« VorigeDoorgaan »
making or not making of any law; but to take that for just and good legally, which is there decreed, and to fee it executed accordingly. Nor was he fet over us to vie wisdom with his parliament, but to be guided by them; any of whom possibly may as far excel him in the gift of wisdom, as he them in place and dignity. But much nearer is it to impoffibility, that any king alone should be wiler than all his council; fure enough it was not he, though no king ever before him so much contended to have it thought so. And if the parliament to thought not, but defired him to follow their advice and deliberation in things of public concerninent, he accounts it the same propofition, as if Sampton had been moved “ to the putting out his eyes, that the Philistines might, abule him.” And thus out of an unwile or pretended fear, left others thould make a scorn of him for yielding to his parliament, he regards not to give cause of worse fulpicion, that he made a scorn of his regal oath.
But “ to exclude him from all power of denial seems an arrogance;" in the parliament he means : what in him then to deny against the parliament? None at all, by what he argues : for “ by petitioning, they confess their inferiority, and that obliges them to reft, if not latisfied; yet quieted with such an antier as the will and realon of their fuperior thinks fit to give.” First, pea titioning, in better Englith, is no more than requesting or requiring; and inen require not favours only, but their due; and that not only from fuperiors, but from equals, and inferiors also. The noblest Romans, when they stood for that which was a kind of regal honour, the confulship, were wont in a submissive manner to go about, and beg that highesi dignity of the meanest plebeians, naming them man by man; which in their tongue was called petitio confulatus. And the parliament of England petitioned the king, not because all of them were inferior to him, but becaute he was inferior to any one of them, which they did of civil custom, and for fashion's fake, more than of duty; for by plain law cited before, the parliament is his fuperior.
But what law in any trial or dispute enjoins a freeman to rest quieted, though not fatisfied with the will and
reason of his fuperior? It were a mad law that would subject reason to superiority of place. And if our highest consultations and purpofed laws must be terminated by the king's will, then is the will of one man our law, and no fubtlety of dispute can redeem the parliament and nation from being flaves : neither can any tyrant require more than that his will or reason, though not fatisfying, should yet be rested in, and determine all things. We may conclude therefore, that when the parliament petitioned the king, it was but merely form, let it be as “ foolish and absurd” as he pleates. It cannot certainly be fo absurd as what he requires, that the parliament should confine their own and all the kingdom's reason to the will of one man, because it was his hap to succeed his father. For neither God nor the laws have subjected us to his will, nor fet his reason to be our sovereign above law (which must needs be, if he can strangle it in the birth) but fet his person over us in the sovereign execution of such laws as the parliament establish. The parliament therefore, without any ufurpation, hath had it always in their power to limit and confine the exorbitancy of kings, .whether they call it their will, their reason, or their conscience.
But this above all was never expected, nor is to be endured, that a king, who is bound by law and oath to follow the advice of his parliament, should be permitted to except against them as “ young statesmen," and proudly to fufpend his following their advice, “ until his seven years experience had shown him how well they could govern themselves.” Doubtless the law never supposed to great an arrogance could be in one man; that he whole seventeen years unexperience had almost ruined all, thould sit another seven years schoolmaster to tutor those who were sent by the whole realm to be his counsellors and teachers. And with what modesty can he pretend to be a statesman himself, who with his father's king-craft and his own, did never that of his own accord, which was not directly opposite to his professed interest both at home and abroad; discontenting and alienating his subjects at home, weakening and deferting his confederates abroad, and with them the common
cause of religion ; fo that the whole course of his reign, by an example of his own furnishing, hath resembled Phaeton more than Phoebus, and forced the parliament to drive like Jehu ; which omen taken from his own mouth, God hath not diverted?
And he on the other side might have remembered, that the parliament fit in that body, not as his subjects, but as his fuperiors, called, not by him, but by the law; not only twice every year, but as oft as great affairs require, to be his counsellors and dictators, though he stomach it; nor to be diffolved at his pleasure, but when all grievances be first removed, all petitions heard and answered. This is not only reason, but the known law of the land.
“ When he heard that propofitions would be sent him," he fat conjecturing what they would propound; and because they propounded what he expected not, he takes that to be a warrant for his denying them. But what did he expect? He expected that the parliament would reinforce “ some old laws." But if those laws were not a sufficient remedy to all grievances, nay were found to be grievances themselves, when did we lose that other part of our freedom to establish new ? He thought “ fome injuries done by himself and others to the commonwealth were to be repaired.” But how could that be, while he the chief offender took upon him to be fole judge both of the injury and the reparation ? “ He staid till the advantages of his crown considered, might induce him to condescend to the people's good.” When as the crown itlelf with all those advantages were therefore given him, that the people's good thould be first confidered; not bargained for, and bought by inches with the bribe of more offertures and advantages to his crown. He looked “ for moderate desires of due reformation;" as if any such defires could be iminoderate. He looked for such a reformation “ both in church and state, as might preserve the roots of every grievance and abuse in both still growing (which he calls “ the foundation and effentials”) and would have only the excrescences of evil pruned away for the present, as was plotted before, that they might grow fast enough between triennial parliaments, to hinder them by work enough besides from
ever ever striking at the root. He alleges, “ They should have had regard to the laws in force, to the wisdom and piety of former parliaments, to the ancient and universal practice of christian churches.” As if they who come with full authority to redress public grievances, which ofttimes are laws themselves, were to have their hands bound by laws in force, or the fuppofition of more piety and wisdom in their ancestors, or the practice of churches heretofore; whole fathers, notwithltanding all these pretences, made as vast alterations to free themselves from ancient popery. For all antiquity that adds or varies from the scripture, is no more warranted to our safe imitation, than what was done the age before at Trent. Nor was there need to have despaired of what could be established in lieu of what was to be annulled, having before his eyes the government of so many churches beyond the seas; whole pregnant and solid reasons wrought fo with the parliament, as to desire a uniformity rather with all other protestants, than to be a schism divided from them under a conclave of thirty bithops, and a crew of irreligious priests that gaped for the same preferment.
And whereas he blames those propofitions for not containing what they ought, what did they mention, but to vindicate and restore the rights of parliament invaded by cabin councils, the courts of justice obstructed, and the government of the church innovated and corrupted ? All these things he might easily have observed in them, which he affirms he could not find; but found “ thote demanding” in parliament, who were “ looked upon before as factious in the state, and fchifmatical in the church ; and demanding not only toleration for themselves in their vanity, novelty, and confusion, but alto an extirpation of that government, whose rights they had a mind to invade.” Was this man ever likely to be advifid, who with fuch a prejudice and difefteem fets himself against his cholen and appointed counsellors ? likely ever to admit of reformation, who censures all the government of other protettant churches, as bad as any papist could have centured them? And what king had ever his wholu kingdom in such contempt, fo to wrong
and dishonour the free elections of his people, as to judge them, whom the nation thought worthiest to fit with him in parliament, few elfe but such as were “ punishable by the laws?” yet knowing that time was, when to be a protestant, to be a christian, was by law as punithable as to be a traitor; and that our Saviour himself, coming to reform his church, was accused of an intent to invade Cæfar's right, as good a right as the prelate bishops ever had ; the one being got by force, the other by spiritual usurpation; and both by force upheld.
He admires and falls into an extafy, that the parliament should send him such a “horrid proposition,” as the removal of episcopacy. But expect from him in an extaly no other reasons of his admiration than the dream and tautology of what he hath fo often repeated, law, antiquity, ancestors, prosperity, and the like, which will be therefore not worth a second answer, but may pafs with his own comparison into the common fewer of other popith arguments.
"Had the two houses sued out their livery from the wardship of tumults,” he could fooner have believed them. It concerned the first to sue out their livery from the unjust wardthip of his encroaching prerogative. And had he also redeemed his overdated minority from a pupilage under bishops, he would much less have miltrusted his parliament; and never would have fet so bafe a character upon them, as to count them no better than the vassals of certain nameless men, whom he charges to be such as “ hunt after faction with their hounds the tumults.” And yet the bishops could have told him, that Nimrod, the firit that hunted after faction, is reputed by ancient tradition the first that founded monarchy; whence it appears, that to hunt after faction is more properly the king's game; and thote hounds, which he calls the vulgar, have been often hallooed to from court, of whom the mongrel fort have been enticed; the rest have not loft their scent, but understood aright, that the parliament had that part to act, which he had failed in ; that truft to discharge, which he had broken ; that estate and honour to preserve, which was far beyond his, the