A Holy Commonwealth, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII. Of the late Warres.
HAving laid down these fore-going Grounds, it would not be here unseasonable to render a publick account of my own actions, in answer to that Question, which I have been urged with by so many, [By what Reasons was I moved to engage my self in the Parliaments Warre?] But (though I have not leisure to render so full an account to each particular Quaerist, as may be satisfactory, and therefore could be content to dispatch it here at once for all, yet) it will require so long a History of my own affairs, and also so many ungratefull recitals of the abuses and evils of those times, that I shall not undertake so unpleasant a task, till I am called to it by such necessity, as will excuse these inconveniences: but only cursorily shall cast in these following brief accounts instead of a fuller Declaration.
§. I. The malignant hatred of seriousness in Religion, did work so violently in the rabble where I lived, that I could not stay at home with any probable safety of my life. My life was sought before I went away: Sober, pious men of Neighbour-Parishes, that thought the rabble had been upon my head in a tumult (when indeed I was out of Town) were knockt down in the streets, to the hazzard of their lives, when they went among them to look after me; and meerly because they were accounted Puritans. And all this was but on a false rumour, that the Churchwardens were about to obey the Parliaments Order, in taking down the Images of the Trinity about the Church. The Warre was begun in our streets before the King or Parliament had any Armies. The hatred of the Puritans, and the Parliaments Reformation, inflamed the ignorant, drunken, and ungodly rout, so that I was forced to be gone even before the Warres; but when I returned, and the Armies came among us, I could then stay no longer; nor had I any place of safety from their rage, but the Armies and Garrisons of the Parliament: And multitudes of my Neighbours as well as I, were forced into Garisons to save their lives, that else would have lived at home in peace. And I only propose it, Whether those Subjects, that are utterly undeservedly deprived of the protection of Magistrates and Laws, are not discharged of their obligations, and turned out of their Relations to them, and are put to seek for other Protectours?
§. II. A Parliament (as farre as I have been able to learn) hath all these four or five capacities 1. It is a Representative of the People as free. 2. It Representeth the People as Subjects. 3. By the Constitution they have part in the Soveraignty. 4. They are the Kings chief Councel. 5. And they are the Kings chief Court of Judicature.
Of the Antiquity of their Power, and its Extent, I referre you to Mr. Bacons Treatise of Parliaments, and Mr. Prin's Book of the Power and Priviledges of Parliaments (to pass by others.) But it is no way necessary to the cause in hand to prove the Antiquity of their Being, or their Power. When ever they were established in that Power, it was by an Explicite or Implicite Contract, between the Prince and People, there being no other Ground that can bear them, except an immediate Divine Institution, which none pretend to. And the Prince and People have as much power in this Age to make such a Contract, and alter the Constitution, as they had three thousand years ago. And therefore if I find them in possession of the Power, and can prove but a Mutual Consent of Prince and People, I need no other proof of their Power.
§. III. When I say that the Parliament Representeth the People as free, I take it for undeniable, that the Government is constituted by Contract, and that in the Contract, the People have not Absolutely subjected themselves to the Soveraign, without reserving any Rights or Liberties to themselves; but that some Rights are reserved by them, and exempted from the Princes power: And therefore that the Parliament are their Trustees for the securing of those exempted Rights, and so Represent the People as free; not as wholly free, but as being so farre free as that exemption signifies. The Rights and Freedom of the People as a People, are in order of nature before the Constitution, and excepted, and so established and secured in it. And this is the first Capacity of Parliaments, To Represent the People as a People, to secure their Liberties as Trustees: If any man deny them this Capacity, he makes us absolutely subject to an unlimited arbitrary power, contrary to all Law, and our long possessions, and to all reason. To have no Rights, and to have none but what are wholly at the Princes will, and which we have no security for, is in effect all one.
2. The Parliament as they Represent the People as Subjects, can do nothing but humbly manifest their grievances, and Petition for Relief.
3. The Parliament as having part in the Soveraignty by the Constitution, hath part in the Legislative power, and in the final Judgement.
4. As it is the Kings chief Councel, he is ultimately to hear them in cases that concern the safety and Peace of the Commonwealth.
5. As it is his highest Court of Justice, they have power of judgement and execution, over all the Subjects; so that from them there is no Appeal: The King being to judge by his Judges in their several Courts, this is his highest Judicature; yet so as that the Power of Judging was not equally in both Houses.
The Disputers that oppose the Parliaments Cause, do commonly go on false suppositions, about the very Being and Power of Parliaments, and take it for granted, [That the Soveraign Power was only in the King, and so that it was an Absolute Monarchy, and not a mixture of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy; and that the Parliament had but the proposing of Laws, and that they were enacted only by the Kings Authority, upon their Request, and so that the Power of Armes, and of Warre, and Peace, was in the King alone; and therefore they conclude, That the Parliament being Subjects may not take up A…mes without him, and that it is Rebellion to resist him; and most of this they gather from the Oath of Supremacy, and from the Parliaments calling themselves his Subjects.
But their Grounds are sandy, and their Superstructure false, as I shall manifest.
1. The Oath of Supremacy secureth the Kings Title against all forrain claim, either of the Pope or any other, and consequently against all home-bred Usurpers: But the Name of Supream, or Soveraign, given peculiarly to the King, is no sufficient discovery of the constitution of the Commonwealth, nor any proof that it is an absolute Monarchy, and not a mixt Government, and that the soveraign Power is wholly in him: When the contrary is known in the Constitution, the Name or Title is no disproof. It's usual to honour the Prince with the Title of Soveraign, (for divers weighty Reasons) when yet the Senate or Nobles have a part in the soveraign Power. Such Oathes therefore bind us only to acknowledge the Kings Soveraignty as it is in the constitution, implying the Power of the Parliament, and they cannot be interpreted to be against the Constitution: Politicians and Lawyers commonly warn us to take heed of judging of the Power in the Commonwealth by meer Titles.
2. That the Parliament are Subjects is confessed; but as they are Subjects in one capacity, (both in their personal private states, and as the Representative of the Subjects as such) so have they part in the Soveraignty also, in their higher capacity, by the Constitution, as shall be proved. The same Persons may have part in the Soveraignty, that in other respects are Subjects.
3. Some go further, and would prove from Scripture, the full Soveraignty of the King, as from 1 Pet. 2. 13, &c. As if the Species of Government were universally determined of in Scripture; and so all forms of Government made unlawfull, except absolute Monarchy. If they could prove this, they might dispatch many Controversies in Christian States about their Constitutions, and all must be reduced to one form: But there is nothing in Scripture against other forms, but somewhat for a mixt Government in Israel. God hath not told us whether England and all other Nations shall be Governed by One or Two, or four Hundred: but where the King is the Supream, it is the will of God that the people should obey him, which is all that Peter requireth. The Romans hated the Name of a King: It was neither the intent of Peter here, or of Paul, Rom. 13. to determine whether the Emperour or the Senate were Supream: much less to determine that Kings must have the full Supremacy through the world.
This folly possesseth the Democratical party also, (that call themselves Commonwealths men:) they imagine that God himself hath given the Soveraign Power to the people; and consequently that no Government, but Popular is lawfull. Whereas it's certain, that God hath not tyed the Nations of the world to Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy, or any one form, but left that free to their own choice, under the Direction of his general Rules, and the ordering of his Providential disposals.
2. And as the Objecters Grounds are manifestly rotten, so that their superstructure is unsound, and that indeed the Parliament hath a part in the Supreamacy, I shall undeniably prove.
1. Legislation is the most principal eminent part of the Soveraigns Right: But Legislation belonged to the two Houses of Parliament as well as to the King: therefore the Right of Soveraignty belonged to the Parliament in part, as well as to the King.
The Legislative Power, is not only essential to Soveraignty, but is the one half of its essence, and the first and chiefest part. He that denyeth this renounceth Policy and Reason. But that the Parliament had a part in the Legislative power, (even of Enacting, and not only of proposing,) is undoubted. I will not run to Records, or to Writers for proof, because here a contradicting wit may find some work; but I will give you two proofs, that nothing but immodesty can contradict. The first is, Common Experience de facto. Parliaments do make Laws: the King was sworn to Govern by those Laws, quas vulgus elegerit: the Lawes expresly speak their Authors, [Be it Enacted by the Authority of Parliament] or [by the Kings Majesty, and the Lords, and Commons in Parliament Assembled, &c.] It is not [upon their Petition or Proposal] only, but [by them] or [by their Authority.]
2. The King himself (by the advice of his delinquent Council in the time of his separation from Parliament) doth confess as much as I desire: 1. That the Government of England is mixt of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. 2. That it is not an Absolute Monarchy. 3. That the Ballance must hang even between the three Estates. 4. That the King, the Lords, and the Commons, are these three Estates. 5. That the Laws are made in England by a King, by a House of Peers, and by a House of Commons chosen by the people joyntly. 6. That the House of Commons are an excellent Conserver of the Peoples Liberties. 7. That they are solely entrusted with the first Propositions concerning the Levies of Monies, the sinews of Peace and Warre; and the Impeaching of those that violate the Law. 8. That the King is bound to protect the Law. 9. That he may not make use of his power to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it. 10. That the Commons are to Advise him for the Protection of the Law. 11. That the Lords are trusted with a power of Judicature. 12. That they are a Screen or Bank between the Prince and people, to assist each against the Encroachments of the other and by just Judgement to preserve the Law, which ought to be the Rule of every one of the Three. 13. That the Parliament have a Legal power, more than sufficient to restrain the power of Tyranny. 14. That the encroaching of one of these Estates upon the others power, is unhappy in the effects to all.] All this you shall have in the Kings own words in his Answer to the Parliaments 19 Propositions.
[There being three kinds of Government, Absolute Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy; and in all these their particular conveniences and inconveniences; the experience and wisdome of your Ancestours hath moulded this out of a mixture of these, with the conveniences of all three, without the inconveniences of any one, as long as the Ballance hangs even between the three Estates; and in their proper channell (begetting verdure and fertility in the meddows on both sides,) and then overflowing of either on either side, raised no deluge or inundation: The ill of Absolute Monarchy is Tyranny: The ill of Aristocracy is Faction, and Division: the ills of Democracy are Tumults, Violence, and Licentiousness. The good of Monarchy is the Ʋniting of a Nation under one Head; to resist Invasion from abroad, and Insurrection at home. The good of Aristocracy is the conjunction of Councils in the ablest Persons of a State for the publique benefit: The good of Democracy is Liberty, nad the courage and industry which Liberty begets.
In this Kingdome the Laws are joyntly made by a King, by a House of Peers, and by a House of Commons chosen by the People, all having free Votes, and particular Priviledges; the Government of these Laws are intrusted to the King; Power of Treaties of War and Peace, of making Peers, of choosing Officers and Counsellors of State, Judges for Law, Commanders for Forts and Castles, giving Commissions for raising men to make Warre abroad, or to prevent or provide against Invasions or Insurrections at home, Benefit of Confiscations, power of pardoning, and some more of the like kind are placed in the King. And this kind of regulated Monarchy having the power to preserve that Authority, without which it would be disabled to preserve the Laws in their force, and the Subjects in their Liberties, is intended to draw to him such a respect and relation from the great ones as may hinder the ills of Division and Faction, and such a fear and reverence from the people; as may hinder tumults, violence, and licentiousnes. Again, that the Prince may not make use of this high, and perpetual power, to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it, and make use of the name of publick necessity for the gain of his private Favorites and Followers, the House of Commons (an excellent Conserver of Liberty, but never intended for any share in the Government, or the choosing of them that He meaneth the executive part.should Govern) is solely intrusted with the first Propositions, concerning the Levies of Mo…s (the sinews of Peace and War) and the impeaching of those, who for their own ends have violated that Law, which he is bound to protect, and to the protection of which they were bound to advise him. And the Lords being trusted with a Judicature power, are an excellent Screen or Bank, between the Prince and People, to assist each against the Encroachments of the other, and by just Judgements to preserve that Law which ought to be the Rule of every one of the three—since therefore the Legal power in Parliaments is more than sufficient to restrain the power of Tyrannie—since the encroaching of one of these Estates upon the power of the other, is unhappy in the effect to all.]
You see here all the Parliaments capacities acknowledged: 1. That the Commons are chosen by the people, as Trustees for their Liberties, (and that they represent them as Subjects none deny.) 2. That they are the Kings Advisers. 3 That the Lords have the power of Judicature, as the Commons of impeaching, &c. 4. That the Legislative power, (that is, the Soveraignty) is joyntly in King, Lords and Commons as three Estates; and so that the Government is mixt of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. And thus far we are agreed of the Constitution.
3. And if it were not thus confessed, we might prove the Parliaments interest in the Supremacy, by some Judicial Instances, with the restraints of the King; (but that it's needless to debate a confessed thing.) Grotius saith, de Imperio summar. Potestat. circa sacra c. 1. p. 7, 8. [Sunt qui objiciant, Reges quaedam imperare non posse, nisi conscensus Ordinum accesserit: sed hi non vident quibus in locis id juris est, ibi summum Imperium, non esse penes Reges, sed aut penes Ordines, aut certe penes id corpus, quod Rex & Juncti constituunt; ut Bodinus, Suarezius, Victoria, alijque abunde demonstrarunt. Certè summum Imperium totum habere, & aliquid imperare non posse, ideo tantum quod alter vetat aut intercedat, plane sunt foreign.] But) in this last I dissent from him, unless that aliter ille potestatem habeat illud imperandi, quod Rex imperare non potest: For meerly to limit the power of the Ruler in things not necessary unto Government, proveth not a Copartnership in the Limiters: for it may be done by Contract and Reserve, by a people that will be Governed so farre and no further.)
§. IV. I was satisfied by Reason, and consent of Lawyers, even those that are most zealous for Monarchy, and most judicious, that in many Cases a King may be resisted: I will Instance these following out of Grotius (and Barclay, with whom in divers of them he consents, and adds the rest:) de Jure Belli & Pacis, li. 1. c. 4. pag. 86, 87, 90, 91. which I will not so much as translate, that none may suspect me to corrupt the words by the translation, or to tempt the vulgar to misunderstand them.
[Gravior illa est Questio, An Lex de non Resistendo nos obliget in gravissimo & certissimo discrimine. Nam Leges etiam Dei quaedam, quanquam generaliter prolatae, tacitam habent exceptionem summae necessitatis.—Quae exceptio probata est ipsi Christo: utet in lege altera de non edendis panibus propositionis. Et Hebraeorum Magistri legibus de cibis vetitis, alijsque nonnullis ex veteri traditione eandem addunt exceptionem; recte quidem: Non quod Deo jus non sit ad certam mortem subcundam nos obstringere; sed quod Leges quaedam ejus sint argumenti, ut non credibile sit datas ex tam rigida voluntate, quod in legibus humanis magis etiam procedit. Non nego à lege etiam humana quosdam virtutis actus posse precipi sub certo mortis periculo; ut de statione non deserendâ: sed nec temerè ea voluntas legis condentis fuisse intelligitum neque videntur homines in se, & alios tantum jus accepisse, nisi qu…tenus summa necessitas id exigat. Ferri enim leges ab hominibus solent & debent eum sensu humane imbecillitatis. Haec autem Lex de qua agimus pendere videtur à voluntate eorum, qui se primum in societatem civilem consociant, à quibus jus porro ad imperantes manat. (He meaneth that it is a contract between the Constitutors of the Policy, and not a proper Law, that must decide this case.) Hi vero si interrogarentur, an velint omnibus hoc onus imponere ut mori preoptent, quam ullo casu vim superiorum armis arcere, nescio an velle se fini responsuri, nisi forte cum hoc additamento, si resisti nequeat nisi cum maxima reipublicae perturbatione, aut exitio plurimorum inncentium. Quod enim tali circumstantia Charitas commendaret, id in legem quoque humanam deduci posse, non dubito. Dicat aliquis, rigidam illam obligationem, mortem potius ferendi, quam ullam unquam superiorem injuriam repellendi non ex lege humana sed divina proficisci, sed notandum est, primo homines non Dei praecepto, sed sponte adductos experimento infirmitatis familiarum segregum adversus violentiam, in societatem civilem coijsse, unde ortum habet potestas civilis, quam ideo humanam ordinationem Petrus vocat: (but here he is out, or dark, in his Politicks, and Exposition: Men are (ordinarily) obliged by the Law of Nature and Scripture, to Political Relations and Duties, and sin if they joyn not to some Commonwealth, when they may,) quanquam alibi & divina ordinatio vocatur, quia hominum salubre institutum Deus probavit, (This is true of the Species of Policy, and of the Individual Rulers, though not of Government in genere) Deus autem humanam legem probans, sensetur probare ut humanam, & humano modo. Barclaius, Regijimperij assertor fortissimus, huc tamen descendit ut populo, & insigni ejus parti jus concedat setuendi adversus immanem saevitiam, cum tamen ipse fateatur totum populum Regisubditum esse. Ego facile intelligo, quo pluris est id quod conversatur, eo majorem esse aequitatem, quae adversus legis verba exceptionem porrigat: attamen indiseriminatim damnere aut singulos, aut partem populi minorem, quae ultimo necessitatis praesidio s…c cl…m usa sit, ut interim & communis boni, respectum non deserat, vix ausim. Nam David, qui extra pauca facta testimonium habet vitae secundum leges exactae, armatos circa se primum quadringentos, deinde plures aliquando habuit: quò nisi ad vim arcendam si inserretur? Simile potest videri factum Mac…abaeorum.—Nihil est quod Maccabaeos tueat ur praeter summum certissimumque periculum.—Illa interim cautio tenenda est, etiam in tali periculo persone Regis pa…endum.—
Dixims summum imperium tenentibus resisti jure non p…sse: Nunc quaedam sunt quae Lectorem monere debemus, ne putet in hanc legem delinquere eos, qui revera non delinquunt.
Primum ergo, qui principes sub populo sunt, sive ab initio talem acceperunt potestatem, sive postea ita convenit, ut Lacedaemone, si pecc…nt in leges ac Rempublicā, non tantum vi repelli poss…nt, sed si opus sit, puniri morte.
2. Si Rex aut alius quis imperium abdicavit, aut manifestè haber pro derelicto, in eum post id tempus omnia licent quae in privatum—
3. Existimat Barclaius, si Rex regnum alienet, aut alii subjiciat, amitti ab eo regnum. Ego hic subsisto—si tamen Rex reipsa etiam tradere Regnum aut subjicere moliatur, quin ei resisti in hoc possit, non dubito. Aliud est enim, Imperium; aliud habendi modus, qui ne mutetur obstare potest populus (N. B.) id enim sub Imperio comprehensum non est. Quo aon male aptes illud senecae in re non dissimili: [Et si parendum in omnibus Patri, in eo non parendum quo efficitur ne Pater sit.]
4. Ait idem Barclaius, amitti Regnum si Rex vere hostili animo in totius populi exitiam feratur: quod concedo. Consistere enim simul non possunt voluntas imperandi, & voluntas perdendi. Quare qui se hostem populi totius profitetur, is eo ipso abdicat Regnum, sed vix videtur id accidere posse in Regementis compote, qui uni populo imperet: Quod si pluribus populis imperet accidere potest, ut unius populi in gratiam alterum velit, perditum, ut colonias ibi faciat.
5. Si Regnum committatur, sive ex felonia in eum cujus f…udum est, sive ex clausula posita in ipsa delatione imperii, ut si hoc aut hoc Rex faciat, subditi omni obedientia vinculo salvantur, tunc quoque Rex in privatam personam recidit.
6. Si Rex partem habeat summi Imperij, partem alteram Pop. vel Sen. Regi in partem non suam involanti vis justa opponi poterit; quia eatenus Imperium non habet: Quod locum habere censeo, etiamsi dictum sit, Belli potestatem penes Regem fore (N. B.) Id enim de bello externo intelligendum est: Cum alioqui quisquis Imperij partem habeat, non possit non jus habere eam partem tuendi. Quod ubi fit, potest Rex etiam suam Imperij partem belli jure amittere.
7. Si indelatione Imperij dictum sit, ut certo eventu resisti Regi possit, etiamsi eo pacto pars imperij retenta censeri non possit, certe retenta est aliqua Libertas naturalis, & exempta Regio imperio. Potest autem qui jus suum alienat, id jus pactis imminuere.
You see here divers Cases in which Resisting is lawfull. In general, it's lawfull for them that have part in the Soveraignty, to defend their part: and it's lawfull for the people to defend their Liberties; in points exempted from the Princes Power: (but this must be with the exceptions, limitations and Cautions, which I have before expres't.)
§. V. The Laws in England are above the King: Because they are not his Acts alone, but the Acts of King and Parliament conjunctly, who have the Legislative (that is, the Soveraign) Power. This is confessed by the King in the forecited Answer to the 19 Propositions.
§. VI. The King was to execute Judgement according to these Laws, by his Judges in his Courts of Justice: and his Parliament was his highest Court (as is said) where his personal will and word was not of sufficient Authority to suspend or cross the Judgement of the Court, except in some particular cases submitted to him.
§. VII. The peoples Rights were evidently invaded: Ship-money, and other impositions were without Law, and so without authority: The new Oath imposed by the Convocation, and the King: the ejecting and punishing Ministers for not reading the Books for Sports on the Lords Daies, for not bowing towards the Altar, for preaching Lectures, and twice on the Lords Day, with many the like, were without Law, and so without authority. If Bishops jure Ecclesiastico might have commanded them, yet could they not lay any corporal penalties or mulcts for them, nor should any man have lost his temporal livelihood or liberty, which Ecclesiasticks have no power over. Many thousands have suffered, or been forced to remove out of the Land, upon the account of illegal impositions.
§. VIII. The Parliament did Remonstrate to the Kingdom, the danger of the subversion of Religion, and Liberties, and of the common good and interest of the people, whose Trustees they were. And we were obliged to believe them both as the most competent Witnesses and Judges, and the chosen Trustees of our Liberties. We are our selves uncapable of a full discovery of such dangers till it be too late to remedy them: And therefore the constitution of the Government having made the Parliament the Trustees of our Liberties, hath made them our eyes by which we must discern our dangers. Or else they had been useless to us.
§. IX. The former proceedings afforded us so much experience as made the Parliaments Remonsirance credible. We had newly seen a general endeavour to change the face of things among us. Many new orders in the Church; abundance of the most painfull Preachers (though peaceable) cast out: Abundance of ignorant, idle, scandalous Readers kept in; and practical serious godliness made the common scorn, though found in the conformable to all the legal Orders. I will forbear to rake any further into those calamities. Only I shall say, that I suppose my Reader to have been acquainted with those times, and with the course of the High Commission, and the Bishops Courts, and to have read the Articles in Parliament against Bishop Land, Bishop Goodman, Bishop Wren, Bishop Pierce, &c. and the charge against the Judges about Ship money; and Mr. White's Centuries: and Mr. Prin's Introduction, or Works of Darkness brought to Light; and his Canterburies Tryal, and his Popish Royal Favorite, and his Romes Master piece; and especially the sworn Articles of the Spanish and French Match.
§. X. It was time for us to believe a Parliament concerning our danger and theirs, when we heard so many impious persons rage against them; and when the Army then in the North was (by the confession of the chief Officers) about to have been drawn up towards London; to what end is easie to conjecture: when so many Delinquents were engaged & enraged against them, who all took refuge with the King. And when we say the odious Irish Rebellion broke forth, and so many thousand barbarously murdered; no less (by credible testimony) then an hundred and fifty thousand murdered in the one Province of Ʋlster only: I suppose him that I dispute with to have read the Examinations by the Irish Justices, and Mr. Clarks Persecution of the Church in Ireland: else he is incompetent for the debate. If you say, What was all this to England? I Answer, We knew how great a progress the same party had made in England, and it was them that we were told by the Trustees of our safety, that we were in danger of, and the fire was too near us to be neglected; and our safety too much threatned, to be carelesly ventured in the heat of the peril; or to be wholly taken out of our Trustees hands, when thousands were thus suddenly butchered by the Papists in our own Dominions, and those Papists likely to have invaded England, when they had conquered Ireland, and their Friends were so powerfull about the Court, & through the Land, and the Parliament hated by them for opposing their attempts (the Irish professing to raise Arms for the King, to defend his Prerogative & their own Religion against our Parliament) I say, in such a time as this, we had reason to believe our entrusted Watchmen, that told us of the danger, & no reason to suffer our lives and liberties to be taken out of their Trust & wholly put into the hands of the King. We had rather of the two be put upon the inconvenience of justifying our defence, then to have been butchered by thousands, or fall into such hands as Ireland did: For then complaining would have been vain. It would not have made dead men alive, nor recovered England out of their hands, for the survivers to have accused them of perfidiousness or cruelty. It was then no time to discredit our Watchmen.
§. XI. We saw the King raise Forces against the Parliament, having forsaken them, and first sought to feize upon their Members, in a way which he confest a breach of their priviledge.
Obj. The Tumults at Westminster drove him away.
Answ. Only by displeasing him; not by endangering him, or medling with him.
Obj. The Parliament was not free by reason of them.
Answ. The Parliament knew best when they were free. If the major part had thought so, why did they not Vote against those tumults, and forbid, and bring the rude Petitioners to Justice? The disorders on both sides among the tumultuary, were unexcusable: but no just cause to cast the Nation into a Warre. A Prince may not raise War against his people, because Apprentices shew some rudeness in their behaviour.
Object. But the Parliament began the War.
Answ. For my part, I am satisfied of the contrary: but the cause dependeth not on that. And the debate is not easily managed to satisfaction on either side, because we agree not what was the beginning of the Warre. If the Apprentices tumultuous petitioning were a Warre, then it was begun long before on the other side, when the Army was to have been drawn up towards London, and by other waies; as when the King set a Guard on them against their wills, when the Lord Digby raised Forces near the City; and the King afterward in Yorkshire, the Parliament had no Army: so that if actual raising force was the beginning of the Warre, it seems he begun. But yet he saith, Their Commissions were dated before his. It may be so: (I knew nothing of that.) But Forces may be raised before they have any written Commissions. It was long before that the Lord Digby wrote to him to withdraw into a place of safety, to these ends which he pursued. If you say, that those began the War that gave the first occasion; 1. We must follow that so high as will make the discovery difficult, and the debate irksome. 2. And when we have done, no doubt (as in most fallings out) we shall find that both sides were too blame, though not equally too blame.
§. XII. All the Kings Counsellours and Souldiers were Subjects, and legally under the Power of the Parliament. They had Power to try and Subject, and judge them to punishment for their crimes. The Offendors whom they would have judged, fled from Justice to the King, and there defended themselves by force.
Object. But the Parliament would have injured them.
Answ. Who should be Judge of that, if not the Supream Court of Justice? The Laws are above the King.
Object. The Parliaments Souldiers were Subjects of the King, as well as the Kings Souldiers to the Parliament.
Answ. True: but if Subjects break the Laws, the King is to judge them by his Courts of Justice, and so the King can do no wrong.
§. XIII. If inferiour Courts of Justice may prosecute the execution of their sentences, in several cases against the Kings Will, and the Sheriff may raise the Power of the County to assist that execution, much more may the Highest Court do thus: But the Antecedent is commonly acknowledged to be true: Therefore.
§. XIV. The Parliament did not raise War against the Person or Authority of the King; nor did I ever serve them on any such account: But their cause was, 1. To defend themselves and the Commonwealth from evil Subjects, that flying from Justice, had made up an Army by the Kings consent. 2. To bring Offenders to a Legal Trial. 3. And consequently to Defend themselves against the Kings misguided Will. So that their War was directly against Subjects, but remotely against the Will of the King, but not against his Authority or Person. And Subjects cease not to be Subjects, when they get into an Army, and procure his consent to their illegal enterprise. Unless every one of his Souldiers was a King, or some of them at least, I know not that I ever fought against the King. Nor really do I believe that every man is against him, that is against a Subject that hath His Commission, when by the Law which is above the Will and Commission of the King, he is a Subject still, and answerable for his offences.
That it was Subjects that the War was raised against, and not the King, appeareth, 1. In all the Parliaments Declarations of their Cause (though his misdoings they alledge as the occasion of their necessity.) 2. In their Commissions to their Souldiers. All that ever I saw were for King and Parliament: Yea it was the common word of their Souldiers, if they were asked, Who they were for? to say [For King and Parliament.] 3. We had two Protestations, and a Solemne League and Covenant imposed on the Nation, to be for King and Parliament. And if Declarations, Professions, Commissions, and National Oaths and Covenants will not tell us, what the Cause of the War was, then there is no discovery. I refer the Reader that would know the Parliaments Cause, to their Remonstrance of the state of the Kingdom; and A Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, setting forth the Grounds and Reasons, that necessitate them at this time to take up Defensive Armes, for the Preservation of his Majesties Person, the maintenance of the true Religion, the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdome, and the Power and Priviledges of Parliament. August 3. 1642.] These fully tell you the Parliaments Cause, being their profession of it.
§. XV. When the Parliament commanded us to obey them, and not Resist them, I knew not how to Resist and disobey them, without violation of the Command of God, Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the Higher Power, &c. And without incurring the danger of the Condemnation there threatned to Resisters. I think none doubts but that Command obliged Christians to obey the Senate as well as the Emperour. When it was confessed by the King, that the Legislative Power was in the three Estates conjunct, and the State was Mixt, and conseqently that the Parliament had a part in the Soveraignty, I thought it Treason to Resist them, as the Enemy did, apparently in order to their subversion, and unlawfull to disobey their just Commands, such as I thought these were.
§. XVI. When the Subjects were in doubt of the sense of the Law, (into which most of the Controversie was resolved) I took the Parliament to be the Highest Interpreter of Lawes that was then existent in the Division. And therefore that it was Law to us, which they declared to be Law, so it were not directly and clearly against our own Knowledge, or against that truth which in our callings we might well attain the Knowledge of. I knew no higher Judge of the Law then to appeal to. If in case of Ship-money the Judges of inferiour Courts did satisfie the King, then in case of the safety or danger of the Commonwealth, I thought the Judgment of the highest Court should satisfie me.
§. XVII. I had great reason to believe, that if the King had conquered a Parliament, The Nation had lost all security of their Liberties, and been at his Mercy, and not only under his Government: and that Warre is an act of Hostility: and that if he had conquered them by such persons as he then imployed, it had not been in his power to have preserved the Commonwealth if he would: His impious and popish Armies would have ruled him, and used him as other Armies have done those that entrusted them. And therefore when Ireland was so used before our eyes, and the Papists there so strong, and the Queens, and the Earl of New-castles forces (besides others) so many of them Papists, and the common Souldiers of the King were commonly known, where ever they came, by horrid Oaths and Curses, being called Damn-me's, because [God damn me] was their common word, and when a man was used by them as a Traitor, that was but noted for a Puritane, or was heard to read the Scripture, or to sing a Psalm in his Family; I say, when these were they that were imployed to conquer us, I knew that the safety of the Commonwealth lay in resisting them, and that they could have conquered the King, when they had conquered us.
§. XVIII. I had sufficient ground from what is cited before from Grotius (and more such like) to conclude that the Parliament having a part in the Soveraignty, might defend their part against any that invaded it: and exercise it upon any Subject. And that their part was invaded, the fore-mentioned evidences, with what is in their Remonstrances shew: And the very intermission and almost extinction of Parliaments sheweth it yet more. The King was entrusted with the Calling of Parliaments, on supposition that called they must be: The seasonableness which he was entrusted with, was but a circumstance; and if under pretence of seasonable calling them, he will call none, or to no purpose, or break them up before they can do the work to which they were appointed, this is but to betray the trust of the Commonwealth. Parliaments by Law were to be held yearly, and say some, before the Conquest twice a year. See An. 36. E. 3, & 4. E. 3. Et inter leges Edgar. cap. 5. Cook Institut. part 4. p. 7. (Of their Honour and Antiquity, see Mr. Bacon and Pryn, and Cook Instit. Part 1. Sect. 164. & Praefat. lib. 9. Of Reports, fol. 1. 2, 3, 4, &c. & 7. H. 6.) They that trusted the King to call a Parliament, thereby expressed that they were to be called, & it was not in his power to extinguish them, by not calling them.
§. XIX. I knew, that as the Parliament was the Representative Body of the People of the Commonwealth, who are the subject of the Common Good, so that the Common Good is the Essential End of Government, and therefore that it cannot be a just War that by their King is made against them (except in the fore-excepted Cases: And that the end being more excellent than the means, is to be preserved by us, and no means to stand in competition with the End. And therefore if I had known that the Parliament had been the beginners, and in most fault, yet the ruine of our Trustees and Representatives, and so of all the Security of the Nation, is a punishment greater, than any fault of theirs against a King can from him deserve; and that their faults cannot disoblige me from defending the Commonwealth. I owned not all that ever they did; but I took it to be my duty to look to the main end. And I knew that the King had all his Power for the Common Good, and therefore had none against it; and therefore that no Cause can warrant him to make the Commonwealth the party, which he shall exercise Hostility against. And that War against the Parliament (especially by such an Army, in such a Cause) is Hostility against them, and so against the Commonwealth; all this seemed plain to me. And especially when I knew how things went before, and who were the Agents, and how they were minded, and what were their purposes against the people.
§. XX. When I found so many things Conjunct, as two of the three Estates against the Will of the King alone; the Kingdoms Representative and Trustees assaulted in the guarding of our Liberties, and the highest Court defending themselves against offending Subjects, and seeking to bring them to a Legal Tryal, and the Kingdoms safety, and the Common Good involved in their Cause (which may be more fully manifested, but that I would not stir too much in the evils of times past.) All these, and many more concurring, perswaded me, that it was sinfull to be Neutrals, and Treacherous to be against the Parliament in that Cause. These were my apprehensions, and on such grounds as these here briefly hinted. And it somewhat moved me to see what the Parties on both sides were, of whom I will now say no more, but that it were a wonder if so many humble honest Christians, fearfull of sinning, and praying for direction, should be all mistaken in so weighty a case, and so many Dam me's all in the right. But yet this was not the Rule I went by, but some Motive on the by.
So that the Cause of the Parliament which they engaged us to defend, 1. Was not the Sovereign Power of the People, as above the King, and the Original of Authority; as if the State of the Commonwealth had been Democratical. 2. Nor was it to procure a change of the Constitution, and to take down Royaltie, and the House of Lords, but clean contrary, it was the Defence of the old Constitution against the changes which they affirmed were attempted. 3. Nor was it the altering of Laws, which is not to be done by force, but freely by the Law-givers. And therefore it was not to procure a cessation of the Magistrates Power in Religion, for encouraging well-doers, and restraining intollerable Deceivers, which some call Liberty of Conscience. 4. Nor was it to offer any violence to the Person of the King; but to rescue him from them that had seduced him into a War against his Parliament, to his peril. These were the Grounds that we were engaged on, and I knew no other.
And therefore whereas some Pamphlets now flie abroad, that would defame the Parliament and their Adherents, as having engaged in a Treasonable Cause, and make that Cause to have been, 1. The Changing of the Government into Popular. 2. Or the Defence of it as Popular already, as if the People had been the Sovereign Power. 3. The deposing or destroying of the King. 4. The vindicating of an illegal or unlimited exemption from the Magistrates Power in matters of Religion, which they call, Religious Liberty; these need no further confutation then the reading of the Parliaments Remonstrance and Declaration aforesaid, and the rest of their published Professions, and Oaths, and Covenants. The clean contrary to these they openly professed: As, 1. That King, Lords and Commons in Parliament were the Legislators, and so had highest power. 2. That it was the Peoples Proprieties and Liberties, (and not their personal Sovereignty) that they defended. 3. That it was the Defence and not the destruction of the Laws that they endeavoured. And, 4. That it was former connivance at Popery that they were offended at, and not a Liberty for Popery that they fought for; and that Heresie and Popery were Covenanted against by them, is well known; though the Liberty of Truth and Godliness they defended. And, 5. That they intended no hurt, but preservation to the King. This was their professed Cause.
I know Grotius in the fore-cited passages goeth higher, That a King may lose his own part in the Sovereignty in a War, in which he invadeth the part of those that had a share with him: And I know that he concludeth that Hostility is inconsistent with Government; and that other Learned Politicians conclude, That if a King will make himself the Enemy of the People, and engage in War against them; he deposeth himself, and may be used by them as an Enemy. But these things belong not to the Old Cause of the Parliament; nor, for my own part, have I ever interessed my self in any such Cause, and therefore am not to be accountable for it. Every man must answer for himself. It is only that Old Cause that I have been engaged in. And many things that since have been done, my soul lamenteth and disclaimeth.
Yet must I add, That though I own not all the ways of men, that have had a hand in our Changes, 1. I am confident that these that have been cast down, had great cause to acknowledge the Justice of God against them, especially for their encouraging the scorn of Holiness through the Land, and the persecution of multitudes fearing God, which the righteous God would not put up.
2. That I am bound to submit to the present Government, as set over us by God, and to obey for Conscience sake, and to behave my self as a Loyal Subject towards them. For, 1. A full and free Parliament hath owned it, and so there is notoriously the Consent of the People, which is the evidence that former Princes had to justifie their best Titles. They that plead Inheritance and Law, must fetch the original from Consent (Though, as I have shewed before, that Consent doth but specifie, and then design the Persons, on whom God himself doth confer the Power.)
When Grotius questioneth even invasores Imperii (De Jure belli. lib. 1. pag. 91.) he excepteth from any Question the Case, 1. Postquam long a possessione. 2. Aut Pacto, jus nactus est invasor; and even of others, he acknowledgeth some obligation to obey them. And ib. cap. 4. pag. 93. §. 20. he giveth that safe and general Rule, which such as I that are private men, and not made Judges of the controvertible Title of Princes must be guided by, and which Paul commended, it seemeth to the Christians in his times, yea and before him, Christ himself [Maxime autem in re controversà judicium sibi privatus sumere non debet, sed p…ss…ssionem sequi, sic tributum solvi Caesari Christus juvebat (Mat. 22. 20.) quia ejus imaginem nummus praeferebat, id est, quia in Possessione erat Imperii.] That is, Especially in a contr…verted matter, a private man ought not to become a Judge, but to follow Possession. So Christ commandeth that Tribute be paid to Caefar, because the Money had his Image, that is, because he was in possession of the Government.]
I have made this Confession to the world of my former actions, and the reason of them, 1. At once to satisfie the Many that demand satisfaction. 2. That if I have erred, I may not die without Repentance, but may be recovered by their advice.
And therefore I will further confess how I stand affected to these actions in the review, 1. The experiences of War, and the evils that attend and follow it, hath made me hate it incomparably more than I did before I tried or knew it: and the name of Peace, much more the Thing, is now exceeding amiable to me. 2. I unfeignedly believe that both Parties were too blame in the late Wars: The one Party in the things forementioned: and the other in too impatient undergoings Se… the Life of Mr. Herbert Palmer in Clarks Martyrology, pag. 438. about the Kings Death.the Prelates persecutions, and some in too peevish scrupling and quarrelling, where there was no cause, or not so much as was pretended. But who can be free from some causle…s scruples, that hath any Faith of his own, and is not careless of his soul. 3. I think that all of us did rush too eagerly into the heat of Divisions and War, and none of us did so much as we should have done to prevent it: And, though I was in no capacity to have done much, yet I unfeignedly Repent that I did no more for Peace in my place, then I did, and that I did not pray more hearti…y against Contention and War before it came, and spake no more against it than I did; and that I spoke so much to blow the Coals. For this I daily beg forgiveness of the Lord, through the precious blood of the great Reconciler. 4. The hatred of Strife and War, and love of Peace, and observation of the lamentable miscarriages since, have called me oft to search my heart, and try my ways by the Word of God, Whether I did lawfully engage in that War or not? (which I was confident then was the greatest outward service that ever I performed to God:) And whether I lawfully encouraged so many thousands to it? And the issue of all my search is this, and never was any other but this, 1. The case of blood being a thing so dreadfull, and some wise and good men being against me, and many of their Arguments being plausible, and my understanding being weak, I shall continue with self-suspition to search, and be glad of any information that may convince me, if I have been mistaken; and I make it my daily earnest prayer to God, that he will not suffer me to live or die impenitently, or without the discovery of my sin, if I have sinned in this matter: And could I be convinced of it, I would as gladly make a publick Recantation, as I would eat or drink: And I think I can say, that I am truly willing to know the truth.
2. But yet I cannot see that I was mistaken in the main Cause, nor dare I repent of it, nor forbear the same, if it were to do again in the same slate of things. I should do all I could to prevent such a War; but if it could not be prevented, I must take the same side as then I did. And my judgement tells me, That if I should do otherwise I should be guilty of Treason or Disloyaltie against the Sovereign Power of the Land, and of perfidiousness to the Commonwealth, and of preferring offending Subjects before the Laws and Justice, and the Will of the King above that safety of the Commonwealth, and consequently above his own welfare; and that I should be guilty of giving up the Land to blood (as Ireland was) or too much worse, under pretence of avoiding blood, in a necessary defence of all that is dear to us.
And it were too great folly, by following accidents, that were then unknown, for me to judge of the former Cause. That which is calamitous in the event, is not alway sinfull in the enterprise. Should the change of times make me forget the state that we were formerly in, and change my judgement by losing the sense of what then conduced to its information, this folly and forgetfulness would be the way to a sinfull. and not to an obedient Repentance. Nor can I be so unthankfull as to say, for all the sinnes and miscarriages of men since, that we have not received much mercy from the Lord: When Godliness was the common scorn, the prejudice and shame most lamentably prevailed to keep men from it, and so encouraged them in wickedness: But through the great mercy of God, many thousands have been converted to a holy upright life, proportionably more than were before, since the reproach did cease, and the prejudice was removed, and faithfull Preachers took the places of scandalous ones, or ignorant Readers. When I look upon the place where I live, and see that the Families of the ungodly, are here one, and there one in a Street, as the Families of the godly were heretofore (though my own endeavours have been too weak and cold) it forceth me to set up the Stone of Remembrance, and to say, [HITHERTO HATH THE LORD HELPED ƲS.]
And now I must say (to prevent the Cavills of malicious Readers,) That though I have here laid down the Grounds upon which I think my E…gagement in the late War to have been justifiable, yet I intend not that every one of these distinctly, is a sufficient Medium to inferre the Conclusion: But all together shew you on what Grounds I shall proceed with any man that will ingenuously dispute the Point. I must profess, that if I had taken up Arms against the Parliament in that Warre, my Conscience tells me I had been a Traitor, and guilty of Resisting the Highest Powers. And such Writings, as the (pretended) French Discovery of the Scotch and English Presbyterie, abound with so much Ignorance of our Cause, or Serpentine malice, that they are much uncapable of changing mens judgements that know their vanity. But the Reading of such Books doth make me lament the misery of the World, through the partiality of Historians: This Book, and Sanderson's History, and many more that I have lately seen, upon my knowledge do abound with falshoods, and delusory omissions, and are (in my judgement) as unfit to give Posterity a true Information of our late affairs, as the Alcoran is to tell them the right way to Heaven. I know I shall highly offend the Authors with saying so; but not so much as they offend God and wrong Posteritie by their falshoods. The foresaid (pretended) French Anti-Presbyterian, takes it for granted, that the total Sovereignty was in the King, and upon that, and many such false suppositions, he makes the Presbyterians the odiousest Traitors under Heaven; So that I do not wonder that Forreign Nations do spit at the very name of an English Protestant, as at the name of the Devil: And that Papists make their Ideots believe, That the Protestants in England are run stark mad, and turn'd such Rebels as can never more for shame upbraid them with their Laterane Decrees, their Powder-plot, or their murdering of Kings: And what have those Protestants to answer for, that by odious lies do feed these reproaches of the ways of truth, and of the innocent servants of the Lord? Yea the said (English) French Calumniator, most palpably contradicteth himself, and telleth all the world that he lieth: When he hath charged the Presbyterians with Hypocrisie and Treachery in their Oaths and Covenants for the safety of the King, the Priviledges of Parliament, &c. he proves by the breach of those Covenants, that they were false in making them: And yet confesseth, that it was other men that broke them, and pull'd them down, to enable them thereto. Our only comfort is, That malice and lying shall not carry it at last, nor pass the final sentence on us.
If any of them can prove, that I was guilty of hurt to the Person, or destruction of the power of the King, or of changing the Fundamental Constitution of the Commonwealth, taking down the House of Lords, without Consent of all Three Estates that had a part in the Sovereignty; or that I violated the Priviledges of Parliament by imprisoning or excluding the Members, and invaded the Liberties of the People, I will never gainsay them, if they call me a most perfidious Rebel, and tell me that I am guilty of far greater sin than Murder, Whoredom, Drunkenness, or such like. Or if they can solidly confute my Grounds, I will thank them, and confess my sin to all the world. But malicious railings of them I take for Rebellions themselves, I shall not regard.
April 25. 1659.
When I had gone thus far, and was about to proceed a little further, the sudden News of the Armies Representation, and of the dissolving of the Parliament, and of the displeasure against my Book against Popery, called, A Key for Catholicks, and some other passages, interrupted me, and cast me upon these MEDITATIONS and LAMENTATIONS following.