Might Overcoming Right, Chapter 3
CHAP. 3.
Sect. 1.
[Mr. Goodwin proceedes to a third Objection, from the Covenant, he might have added the Proteſtation made May, the 5. 1641. which was taken more generally from which I preſent the argument, thus formed.
EVery act contrary to any one, or more ſolemne ingagements made to God is lawfull, and impious: the Act of the Army ſeizing the members of Parliament, is contrary to one, or more ſolemne ingagements made to God. Therefore that act was unlawfull and impious; The Minor is cleare, for in the proteſtation May, 1641. This is one clauſe to defend their power, and priviledge of Parliament. Now what more unqueſtionable priviledge of Parliament then this, to have free a cceſſe to the Houſe, and there to vote according to their conſciences?pag. 27.
Mr. Goodwin anſwer, ["That it is no priviledge of Parliament to act in oppoſition, to the benefit of the Kingdome. True, but when the quſtion is, what is for the benefit of the Kingdome; it is part of the power of Parliaments (which is one thing which you have proteſted to maintaine) to be the finall Judges, elſe broyles and confuſion muſt follow; for they ſhall ſtand bound, (together with all of their Judgement,) to maintaine, what they judge ſo conducible for the Kingdomes wealth, and if their Judgements be not determining, others may thinke themſelves bound by force to oppoſe them, and what can be expected from this, but perpetuall broyles?
But he anſwers further, to a ſuppoſed reply ["That this is a priviledge of Parliament for the Members to be free from queſtion without the conſent of the Houſe; True ſaith he, when a Parliament is taken in a proper ſignification, noting out a company of men not dead to truſt; But if theſe be dead to truſt, then they are not properly a Parliament; As he is not a Jewe that is one outwardly, &c. But who ſhall Judge them dead to truſt? They are not to be Judged, authoritatively by private perſons, none ſuch can pronouce them dead; neither have they in what they are accuſed, given evidence to be dead to truſt, but faithfull as I have ſhewed; Againe He that was onelyonly a Jew outwardly, was not to be denied the outward priviledge of a Jew, by man. Though in Gods account he was no Jew, that is not holy to, & accepted of God, therefore not onelyonly is the inſinuation againſt the Parliament men, falſe, but if it were true, the Army hath no authority to pronounce them ſo, ſo nor to deale with them as ſuch; Is not the Parliament the Supreame Iudicature, againſt which lies no writ of errour, or appeale but to God? So it ſtands good that their act was againſt their Oath.
But ſecondly he ſaith, ["That if ſuch a number of men be a Parliament, p. 28though dead to truſt, &c. he knowes no priviledge of Parliament due to them, no more then a dread man hath the priviledges of a man; and this he ſets off with many flouriſhes, wherein he keepes this old artifice to play upon a plauſible ſtring, to pleaſe his party, that agree with him in the ſuppoſition that thoſe Parliament men are dead to truſt; whereas that ſuppoſition is apparantly falſe and ſcandalous. But his flouriſhes are but Sophiſticall neither, for a dead thing hath no priviledge, as it is dead, but if it be dead in one ſelfe, and alive in another, it may have priviledge in one ſelfe, … have none in another; as the carnall ſeed of Abraham … …ewes to men, and ſo had their outward priviledges, but not ſo reputed, of God and ſo had no ſpirituall priviledges: ſo a degenerate Parliament is dead indeed to God, who is above it, to judge it, it hath no honour with, nor ſhall have any reward from God. But it is not dead to men, ſo far as to reſiſt it; for they have no authority to judge it or reſiſt it: but it is only ſo far dead to private men, that they are not to give life to the dead acts of it. If the Army had ſaid the Parliament is dead, we will not uphold it in dead wayes, the charge being true, it had beene noble to have laid downe their Commiſſion, and not have ſupported them: but to reſiſt was out of their ſphere; Let me aske this man what he would have ſaid of Saul, when the ſpirit of the Lord departed from him, and an evill ſpirit ſeized on him, 1 Sam. 16.14. Was he dead to truſt or no? And yet you ſee David was as obſervant and tender of him, as though he had beene good aſwell as great. Theſe diſtinctions therefore be fig-leaves, and truly I thinke ſuch deluſions that men otherwais quickſighted, uſe to be left to for their want of integrity to truth.
Sect. 2.
But Maſter Goodwin adds, that though the Army had ſtood, p 29.…0.31.bound to the priviledges of Parliament, yet they ſtood bound alſo to maintain the liberties of the Kingdom against all impediments whatſoever, and what they are not able themſelves to ſuppreſſe &c. And the liberties of the Kingdom he endeavours to prove to be greater then of the Parliament, and in oppoſition of lawes or priviledges, he greater is to take place &c. But firſt here is ſuppoſed a Bull, that the liberties of a people and a Parliament of the ſame people, may be inconſiſtent, whereas it can be no true priviledge on the one ſide, but pretended, if they puſh oue another. Secondly he muſt remember the limitation in the Covenant, that every one is to act in the performance of it according to their callings; that is not onelyonly the Souldier as a Souldier, the Miniſter as a Miniſter, but the private man as a private man: ſo that a private man is not to act in a juridicall way, by vertue of his Covenant, but according to Law or Commiſſion from men in authority; and therefore the Covenant bound not them in reference to the Kingdom to act juridically in committing the Parliament men. Again, though the liberties of the Kingdom be in ſome ſence more then the liberties of the Parliament, yet the priviledges of Parliament are firſt put, and the bond of it takes hold there; therefore by what is ſpoken afterwards, the true priviledges of Parliament cannot be prejudic'd. And indeed there is nothing wherein the priviledges of the Kingdom are more concerned then in the liberties of the Parliament: And there is greater probability of the land being watered with blood, by the way that the Army are in, then by that way of accommodation that the Parliament men were in: and therefore it is but their fancy, that the liberties of the nation are in danger; nay, that particular miſcheif is not eligible, before this inconvenience of giving the inferiours liberty upon their own private conceits to reſiſt and diſturb the ſupreame Indicature of a Common-Wealth.
Sect. 3.
But he adds thirdly;p. 31. If there had been no clauſe in the oathes for the liberties of the Subjoct, yet had the Army more then warrant ſufficient to ſtand up for them with out any breach of Covenant; for men ſtand bound by the Law of nature againſt all other obligation whatſoever. Now there is no Law of nature that ſpeaks more plainely then this, that the ſtrong ought to stand by the weake in caſes of extremity. Formerly you made exceptions in the caſes of extremity, that a man may not lye, forſweare himſelfe &c. Now all bonds muſt give way to the Law of neceſſity, nor only word bur oath, oportet eſſe memorem. Againe, I would know of him, if the Sheriffe differ in judgement from the Iudge when a caſe is argued,pag. 21. and the Sheriffe thinks might overcomes right, and that if the Iudge proceed, he undoes or deſtroyes a poore man and his family, Is the Sheriffe having power bound to pluck the Iudge off the Bench, or keep him from the Bench rather then ſuffer him to paſſe (in his conceit) an unjuſt ſentence tending to extremity? For what hee adds touching the intention of the Covenant makers and Covenant takers, I referre me to his conſcience, whether though they did not intend the Covenant to binde to things againſt the Law of nature, yet that they intended, that they themſelves ſhould be ultimate judges what was for the publique weale of the Kingdom, and ſo not againſt the Law of nature; what not? and you know the old rule, quacunque arte verborum quis jurat &c. whatſoever art of words are uſed in the oath, the oath is to be interpreted according to his ſenſe that gives it, not his that takes it.
But next he tels us, that this act of the Army in the diſſociation of the Parliament, doth not give the leaſt colour or ſhadows to the act of the Kings breaking into their Houſe, and demanding which and how many of their Members he pleaſed to be ſacraficed upon the ſor…ice of his will.
But I anſwer 1. The act of the King is falſely and uncharitably, that I ſay not maliciouſly repreſented by him; for the King did not break into the Houſe of Commons as he mouthes it, but had admiſſion there, which of right he may claime in either Houſe of Parliament upon occaſion; nor did he demand the Members to be ſacrificed to his owne will: his words were fayrer to have them legally tryed, touching ſome things which he had to lay to their charge; what was in his heart you know not. Now compare the act of the Army to this of the King, and ſee whether there be not only ſome colour, but according to our Engliſh Proverbe, whether they have not made the King a Saint? 1. The King demanded but five of the Commons Members; they impriſoned above forty, and ſecluded as they ſay, above an hundred; Secondly the King took none out nor can any man tell what he would have done, had they been there, reaſon might have qualified him. They did not onelyonly violently inhibit many, but as I am informed by Maſter Stevens himſelfe, he and Collonell Birch were puld out of the Houſe. Thirdly the King was the ſupream Magiſtrate, they clothed with no authority. Fourthly the King pretended a legall tryall, they have no legall objection againſt them. Fifthly The King confeſſeth Parliaments ſhould be free,Collect. … Declar. p. 37. and one of his objections againſt the five members of Parliament, was that by tumults they hindered the freedome of Parliament, and you affirme tumultuous ingagements have as much hindered freedom of Parliament this two years,Article … as the forcible act of the Army. Sixthly the King was eaſily reduc'd from his errour, and relinquiſht it, and aſſured them of tenderneſſe of priviledge for future; you avow the Armies act, and they perſiſt in their ſoree. Now who is the greater tranſgreſſour thus far? Neither did the King (as you ſay) look upon the accuſed Members as the greateſt Patrons of the Kingdoms intereſt, but under the notion of ſuch as fought to alter the well tempered government of it; as he erred in his apprehenſions, ſo doe you now in your conceits of the Parliament men reſtrayned. Nor was the pretence of the King, 'to advance the wil and power of one againſt the peace and comfort of many, but to preſerve the government as it ſtood free from alteration, which was in the judgement of any unintereſſed farre more for the benefit of this Nation, then the new modell of your fancy (wittily by Sedgewick termed All breech) which if it take, will make us a baſe, and in all likelihood ere long a broken Kingdom. But if the King under faire pretences did intend, as you hint, tyranny, may it not as well be objected to you that you intend Oligarchy? It's therefore cleer as the light, tha… as the King did ill, the Army did worſe; and the Declaration of that Houſe againſt the Kings act, doth militate as ſtrongly againſt the act of the Army, which declares the arreſting of any Member of Parliament without a legall proceeding and conſent of that Houſe whereof he is a Member, a breach of previledge; C…ll. of Remonſt. Decla. &c. pag. 39.and the preſon that ſhall arrest any ſuch Member, is declared an enemye of State.