Quaerie 1.

Monarchicall, that is govern­ment [...] one which is a King. Aristocraticall, that is govern­ment by a few of the best, No­bles. Origarchicall, that is, govern­ment by a few of the most wealthy and powerfull. VVHether the government of this Kingdome, ( which hath ever been Monarchicall) since His Majesties departure from the two Houses, hath been Aristocraticall, or Oligarchicall?

Resol. In the resolving of this Quaerie it is observa­ble, that the matter doubted, is the ordering, and man­nagement of the affairs of this Kingdome, by the two Houses at Westminster, within a certain time, which is, from His Majesties departure from them, unto this pre­sent; wherein the shaken and tottered condition of our distressed Nation, hath wrested out a straine, very im­proper, thereby seeming to take it for granted, that the exercise of the two Houses, over this Kingdome, since His Graces departure from them, hath beene a govern­ment, which will not beare water for these reasons.

Reasons why the usurpation of the [...] cannot [...] be a Government.1 No Common-wealth may be said to be governed, but by lawfull Authority, which lawfull Authority, where there are established Lawes and Sanctions, doe uphold and maintaine 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 certaine, that they have no authority for their over-swaying of this King­dome since his Majesties departure.

2 In this Kingdome, where there are established Lowes and Sanction; that cannot be said to be go­vernment, but what is in conformity and obedience [Page 2]unto the said established Lawes, and Sanctions; there­fore their managing of the affaires of this Kingdome, contrary and in opposition unto the Lawes of our Na­tion, by an arbitrary and tyrannicall power, must needs conclude their usurpation to be no Government.

3. Because the end of Government, is the good and perfect state of the Common-wealth, which cannot be kept but by an union of the whole, whereas they have made the greatest disunion that can be imagined, by disjoynting and rending this Kingdome in negle­cting the Lawes thereof, and begetting severall fa­ctions, divisions, and parties therein, wherefore their undertaking the rule and command of this Realme is an absolute usurpation, and no Government, which phrase in this Quaerie is to be understood, as they pretend themselves to be Governours, and others doe confesse themselves to be governed by them; which taken in their owne sense cannot be said to be Government Monarchicall, (which is the state and constitution of this Kingdome) seeing they have ever since acted, not onely 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 Aristocraticall, or Oligarchicall, 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 Oligarchicall, 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 performe that trust, which [Page 3]their Countrey had committed to them: wherefore the Resolution of this first Quaerie must be thus, that since His Majesties departure from the two Houses, this Kingdome hath been tyrannized over by an Oligarchy.

Quaere 2. Whether or no it may be accounted a sinne 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 meane, 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 inferiour 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 Kingdome 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 him­selfe being as absolute as any in the world, it must needs be most certaine, 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 owne accord by the great Charter of England made the same [...], that is, a Kingdome wherein the King is to rule according to Law, and thus to hold cannot be a sinne against the Word of God, because holding otherwise we hold contrary to the Kings Law, which is a sin against the [Page 4]Word of God, besides the King of England having made this perpetuall 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 Popes Authority out of mens consciences was overballanced, by therewith casting out the authority of Scriptures concerning Regall Au­thority?

Resol. The full solution of this Quaerie requires a larger Tract, and a more able pen, then for present is alloted unto me, wherefore herein to move greater judgements. I will but therein deliver mine owne o­pinion, which is this, that heretofore the Pope over­ruling mens consciences, did not onely usurp that au­thority, but thereby did also greatly injoyne grosse Idolatry, and Superstition: directly against the Word of God: wherefore our exemption and freedome there­from, must needs be unspeakable good unto this King­dome, but on the contrary, the casting out or at least neglecting the authority of Scriptures, concerning Re­gall Authority, hath brought an unspeakable hurt unto this Kingdome, by begetting and causing blasphemy and prophanation, sacriledge and impiety against God, treason, and rebellion against his sacred Majesty, ruine and destruction to the Church, faction and division in the Kingdome, which though at first they were not discerned, this our age hath had thereof too deare and deep experience; but whether or no these evills, do coun­terpoize or overballance, that good which was done, by [Page 5]exploding the Popes Authority out of this Kingdome, I leave to be determined by greater abilities.

Quaerie 4. Whether or no, a right and lawfull King, hath power from God, to blesse, 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 daies, and almesdeeds do prevaile, as far as heaven, God heares the cries, and sighs of the afflicted, and the cries of the poor fatherlesse, and widdowes, 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 halfe 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 [Page 6]layd a very heavie 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 maxime in Logick, Contrariorū eadem est ratio. It is true, I have heard some say (how truly I know not) that his Majesties touch in this last age hath not pro­ved unto all so effectuall as in former, the answer whereunto (if it may be granted,) is very cleare and obvious: was there ever age more traiterous, trecherous, & rebellious against their Soveraigne then this? which are the effects of incredulity, which were so praevalent a­mongst the Nazarites, our Saviours own country-men, 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 lawfull King hath power from God, to blesse or curse his People.

Quaerie 5. Whether or no that forme of Government Ec­clesiasticall and civill 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 goverment:

• 1 Ecclesiasticall,
• 2 Civill:

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 Lawes of the [Page 7]Land, unto whom it is most proper) which shall be this, that the Civill Government of this Kingdome, by the Ordinances of the two Houses, must needs prove de­structive unto this Nation; because,

1. They are destructive unto the establisht Law of the Land, which is the preservation of the people.

2. The good and peace of no Kingdome, can stand in continuall 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, Tyrannicall, and Licen­tious, that can be imagined, and therefore can stand with no age nor People.

2. Ecclesiasticall 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 Kingdome 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 ruine unto this Kingdome.

2. In respect unto the Law of the Land, this imaginary Ecclesiasticall Eutopia, would so cut, clash, thwart, crosse, 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 tyrannicall Government.

3. In respect unto the Law of God, this kind of Govern­ment is plainely, and directly against the Word of God, and never dreamed of untill Calvins time; and there­fore if it be set up, we must expect Gods severe curse, upon and for the same: so that what hath been said in this Quaerie may make it cleare unto all that are not wil­fully blind, that their pretended or intended Government, neither Civill nor Ecclesiasticall 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 Common-wealth, 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 Lawes for the good of the Kingdome, whereunto bona fortunae, the riches of fortune, whereof are wealth, Revenues, honour, and the like, are nothing essentiall, but onely additionall thereunto, for honour, credit and supply­ing of outward necessities sake, but bona animi, the goods of the mind, as are learning, especially in the [Page 9]Law of God and the Land, tendernesse 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 attaine 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 aime, then the other, it is in an answerable proportion, more necessary then the other, and the want thereof must necessarily the more disable the parties so wanting from the charge and trust of so great an imployment. The Lords therefore now sitting in the upper Parliament-House, having failed in their trust and fidelity, doe more justly deserve to be debarred from sit­ting in the House, then Lords formerly for decayed Estates.

Quaerie. 7. Whether or no by the Lawes of this King­dome the two Houses their raising of Armies without his Majesties consent, is a rebellious riot, (besides the Statute Law of the Land) considering they neither have, nor could knight their most deserving Souldiers for their Martiall 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, Earles, Barons, and the Commo­nalty of the Realme, there assembled to take advise, have said that to us it belongeth, and our part is through our royall Seignory, straightly to defend force of Armes, and all other force against our peace, at all times when it shall please us, and to punish them which shall doe contrary, according to the Lawes and usages of this Realme, and hereunto they are bound to aid us as their Soveraigne Lord at all seasons, when need shall be: but thus to raise Armies, against their Soveraigne Lord the King is downeright [Page 10]Treason, St. 25. Ed. 3.2. If a man doe levy warre against their Soveraigne Lord the King in this Realme, or be ad­herent unto the Kings enemies in his Realme, giving to them aid and comfort in the Realme or elswhere, and thereof be provably attainted of open deed by people of their condition. And if a man counterfeit the Kings great or Privy Seale, and if a man slay the Chancellour, it is to be understood in the cases rehearsed, that ought to be judged Treason, which extends to our Lord the King and his royall Majesty, which Act concerning Treason is re-e­stablished, 1 Edw. 6.12. therefore their taking up of Armes without his Majesties consent, is against the Law of the Land, and high Treason against our Soveraigne Lord the King.

Quaerie. 8. Whether or no the two Houses in statu quo nunc, wanting the head, heart, and integrall parts of a Parliament; may justly be accounted as the representative Body of this Kingdome?

Resol. They do no more represent the body of this Kingdome, then a statua or picture without head, heart; and many other members throughout, and those which it hath being mangled, and abused, do represent a man: for al men know this, that in these two Houses are wan­ting, the King, which is the Head of the Kingdome, the Judges of the Law, which are the heart thereof, and the Bishops, which are the breasts, and the most of the temporall Nobility, which should be as the back unto that Body Politike. They know likewise how it is mangled, in the lower House; wanting the head, heart, and integrall parts of a Parliament: It cannot therefore be gainsaid, but these two Houses in statu quo nunc, are no representative Body of this Kingdome.

Quaerie 9. Whether or no the Kingdome of England, by [Page 11]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 Kingdomes own experience speak, and we shall find it in the Affir­mative; for The Judges of the Land, the Master of the Rolls, &c. ought to sit upon Woolsacks in the middle of the upper House, because wooll being the chiefest commodity and benefit of this Kingdome, they might thereby be put in minde thereof, to cause them to think and study for the same good of the said Kingdome, 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 Kingdome, whereof without them there can be no wise, prudent, wholsome care taken: They therefore being put from the VVoolsacks, the Kingdome thereby is deprived of their greatest interests and concernments.

Quaerie 10. VVhether or no the two Houses, wanting the constitutive part of a Parliament, may justly be called a Par­liament?

Resol. No more then a Body without a Soule may justly be said to be a man: for as a reasonable soule is that constitutive part, which makes a man; thus the King is the soule 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 [Page 12]have such regard, as most faithfull Subjects ought to have, to their Prince, considering their cariage towards him for these severall yeares, have thereby forfeited their honour, trust, right, and interest in the Commonwealth?

Resol. What every rationall man, if but poized with meane 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; onely heare what the Civill Law saith in such a case, concerning Councellours 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 expell him, but thou shalt use another Coun­cellour, which keepeth the Law and Justice with pure hands, and if this sentence was justice upon one pri­vate Counsellour, how much more upon publike Par­liament-men, which have failed in all trust and fidelity. But herein I will but onely hint what may be the judgement of the Holy Ghost, whereunto all other Reason, Law and Authority, ought to vaile 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 then that sweareth to his owne good, and the good of the weale publike, and changeth, shall never (abiding in that condition) come in heaven: but least they should take a star­ting hole at the Old Testament, let them undergo the sentence of the New, wich is this, that Covenant-breakers [Page 13]are in number of them, who knowing the judg­ment 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 faithfull Subjects ought to have to their Prince, considering their ca­riage towards him for these severall yeares, have thereby forfeited their honour, trust, right, and interest, in the Com­mon-wealth.

Quaere. 12. Whether or no, the two Houses, by dissolving the privy Counsell, did not dissolve a greater and more ho­nourable authority then themselves?

Resol. The very termes of this Quearie lay down the state thereof, for it is whether the two Houses, not the Parliament, by dissolving &c. And thus it falls clearely into the Affirmative, for the Kings power lies habitually and originally in himselfe, but more actually and effe­ctually in his Privy Counsell, which makes a King in the exercise of his Regall Power, and his Privy Coun­sell inseparable, and the Law of this Land makes the Privy Counsell of greater honour, and authority, then the remaining part of a full and lawfull Parliament. My reasons are these.

• 1. It appeares 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 Counsell, 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. Neverthelesse, the [Page 14]King and his Counsell, do not intend by reason of this Statute to diminish the Kings right, &c. 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 Counsell, and they that were present, at the making of this Ordinance, will and intend, that the right and Prerogative of his Crown shall be saved, to him in all things, where the King and his Counsell are preferred, before all that were present in Parliament: The two Houses therefore by dissolving the Privy Counsell, did dissolve a greater and more honourable Authority then themselves.

Quaere. 13. Whether or no, the usage of the two Houses, in their mannaging of affaires for these late yeares, being ap­proved, may not become president unto other inferior Courts, to all in their severall limits, and jurisdictions without. Law, Statute, Ordinance, or other lawfull Edict.

Resol. What is to be said of this, the late and present Practise of the Army, the severall Committees, Sequestra­tors, and Excize men, do give a sad and deare experience, in all of them, by their acting not only contrary unto Law and Conscience, but even contrary to their own Ordinances, whence it followes, that the usage of the two Houses, in their mannaging of Affaires for these late yeares, being approved, may become a president unto every other inferiour Court, to act in their severall Iurisdictions, without Law, Statute, Ordinance, or other lawfull Edict.