AN answer TO THE Poysonous seditious PAPER of Mr. DAVID JENKINS.  
By H. P. barrister of Lincoln's Inn.  
LONDON, Printed for Robert Bostock dwelling at the sign of the King's head in Paul's churchyard, 1647.   

AN ANSWER TO THE Poysonous seditious PAPER OF Mr. DAVID JENKINS.  
MR. David Jenkins in his Paper of the 29 of April last, lays most odious charges upon the Parliament: and consequently upon all that have adhered to the Parliament in this war; and lest these his desperate infusions should not work powerfully enough upon the Vulgar; he being an ancient practiser in the Law, and promoted to the title of a Judge: he citys Book cases against the two Houses, and seems forward to lay down his life in the cause.  
His 1. Argument runs thus. The Parliament not having the King's writ, patent or commission, cannot do so much as examine any man: But the Parliament has not the King's Writ, &c. Ergo: his minor is confirmed thus. If the King's power remain solely in himself, and be not virtually present in the two Houses, than they cannot pretend his Writ, patent or Commission. But the King's power is in himself, and not virtually in the two Houses, ergo, that the Parliament has no virtual power, he proves thus.  
1. If the Parliament had in them the Kings virtual power, they needed not desire the King's ratification: they needed not send any Propositions to him; but now they send propositions, ergo, this virtual power is but a mere fiction.  
2. To affirm that the King's power is separable from his person, is by the Law adjudged high Treason: but if the Parliament say the King's power is virtually in them, than they separate it from his person. Ergo,  
3. If none can pardon Felony or Treason except the King, none has the virtual power of the King, but none can pardon except the King. Ergo,  
4. If the King be in no condition to govern, than he is in no condition to derive virtual power, but &c.  
5. If none can sit in Parliament but he must first swear that the King is the only supreme governor over all Persons in all Causes, then, no member of the Parliament, nor the whole Parliament, can suppose him or themselves superior to the King. but none can sit in Parliament, &c. Ergo,  
6. If no Act of Parliament bind the subject without the King's assent, than there is no virtual power in the Parliament without the King's assent. but no Act binds &c. Ergo,  
Out of these premises which this grave Gentleman judges to be irrefragable, he concludes that the parliament denies the King to be supreme governor, nay to be any governor at all, in as much as there is no point of government, He says but the Parliament for some years past have taken to themselves using the King's name, only to abuse and deceive the people. He says further, the Parliament pretends against the King, because that he has left the great counsel, and yet the King desires to come to his great counsel, but cannot because he is by them kept prisoner at Holmby.  
Lastly, he says the Houses are guilty of perjury as well as of cheating the people and rebelling against the King, in as much as at the same time they swear him to be only supreme governor, and declare him to be in no condition to govern.  
How easily these things may be answered & refuted let the world see.  
For 1. It cannot be denied; but the Parliament sits by the King's Writ, nay if Statute Law be greater than the King's Writ, it cannot be denied but the Parliament sits or aught to sit by something greater than the King's Writ, And, if it be confessed that the Parliament sits by the King's Writ, but does not Act by the King's Writ than it must follow that the Parliament is a void vain Court, and sits to no purpose, nay it must also follow, that the Parliament is of less authority and of less use than any other inferior Court. Forasmuch as it is not in the King's power to control other Courts or to prevent them from sitting or Acting.  
2. This is a gross non sequitur the King's power is in himself, Ergo it is not derived to nor does reside virtually in the Parliament. For the light of the sun remains embodied, and unexhausted in the Globe of the sun, at the same time as it is diffused and displayed through all the body of the air, and who sees not that the King without emptying himself, gives commissions daily of Oier and Terminer to others, which yet he himself can neither frustrate nor elude? but for my part I conceive it is a great error to infer that the Parliament has only the King's power, because it has the King's power in it: for it seems to me that the Parliament does both sit and act by concurrent power, devolved both from the King & Kingdom; And this in some things is more obvious and apparent then in others. For by what power does the Parliament grant subsedyes to the King? if only by the power which the King gives, than the King may take subsedies without any grant from the Parliament: and if it be so by a power which the people give to the Parliament. Then it will follow that the Parliament has a power given both by King and kingdom.  
3. The sending propositions to the King, and desiring his concurrence, is scarce worth an answer, for Subjects may humbly petition for that which is their strict right and property. Nay it may sometimes beseem a superior to prefer a suit to an inferior for matters in themselves due. God himself has not utterly disdained to beseech his own miserable impious unworthy creatures: besides 'tis not our Tenet that the King has no power, because he has not all power, nor that the King cannot at all promote our happiness, because he has no just claim to procure our ruin.  
4. We affirm not that the King's power is separated from his person so as the two Spensers affirmed, neither do we frame conclusions out of that separation as the two Spensers did, either that the King may be removed for misdemenours, or reformed per aspertee; or that the Subjects is bound to govern in aid of him; we only say that his power is distinguishable from his person, and when he himself makes a distinction betwixt them commanding one thing by his legal Writs Courts and Officers, and commanding another thing extrajudicially by word of mouth, letters or Ministers we are to obey his power rather than his person.  
5. We take not from the King all power of pardoning Delinquents, we only say it is not proper to him quarto modo. For if the King pardon him which has murdered my son, his pardon shall not cut me off from my appeal: and 'tis more unreasonable that the Kings pardon should make a whole State which has suffered remediless, than any private man. So if the King should deny indemnity to those which in the fury of war have done things unjustifiable by the laws of Peace, and thereby keep the wounds of the State from being bound up, 'tis equitable that an Act of Indemnity should be made forcible another way. And if this will not hold, yet this is no good consequence the King is absolute in point of pardons, therefore he is absolute in all things else; and the Parliament has no power to discharge Delinquencyes, therefore it has no power in other matters.  
6. The Parliament has declared the King to be in no condition to govern: but this must not be interpreted rigidly, and without a distinction: for if the King with his sword drawn in his hand, and pursuing the Parliament and their adherents as rebels be not fit for all Acts of Government, yet 'tis not hereby insinuated that he is divested of the habit or right of governing. If he be unqualified now he is not unqualified for the future. if he may not do things destructive to the Parliament he is not barred from returning to the Parliament, or doing justice to the Parliament. This is a frivelous cavil, and subterfuge.  
7. We swear that the King is our supreme Governor over all Persons and in all causes; but we do not swear that he is above all law nor above the safety of his people which is the end of the law and indeed Paramount to the law itself▪ If he be above all law, or liable to no restraint of our law, than we are no freer than the French or the Turks and if he be above the prime end of law common safety. Then we are not so free as the French or the Turks. For if the total subversion of the French or the Turk were attempted: they might by God's law imprinted in the book of nature justify a self-defence; but we must remedilessly perish when the King pleases to command our throats. Besides, how acheived the King of England such a Supreamacy above all law and the community itself, for whose behoof law was made? if God's donation be pleaded, which is not special to him or different from what other Kings may pretend too, then to what purpose serve our laws, nay to what purpose serve the laws of other countries, for by this general donation, all nations are condemned to all servitude as well as we. If the Law of this Land be appealed to, what Books has Mr. Jenkins' read, where has he found out that Lex Regia whereby the people of England have given away from themselves all right in themselves? Some of our books tell us that we are more free than the French, that the King cannot oppress us in our persons, or estates, by imprisonment denying justice, or laying taxes without our consents: other books tell us that the safety of the people is the supreme law, and that the King has both God & the Law for his Superior. but all this is nothing to learned Mr. Jenkins.  
8. We admit that no Acts of Parliament are complete or formally binding with out the King's assent▪ yet this is still to be denied that therefore without this assent particularly expressed the two houses can do nothing, nor have any virtual power at all no not to examine Mr. Jenkins, nor to do any other thing of like nature, though in order to public justice & safety. I have done and wish Mr. Jenkins would call in & lick up again his black infamous execrable reproaches so filthily vomited out against the Parliament.  
FINIS.