ENGLAND'S, Sole Remedy: OR, A Wholesome Directory, for the recory of our languishing Kingdom: Drawn from the Law of God, and the Land. CONTAINING Some necessary and pertinent Queries, with their Resolutions, by Scriptures, Law, and Reason: very fit and convenient to be thought upon by all Englishmen, for the begetting of a sure, safe, and well-grounded Peace. Collected and intended for the good of all. By a Lover of Peace and Truth. Printed in the Year 1648. To all English Subjects. REader, whoever thou art, Peace is that we all cry out for, and that we all seek after; but few there are which in a right way endeavour thereafter: wherefore in this juncture of time, to help forward so good and blessed a work, it may be very seasonably advantageous, for all English Subjects, seriously to consider of some Queries, and their Resolutions, concerning the Political frame and constitution of this our Kingdom; which being well and conscientiously thought upon, and digested into act, doubtlessly would beget a sure, sound, and well grounded peace, which out of a real and sincere affection, and endeavour thereafter, I have composed and contrived as followeth; wherein thou shalt find me, Thine in Christ Jesus, Christianus Philopater. England's sole Remedy. Quaerie 1. Monarchical, that is government 〈◊〉 one which is a King. Aristocratical, that is government by a few of the best, Nobles. Origarchicall, that is, government by a few of the most wealthy and powerful. Whether the government of this Kingdom, (which hath ever been Monarchical) since His Majesty's departure from the two Houses, hath been Aristocratical, or oligarchical? Resol. In the resolving of this Quaerie it is observable, that the matter doubted, is the ordering, and mannagement of the affairs of this Kingdom, by the two Houses at Westminster, within a certain time, which is, from His Majesty's departure from them, unto this present; wherein the shaken and tottered condition of our distressed Nation, hath wrested out a strain, very improper, thereby seeming to take it for granted, that the exercise of the two Houses, over this Kingdom, since His Grace's departure from them, hath been a government, which will not bear water for these reasons. Reasons why the usurpation of the 〈…〉 cannot 〈…〉 be a Government. 1 No Commonwealth may be said to be governed, but by lawful Authority, which lawful Authority, where there are established Laws and Sanctions, do uphold and maintain the rule, and power of that Government; which the Laws and Sanctions of this Kingdom, do not uphold and maintain in the two Houses; wherefore must it needs be most certain, that they have no authority for their overswaying of this Kingdom since his Majesty's departure. 2 In this Kingdom, where there are established Lowes and Sanction; that cannot be said to be government, but what is in conformity and obedience unto the said established Laws, and Sanctions; therefore their managing of the affairs of this Kingdom, contrary and in opposition unto the Laws of our Nation, by an arbitrary and tyrannical power, must needs conclude their usurpation to be no Government. 3. Because the end of Government, is the good and perfect state of the Commonwealth, which cannot be kept but by an union of the whole, whereas they have made the greatest disunion that can be imagined, by disjointing and rending this Kingdom in neglecting the Laws thereof, and begetting several factions, divisions, and parties therein, wherefore their undertaking the rule and command of this Realm is an absolute usurpation, and no Government, which phrase in this Quaerie is to be understood, as they pretend themselves to be Governors, and others do confess themselves to be governed by them; which taken in their own sense cannot be said to be Government Monarchical, (which is the state and constitution of this Kingdom) seeing they have ever since acted, not only besides, but against his Majesty, contrary unto both the Law of God and the Land; therefore if their usurpation must be accounted for a Government, it must either be Aristocratical, or oligarchical, whereof it cannot be the former, that is Dominium Optimatum, Government by the best Nobles, for this hath been in that sense, Regimen Communium, the government of Commons, by a few, or a party of the lower House of Commons, therefore must it needs be oligarchical, because it is an usurpation of a few of the said House, who contrary to Law have exploded the gravest, wisest, best learned, and most conscientious men from amongst them, not suffering them to perform that trust, which their Country had committed to them: wherefore the Resolution of this first Quaerie must be thus, that since His Majesty's departure from the two Houses, this Kingdom hath been tyrannised over by an Oligarchy. Quaere 2. Whether or no it may be accounted a sin against the Word of God in the most moderate Subjects of England, to believe the constituted Government thereof to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e Rignum Regale, when a people are governed by a King▪ according to the Law of the Land. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, where a King reigns so absolute that, his word is a Law. Resol. This Quaerie sets the people of England in three ranks, whereof two are in extremes, and one in a mean, the one extreme are they who would attribute all that power and authority which is attributed and given unto a King in the Word of God, unto the King of England, and so make him the most absolute King in the highest degree: the other extreme are the Sectaries, who will not put any difference betwixt a King and other inferior Magistrates, which is directly against the Word of God, and the Law of the Land: but the best are the middle and moderate men, who hold our Kingdom to be ruled by a King according to Law, concerning whom this scruple is raised, whether or no they sin against the Word of God, in so holding? To which it is answered, the King of England in himself being as absolute as any in the world, it must needs be most certain, that at first he had all that absolute power, and then to have holden this had been a sin against the Word of God, but as the King of England hath freely of his own accord by the great Charter of England made the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a Kingdom wherein the King is to rule according to Law, and thus to hold cannot be a sin against the Word of God, because holding otherwise we hold contrary to the King's Law, which is a sin against the Word of God, besides the King of England having made this perpetual pact, and agreement with his people, this therein is most certain, that volenti non fit injuria; Therefore it can be no sin against the Word of God, in the most moderate Subjects of England to believe, the constituted Government thereof, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quaerie 3. Whether or no at the time of the Reformation, that good which was done, by casting the Pope's Authority out of men's consciences was overbalanced, by therewith casting out the authority of Scriptures concerning Regal Authority? Resol. The full solution of this Quaerie requires a larger Tract, and a more able pen, then for present is allotted unto me, wherefore herein to move greater judgements. I will but therein deliver mine own opinion, which is this, that heretofore the Pope overruling men's consciences, did not only usurp that authority, but thereby did also greatly enjoin gross Idolatry, and Superstition: directly against the Word of God: wherefore our exemption and freedom therefrom, must needs be unspeakable good unto this Kingdom, but on the contrary, the casting out or at least neglecting the authority of Scriptures, concerning Regal Authority, hath brought an unspeakable hurt unto this Kingdom, by begetting and causing blasphemy and profanation, sacrilege and impiety against God, treason, and rebellion against his sacred Majesty, ruin and destruction to the Church, faction and division in the Kingdom, which though at first they were not discerned, this our age hath had thereof too dear and deep experience; but whether or no these evils, do counterpoise or overbalance, that good which was done, by exploding the Pope's Authority out of this Kingdom, I leave to be determined by greater abilities. Quaerie 4. Whether or no, a right and lawful King, hath power from God, to bless, or curse his People? Resol. This question is to be holden in the Affirmative; for whosoever hath any (much more this) power, hath it from God, because every good and perfect gift comes from him, who hath given this power unto all that call upon him, thus giving, unto the poor, is a casting our bread upon the waters, which we shall find, after many days, and almesdeeds do prevail, as far as heaven, God hears the cries, and sighs of the afflicted, and the cries of the poor fatherless, and widows, all which are as the power of blessing, and cursing from God; and if God have granted this unto all, and ordinary people, how much more unto Kings, who are said to be Gods, whose hearts are unsearchable, Prov. 25.3. A divine sentence is in the lips of the King, Prov. 16.10. and the honour of Kings is to search out a matter, Pro. 25.2. They sit at the stern to distribute justice, & mercy, which is blessing and cursing eminenter, thus Moses yet both a blessing and a curse before the People, Deut. 11.26. The exercise of both which we find in particular. 1. That of blessing, thus Moses blessed the children of Israel before his death, Deut. 33.1. And Joshua sent away the two Tribes and half with a blessing, Josh. 22.6.7. and David blessed his people in the name of the Lord, 1 Chron. 16.2. 2 Sam. 6.18. and Solomon stood and blessed all the Congregation of Israel with a loud voice, 1 Kings 8.55. And David kissed 〈◊〉 and blessed him, 2 Sam. 19.39. 2. That of cursing, 〈◊〉 cursed the rebuilder of Jericho, Jos. 6.26. which was executed above 520 years after, upon Hiel the Bethe●●●, 1 King. 16.24. And David laid a very heavy curse upon Joah, 2 Sam. 3.24. therefore unto some purpose, hath Solomon said, the wrath of a King is as the roaring of a Lion, Prov. 14.12. which God having given unto all Kings, it must needs also be given unto the King of England, which God hath made manifest and apparent unto all the world, and that in an extraordinary manner, in that his touch doth heal that disease, which hath received name from him, which is a great & certain blessing; and having the one he hath the other, (as well as the Kings of Israel) for it is a maxim in Logic, Contrariorun eadem est ratio. It is true, I have heard some say (how truly I know not) that his Majesty's touch in this last age hath not proved unto all so effectual as in former, the answer whereunto (if it may be granted,) is very clear and obvious: was there ever age more traitorous, treacherous, & rebellious against their Sovereign than this? which are the effects of incredulity, which were so praevalent amongst the Nazarites, our Saviour's own countrymen, that he did not many works there because of their unbelief, Mat. 13.58 & that abating the power in the giver, we herein may see Gods great mercy, that it is not quite obstructed in the gifted, though a King. Therefore it is to be believed, that a right and lawful King hath power from God, to bless or curse his People. Quaerie 5. Whether or no that form of Government Ecclesiastical and civil pretended or intended by the two Houses may stand with the nature of this Age and People? Resol. This Quaerie consists of two parts concerning government: 1 Ecclesiastical, 2 Civil: in both which I will but deliver mine opinion, which I conceive to be truth: and in the latter I will but only give a word or two, (referring it unto the learned in the Laws of the Land, unto whom it is most proper) which shall be this, that the Civil Government of this Kingdom, by the Ordinances of the two Houses, must needs prove destructive unto this Nation; because, 1. They are destructive unto the established Law of the Land, which is the preservation of the people. 2. The good and peace of no Kingdom, can stand in continual change and mutability, full whereof are their Ordinances, which have been ordered, unordered, and counter-ordered, at pleasure for their pleasures; without respect unto the good of the Commonwealth. 3. This kind of Government (if it may be so called) is absolutely the most Arbitrary, Tyrannical, and Licentious, that can be imagined, and therefore can stand with no age nor People. 2. Ecclesiastical Government, that as the former, no man can tell what is, but something they would seem to put upon us, by the name of Presbytery, which cannot stand with this age nor people, for these reasons; in respect unto 1. The People of the Land. 2. The Law of the Land. 3. The Law of God. 1. In respect of the people of the Land, because all the Kingdom which are noble, wealthy, wise, knowing, honest, and conscientious, (which are numerous) and most fit to sit at the stern of the State, are of a contrary judgement: besides the greatest part, the most sober minded, and moderate men, have ever been educated and brought up in so contrary a way, that they will never submit thereunto, but with murmuring, heartburning, and repining, which at least will bring disturbance, if not ruin unto this Kingdom. 2. In respect unto the Law of the Land, this imaginary Ecclesiastical Utopia, would so cut, clash, thwart, cross, and interfere all the old Law of the Kingdom, that it must be destroyed, and either a new made, which what it may prove, no wise man would put unto venture, or it would give us over unto all liberty and licence, or beget arbitrary and tyrannical Government. 3. In respect unto the Law of God, this kind of Government is plainly, and directly against the Word of God, and never dreamt of until calvin's time; and therefore if it be set up, we must expect God's severe curse, upon and for the same: so that what hath been said in this Quaerie may make it clear unto all that are not wilfully blind, that their pretended or intended Government, neither Civil nor Ecclesiastical may stand with the nature of this present age and people. Quaerie. 6. Whether or no the Lords now sitting in the upper House of Parliament, having so much failed in their trust, may not more justly be deprived of sitting there, then Lords formerly for decayed Estates? Resol. How the Law of the Land will precisely resolve this Quaerie, I leave unto the learned in that profession, but to them ignorant in the constitution of any Commonwealth, halfe-eyed reason will make it good in the Affirmative, considering the end wherefore Parliament-men sit in the two Houses, is to consult, and advise with their Prince, concerning making Laws for the good of the Kingdom, whereunto bona fortunae, the riches of fortune, whereof are wealth, Revenues, honour, and the like, are nothing essential, but only additional thereunto, for honour, credit and supplying of outward necessities sake, but bona animi, the goods of the mind, as are learning, especially in the Law of God and the Land, tenderness of affection for the glory of God, and the good of their Country, for the execution whereof it is requisite they be qualified with fidelity, resolution, discretion, judgement, and justice, without which they can never attain unto that end for which they sit; as the one therefore is of more use for the attaining of that end, at which they are to aim, than the other, it is in an answerable proportion, more necessary than the other, and the want thereof must necessarily the more disable the parties so wanting from the charge and trust of so great an employment. The Lords therefore now sitting in the upper , having failed in their trust and fidelity, do more justly deserve to be debarred from sitting in the House, then Lords formerly for decayed Estates. Quaerie. 7. Whether or no by the Laws of this Kingdom the two Houses their raising of Armies without his Majesty's consent, is a rebellious riot, (besides the Statute Law of the Land) considering they neither have, nor could knight their most deserving Soldiers for their Martial service? Resol. The Law of the Land resolves this doubt clearly in the Affirmative, St. 30. Die Octobris, An. 7. Ed. 1. the words are these: Now in our Parliament at Westminster, the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and the Commonalty of the Realm, there assembled to take advise, have said that to us it belongeth, and our part is through our royal signory, straightly to defend force of Arms, and all other force against our peace, at all times when it shall please us, and to punish them which shall do contrary, according to the Laws and usages of this Realm, and hereunto they are bound to aid us as their Sovereign Lord at all seasons, when need shall be: but thus to raise Armies, against their Sovereign Lord the King is downright Treason, St. 25. Ed. 3.2. If a man do levy war against their Sovereign Lord the King in this Realm, or be adherent unto the King's enemies in his Realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the Realm or elsewhere, and thereof be provably attainted of open deed by people of their condition. And if a man counterfeit the King's great or Privy Seal, and if a man slay the Chancellor, it is to be understood in the cases rehearsed, that aught to be judged Treason, which extends to our Lord the King and his royal Majesty, which Act concerning Treason is reestablished, 1 Edw. 6.12. therefore their taking up of Arms without his Majesty's consent, is against the Law of the Land, and high Treason against our Sovereign Lord the King. Quaerie. 8. Whether or no the two Houses in statu quo nunc, wanting the head, heart, and integral parts of a Parliament; may justly be accounted as the representative Body of this Kingdom? Resol. They do no more represent the body of this Kingdom, than a statue or picture without head, heart; and many other members throughout, and those which it hath being mangled, and abused, do represent a man: for all men know this, that in these two Houses are wanting, the King, which is the Head of the Kingdom, the Judges of the Law, which are the heart thereof, and the Bishops, which are the breasts, and the most of the temporal Nobility, which should be as the back unto that Body Politic. They know likewise how it is mangled, in the lower House; wanting the head, heart, and integral parts of a Parliament: It cannot therefore be gainsaid, but these two Houses in statu quo nunc, are no representative Body of this Kingdom. Quaerie 9 Whether or no the Kingdom of England, by the Judges of the Land, the Master of the Rolls, and the Secretaries of Estate, being put from the Woolsacks, is thereby deprived of one of their greatest interests and concernments? Resol. For the solution of this, let the Kingdoms own experience speak, and we shall find it in the Affirmative; for The Judges of the Land, the Master of the Rolls, etc. aught to sit upon Woolsacks in the middle of the upper House, because wool being the chiefest commodity and benefit of this Kingdom, they might thereby be put in mind thereof, to cause them to think and study for the same good of the said Kingdom, and there ever upon all occasions, to be ready to acquaint the Lords of the upper House, with what is Law, the greatest Interests and concernments of the Kingdom, whereof without them there can be no wise, prudent, wholesome care taken: They therefore being put from the Woolsacks, the Kingdom thereby is deprived of their greatest interests and concernments. Quaerie 10. Whether or no the two Houses, wanting the constitutive part of a Parliament, may justly be called a Parliament? Resol. No more than a Body without a Soul may justly be said to be a man: for as a reasonable soul is that constitutive part, which makes a man; thus the King is the soul and life of the Law and Parliament, as is sufficiently maintained by all Orthodox Divines, & sound Lawyers. The two Houses therefore without the King, which is the constitutive part of Parliaments, cannot justly be called a Parliament? Quaerie 11. Whether or no the Speaker of the lower House, having the first day of this last Parliament, promised in the name of the Commons, that they should not abuse, but have such regard, as most faithful Subjects ought to have, to their Prince, considering their carriage towards him for these several years, have thereby forfeited their honour, trust, right, and interest in the Commonwealth? Resol. What every rational man, if but poized with mean moderation, will conclude of this, is easily to be conjectured; and what the Law of the Land may determine herein, I leave unto them studied in that Profession; only hear what the Civil Law saith in such a case, concerning Counsellors failing in their trust, Si quid praeter spem accesserit, & non inveneris eum custodientem tibi fidem justam, illum quidem expelles; alio verò uter is consiliario, legem & justitiam cùm puris servante manibus, Par. Vol. Col. 3. de Mand. Princip. Titul. 4. If any thing shall fall out besides hope, and thou shalt not find him keeping right faith with thee, thou shalt expel him, but thou shalt use another Counsellor, which keepeth the Law and Justice with pure hands, and if this sentence was justice upon one private Counsellor, how much more upon public Parliament-men, which have failed in all trust and fidelity. But herein I will but only hint what may be the judgement of the Holy Ghost, whereunto all other Reason, Law and Authority, aught to veil and submit, and it shall be thus: amongst many conditions requisite to make a man a fit inhabiter of heaven, the Psalmist, Ps. 15.4. gives this for one, that he that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not; he than that sweareth to his own good, and the good of the weal public, and changeth, shall never (abiding in that condition) come in heaven: but lest they should take a starting hole at the Old Testament, let them undergo the sentence of the New, which is this, that Covenant-breakers are in number of them, who knowing the judgement of God, & that they who commit such things, are worthy of death, not only to do the same, but to have pleasure in them that do them, Rom. 1.31, & 32. Thus you see it is an invincible truth, that the Speaker of the lower House having the first day of this last PARLIAMENT promised in the name of the Commons, that they should not abuse, but have such regard, as most faithful Subjects ought to have to their Prince, considering their carriage towards him for these several years, have thereby forfeited their honour, trust, right, and interest, in the Commonwealth. Quaere. 12. Whether or no, the two Houses, by dissolving the privy Counsel, did not dissolve a greater and more honourable authority than themselves? Resol. The very terms of this Quearie lay down the state thereof, for it is whether the two Houses, not the Parliament, by dissolving etc. And thus it falls clearly into the Affirmative, for the King's power lies habitually and originally in himself, but more actually and effectually in his Privy Counsel, which makes a King in the exercise of his Regal Power, and his Privy Counsel inseparable, and the Law of this Land makes the Privy Counsel of greater honour, and authority, than the remaining part of a full and lawful Parliament. My reasons are these. 1. It appears so by their place and order, confirmed by Act of Parliament, St. 31. Hen. 8 10. 2. It is an order in well regulated Parliaments, if any speak unreverently, or seditiously against the Prince, or the Privy Counsel, to send them to the Tower, Sir Thom. Smith Common-weal of Engl. Book 2. Chap. 3. 3. The Parliament Law of the Land makes it good St. 28. Ed. 2. the words are these. Nevertheless, the King and his Counsel, do not intent by reason of this Statute to diminish the King's right, etc. Where you see the Statute there sets both the King and his Counsel above the Parliament, as it is confirmed again, St. 33. Ed. 1.20. The King and his Counsel, and they that were present, at the making of this Ordinance, will and intent, that the right and Prerogative of his Crown shall be saved, to him in all things, where the King and his Counsel are preferred, before all that were present in Parliament: The two Houses therefore by dissolving the Privy Counsel, did dissolve a greater and more honourable Authority than themselves. Quaere. 13. Whether or no, the usage of the two Houses, in their managing of affairs for these late years, being approved, may not become precedent unto other inferior Courts, to all in their several limits, and jurisdictions without. Law, Statute, Ordinance, or other lawful Edict. Resol. What is to be said of this, the late and present Practice of the Army, the several Committees, Sequestrators, and Excize men, do give a sad and dear experience, in all of them, by their acting not only contrary unto Law and Conscience, but even contrary to their own Ordinances, whence it follows, that the usage of the two Houses, in their managing of Affairs for these late years, being approved, may become a precedent unto every other inferior Court, to act in their several jurisdictions, without Law, Statute, Ordinance, or other lawful Edict. FINIS. POSTSCRIPT. COurteous Reader, since the Authors composing of this, he hath made another piece, called a Commission or Position, wherein it is proved to be lawful, to labour and endeavour, for the Restitution of his Majesty, though without Commission for the same.