than either King on the one side, or Parliament on the other, or army on either side) who (I say) thereof mindful, can against the thousand witnesses of his conscience, recede from the duty which all his life, till now, hath both by Law and Christian Religion been inculcate to him, and rejecting all, cast himself soul, body, and fortunes, wholly upon the new-found warrant of strangely conditioned apparition of Parliament. These, and other particulars that may be instanced in, take off the confidence and repose that one would otherwise have in the two Houses, especially when they (setting on foot claims and pretences, not agreeing with the duty that men from their youth have found their consciences ever bound unto) go not the fair and open way of satisfaction, to have in so high concernments the Parliament Rolls as freely and fully searched on the King's behalf, as on the Parliaments, and to have their new and strange learning, as freely argued by the King's council, and by the Judges, as by the instruments of the Parliament: but as the papacy, in invading the sovereignty of the Church, Voted herself into the supremacy, and then suppressed all examination of the Truth by damning all Writings to the contrary, and branding the authors and users of them with the name of heretics: So we invading the sovereignty of our own State, Vote ourselves into it, brand with the name of Malignants, all that concur not with us in it, interdict them the freedom of search and discovery of the Truth, and damn their Writings as scandalous and seditious Pamphlets; and so making them Vote-convicted State heretics, We thenceforth hold no Faith nor Truth to be kept toward them, but prosecute them as Enemies to the State, for no other offence but because we have made them Malignants, popishly affected, dissolute, desperate, bloodsucking Cavaliers and plunderers. Yet truly, if we consider the quality of them that adhere unto His majesty and to His Cause do now lie under that censure, we shall find them the flower and greater part of our nobility and gentry of the kingdom, the greater part of His majesty's Honourable privy counsel, yea and of His Great council too, even of the peers and Commons, the chief of the Judges, and with them the opinion of the residue even of that whole Profession, the spirits and prayers of the far greatest part of the clergy, and the hearts of the greater part of the most substantial men of the commonalty, whose soul and conscience, presented with the consideration of these things, would not shrink with inward horror to think he should either attempt or give aid to the cutting off (not like David, of a lap of his sovereign's ordinary garment) but of this lively apparrel-politic of his sovereign, wherewith for safety, as well as ornament, His majesty is now begirt; nay, to cut off the very limbs of his civil body, and not without eminent danger to His Sacred Person, how loud and frightful would the spirit of David cry in the ears of his guilty conscience, The Lord forbid I should do this thing to lift up my hand against the Lord's Anointed. O, but Religion is now at stake, and it is not to be believed that popishly affected counsellors and Commanders with the help of a popish army should so much forsake their own ends as to fight for Establishment of the true Protestant Religion: truly it is sincerely confessed, it is not likely, and therefore I shall never believe that the design of Reforming our Religion by the hands of Brownists, Anabaptists, and Sectaries, (which by a constant and credible report, is believed to have been so much fostered and advanced by the Cardinal Richelieu and the late French ambassador, as that Chambers the Cardinal's secretary was on purpose sent into the Scotish army here in England) was ever with intent of Establishing the true Protestant Religion, or that for the Protestant religion's sake, the death of the Cardinal was by some of our active Parliament men (in our hearing) lamented as of a great friend of the Parliament, or that the great correspondence and intercourse observed to be between the late French ambassador and Master Pym, was for the advancement of the Protestant Religion. But where is any popish army, under the conduct of popish Commanders, that, according to the design of popish counsellors, is likely to oppress the Protestants, and advance popery? Certainly, both his majesty, and his Protestant Followers are well assured, that not any part of the war is managed by the design of persons that are so affected; but who knows not the ground of calumny? The King must either deny his subjects that are Papists the protection of his army, and refuse their aid and service, or else their aid and service must make his army a popish army: surely, not to admit them into his army, when they cannot otherwise be safe, were unjustly to deny them the protection of subjects, and to spare them (either in their personal or pecuniary assistance) were with inequality toward his Protestant subjects, and with danger to their Cause, to refuse his needful duties from the Papists: though therefore Protestants should never lay down their jealousy of the growth of popery, yet should they not let it so abuse them, as to make them believe they have no danger to fear but only popery; especially now when schism and sectarism do with such authority invade us, and when nothing can more advance the bringing in of popery, if it be possible, than the confusion in Church and State that does inevitably follow them (the expectance whereof was the cause that made the Cardinal and the popish party from beyond sea so effectually labour the promoting of them.) Undoubtedly, if popery be at this time to be feared, it is to be feared from the prevailing of Schismatickes by the design and manage of so potent and active foreign Instruments of popery; and it would return with comfortable satisfaction to our consciences, that having for a feigned fear of popery engaged ourselves in real Rebellion, we should find our pains rewarded with the felicity of becoming instruments of the evil that at so dear a rate we did unnecessarily resist. When in every thing considerable to resolution, the conscience is on every hand so strongly beset with reasons, all concluding for obedience to our sovereign, and for our utmost assistance to His Cause. How weak is the sole authority of an imperfect representative of peers and Commons, so to possess the conscience with persuasion to the contrary, as upon it to venture the present and eternal safety of one's self, and of so many thousands in our Israel. But say that this world were only to be considered in the business, let us yet but see what must needs be the event, in case the Parliament Forces (which God forbid) should prevail; either they must leave the sovereignty in the King as it was before, and content themselves with strict laws against all grievances that may be feared in Religion or in Government: (and then they bring no more to pass than what His majesty, before their war, did of himself, and does yet graciously offer) or else they must take the sovereign power from the King into their own hands, and leave him no more (at most) than the contemptible name of King, then shall we lose our old legal Government, and be governed by the absolute arbitrary and tyrannical way of their Votes, and they, to secure themselves in that new and uncouth way of Government that they must institute, must (to the overthrow of Trade, and intolerable burden of the Subject) keep the kingdom under perpetual Garrisons; and than what with the Faction and discord of our ambitious New-States, what with the unruliness of the commanding soldier, and what with the attempts of those whose fidelity will ever excite their utmost endeavour for their sovereign's never dying right, we shall fall into an incessant civil war, (Until the kingdom being ruined) the sovereignty return into the hand to which it rightfully belongeth. Unless therefore it please God, that our great Metropolis of London (partaking rather of the wise spirit of the men of Abel, 2 Sam. 20.16. than of the obstinacy of Gibeah the Benjamite) shall either deal so effectually with those that there reside in show of Parliament, as that they bring them to yield to the equality of a free and legal Parliament, and so provide against future grievances, without any violation of the Rights of the Crown: or else, (in case they refuse) shall like the Abelites, deliver unto the King the Heads of those Opposites that rise up against Him. Judges 20 We may assure ourselves that that city like those of Gibeah and Benjamin, are hardened to all our Israel's punishment, and to their own destruction, and may (as they did) prevail once, and again, against the residue of the kingdom, until they have fulfilled Gods determined Visitation upon the Land, and then consummate all with their deplorable destruction. FINIS. A discovery OF London's obstinacy, AND misery. THere hath been many Admonitions sent from His majesty, advising that city of their own preservation, yet they have continued stubborn, though they cannot but see the hand of the Lord to assist all the King's majesty's proceedings, whereas their actions are so far from prosperity that they wind themselves wilfully, and force others ignorantly, into miserable adversity. Furthermore, though God hath manifestly fought against the rebels for the King, giving Him victory in many battles, when all human helps and advantages were on the rebel's side, though God hath miraculously, and beyond the hope of man restored unto Him the hearts of the people, (which the Heads of this Rebellion by slander had stolen from Him:) though from small and contemptible beginnings in the eyes of His Enemies (few or none standing for Him, but God and the justice of His Cause) God hath prospered him into many mighty Armies, which render Him formidable to the proudest, and stoutest of the Rebels; though every victory hath been seconded by a tender of Peace, and with an overture of Pacification, so that as himself speaks in that Declaration published July 30 1643. He could not probably fall under the scandalous imputation which hath usually attended His Messages of Peace, that they proceed from the weakness of His Power, not love of His People. Lastly, though like an indulgent Father of rebellious Children, He hath courted this city, and wooed it, by many pardons, many, and often repeated Acts of Grace and Favour to recall us to our former loyalty, (if ever we were loyal) yet, inconsiderate, unthankful wretches as we are, we overlook, or slight all these invitations, for instead of returning, we have added this, as the compliment of our other Rebellions, that (whether more unthankfully or undutifully, I cannot tell) we have cast dirt in our sovereign's face, and slandered the footsteps of God's Anointed; as if He were guilty of all those Miseries, which at this time threaten the subversion of this Nation: we will no longer wound the King secretly, through the sides of his evil counsellors, or Cavaliers, but charge Him directly, and point blank, as in that most seditious Declaration, or whatever you will call it, presented by Sir David Watkins, and that broken Citizen, out at elbows, called satin Shute, to the common-council, and by them to the remainder of the Lower House; if it be not breach of privilege to call it so. How willing have we obeyed every Commandment, except God and the Kings? How forward have we been to employ the large Revenues of our several Companies, and Brotherhoods, (as heretofore to excess, and gluttony, so now) to support this Rebellion? How ready, even beyond our abilities, have we been to submit to every tax, and illegal Imposition, even to the bondage & slavery of Excise, by which we are not so much Proprietaries of our own, as Stewards, or Casheerers to the heads of the Rebellion; and all this, to no other end but to keep up the Rebellion: we have not only protected, and supported the King's mortal Enemies, but as much as in us lay, have persecuted all His Friends, or, if but suspected to stand well affected to Him, and the Justice of His Cause, not sparing the effusion of innocent blood, as that of Master Tomkins, and Master Chaloner, which, like the blood of Abel, calls loud to Heaven for vengeance, on this bloody city, and questionless will in time be heard, for not content to buy these men's bloods with great sums of moneys, which could not be advanced but on this condition, that Master Tomkins, and Master Chaloner, be delivered up to their pleasure, and murdered for a strange conspiracy called Obedience to the King, but being dead, in an unheard of barbarousness they press into the houses, where their dead bodies lay, before their Funerals, and thinking they could never be sure enough of so great a guilt, they will not believe that they are dead, unless they force the houses to see the bodies of them whom themselves had murdered; insomuch, that to avoid further violence and rage of the Citizens, they were fain to set open the doors where their bodies lay, and expose them to the view of all, that so they might glut themselves with beholding that sad spectacle which themselves had made. That the Kings Gracious offers of Peace have been slighted, and rejected, with scorn, and contempt, and His Messengers that brought them (contrary to the Law of arms and Nations) imprisoned; That those miserable distractions, which have rent and torn this flourishing kingdom, are so far from being closed, that they are rather made wider; That the Sword of War, so long devouring, is not yet sheathed, except in one another's bowels; That this kingdom is still made the Scene of murders, Rapines, Oppression, and Plunderings, and whereon all the horrid acts of rage, and injustice are every day acted, and the Nation put almost out of hope, ever to enjoy her former Peace and plenty, is our fault, and ours wholly: Had not the 〈◊〉 ●f this Rebellion been animated by this city, and encouraged by promises of more Supplies of Men and moneys, they had long before this laid down their arms, and come with halters about their necks, and cast themselves at the King's feet, submissively begging those Pardons, which they have presumptuously rejected▪ Time was, when the two Houses gave a Law to the city, now it is come to that pass, that the city prescribe to the relics of the two Houses; They must not conclude of War or Peace, without consulting the city, if they do, they reckon without their Host. Nay, though Fairfax be utterly routed in the North, and William, once surnamed a conqueror, be totally defeated in the West, yet can they neither be persuaded, nor beaten into thoughts of Peace. On the 20th of July last, no longer ago, many Thousands (as the printed paper tells you) preferred a Petition to the House of Commons, presented by M. Norbury, of the Cursitors Office, and John Hat an attorney of Guildhall, both pernicious men; which as it evidently shows their obstinate aversion from Peace, so it is the most desperate devilish slander, that ever yet durst look the world in the face; for first, they tell the House of Commons, and in them the world, That the King without any touch of conscience, and in defiance of God, hath raised an army of Papists, outlaws, and Traitors, for Robbing, Burning, murdering, and Destroying of His Religious, Honest, and well meaning People. And then knowing not only their interest in, but their power over the House of Commons, they do not so much Petition, as Command them to accept of their assistance, for the raising a new army, and in express terms prescribe unto them, and limit them to a Committee of their own nomination, for the seizing and receiving of such sums, as the willing shall think fit to offer, or they shall think fit to extort from the unwilling for this service: and that you may judge of the whole bunch, by some, they name Pennington the pretended Lord Maior, Stroad one of the five Members, Harry Martin Plunder-master general, and Denis Bond Burgess of Dorchester, and Patriarch White's own disciple, a man of a double capacity to be a rebel, and finding themselves more alone in these undertakings than they did imagine, like desperate traitors, they call on the whole kingdom, as one man, according to the intent of the late Covenant, to join with them in this Rebellion. And having thus taken a course to raise new Forces, on Saturday the 29th of July, at a Common Hall, they Voted Sir William Waller▪ general of their new intended army, whom to endear the more, they interest him in the Government of the city, hoping that being as mad as his Lady, he will hold up the Rebellion, as long as he can, and then be one of the last to run away; I mean not from battle, for in that he hath showed himself as forward as the foremost, but from justice, and the due reward of his disloyalty. By all which it is most evident, that this Languishing Rebellion had before this day gasped its last and given up the ghost, had not this rebellious city by its wealth and multitudes fomented it, and given it life. If therefore posterity shall ask, who broke down the bounds to those streams of blood, that have stained this earth, if they ask, who make liberty captive, Truth criminal, Rapine just, tyranny and Oppression lawful, who blanched Rebellion with the specious pretence of Defence of laws and Liberties: War with the desire of an established Peace, sacrilege and profanation, with the show of zeal and Reformation. Lastly, if they ask who would have pulled the Crown from the King's head, taken the Government off the hinges, dissolved monarchy, enslaved the laws, and ruined their country, say, 'Twas the Proud, unthankful, schismatical, Rebellious, bloody city of London; so that what they wanted of devouring this Kingdom by cheating and cozening, they mean to finish by the Sword. That therefore these dangerous Defluctions, and continual (not small Distillations) but Floods of Men, Money, Ammunition, and arms, descending from the Head city, and Metropolis of this kingdom, may not for ever dissolve the nerves, and luxate the sinews of this admirable composed Government▪ it will highly concern this Nation to look about them, to undeceive themselves, and to consult their own Peace and safety, by joining with their Gracious sovereign, in chastizing these rebellious insolences, and reducing this stubborn city of London either to obedience or ashes. FINIS.