the King was not worthy to live; that they would have no porter's lodge between him and them; and that the Prince would govern better. Hereupon certain members of both Houses; that is to say, the Lord Kimbolton of the upper; Hollis and Haslerig, Hampden, Pym, and Stroud, of the lower House, are impeached of treason, a serjeant sent to apprehend them, and command given for sealing up their trunks and closets. But on the contrary, the Commons did pretend and declared accordingly, that no member of theirs was to be impeached, arrested, or brought unto a legal trial, but by the order of that House; and that the sealing up of their trunks or closets, was a breach of privilege.

"Now comes Calvin's doctrine for restraining the power of Kings, to be put in practice. His Majesty's going to the House of Commons on the fourth of January, is voted for so high a breach of their rights and privileges, as was not to be salved by any retraction, or disclaimer, or any thing by him alleged in excuse thereof. Though his Majesty had sent them a most gracious message of the twentieth of January, in which he promised them to equal or exceed all acts of favour which any of his predecessors had extended to the people of England ;* yet nothing could secure them from their fears and jealousies, unless the trained-bands, and the royal navy, the Tower of London, and the rest of the Forts and Castles, were put into such hands as they might confide in. On this the King demurs a while; but having shipped the Queen for Holland, with the Princess Mary, and got the Prince into his power, he denies it [the preceding proposal utterly. And this denial is reputed a sufficient reason to take the Militia to themselves, and execute the powers thereof, without his consent.

During these counter-workings betwixt them and the King, the Lords and Commons plied him with continual messages for his return unto the Houses; and did as frequently endeavour to possess the people with their remonstrances and declarations, to his disadvantage. To each of which, his Majesty returned a significant answer, so handsomely apparelled, and comprehending in them such a strength of reason, as gave great satis

* "The king inadvertently resigned a large portion of that power which is essential to monarchy, but which he had unhappily abused in former instances, by consenting that this parliament should never be dissolved without the concurrence of its members; and thus rendered them little less than absolute. Having also, in other respects, complied with their wishes, he became indignant at their proceedings, and expressed his resolution to maintain the royal prerogative in opposition to their further demands, which he contended were exorbitant and unconstitutional. Exposed at the same time to popular insult in the metropolis, his Majesty retired to York, and prepared for war; while the Queen pledged the jewels of the crown in Holland, and with the money thence arising furnished him with arms and ammunition. Mean time the parliament, resolved to defend what they regarded as the rights of the subject, prepared for resistance. Thus was the country involved in civil discord, and witnessed through a series of years a lamentable effusion of human blood." JACKSON'S Life of Goodwin.

faction to all equal and unbiassed men. None of these messages more remarkable, than that which brought the nineteen propositions to his Majesty's hands. In which it was desired, that all the Lords of his Majesty's Council, all the great Officers both of Court and State, the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Barons of the Exchequer, should be from thenceforth nominated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. That all the great affairs of the Kingdom should be managed by them, even unto the naming of a Governour for his Majesty's children, and for disposing them in marriage, at the will of the Houses. That no Popish Lord (as long as he continued such) should vote in Parliament. And amongst many other things of like importance, that he would give consent to such a reformation of Church-government and Liturgy, as both the Houses should advise. But he knew well enough, that to grant all this, was plainly to divest himself of all regal power which God had put into his hands :† And therefore he returned such an answer to them, as the necessity of his affairs, compared with those impudent demands, did suggest unto him. But as for their demand about reformation, he had answered it in part, before they made it, by ordering a collection of sundry petitions presented to himself and both Houses of Parliament, in behalf of Episcopacy, and for the preservation of the Liturgy, to be printed and published. By which petitions it appeared, that there was no such general disaffection in the subjects, unto either of them, (whether they were within the power of the Houses, or beyond their reach,) as by the faction was pretended; the total number of subscribers unto seven of them only, (the rest not being calculated in the said collection,) amounting to four hundred eighty two Lords and Knights, one thousand seven hundred and forty Esquires and Gentlemen of note, six hundred thirty-one Doctors and Divines, and no fewer than forty four thousand five hundred fifty nine free-holders of good name and note.t

"He [Clarendon] had taken more pains than such men use to do, in the examination of religion; having always conversed with those of different opinions with all freedom and affection, and had very much kindness and esteem for many who were in no degree of his own judgment; and upon all this, he did really believe the Church of England the most exactly formed and framed for the encouragement and advancement of learning and piety, and for the preservation of peace, of any church in the world; that the taking away any of its revenue, and applying it to secular uses, was robbery and notorious sacrilege; and that the diminishing the lustre it had, and had always had, in the Government, by removing the Bishops out of the House of Peers, was a violation of justice, the removing a land-mark, and the shaking the very foundation of Government: and therefore he always opposed, upon the impulsion of conscience, all mutations in the Church; and did always believe, let the season or the circumstance be what it would, that any compliance was pernicious; and that a peremptory and obstinate refusal, that might put men in despair of what they laboured for, and take away all hope of obtaining what they desired, would reconcile more persons to the Government, than the gratifying them in part; which only whetted their appetite to desire more, and their confidence in demanding it."

"It happened also, that some Members of the House of Commons, many of his domestic servants, and not a few of the nobility and great men of the realm, repaired from several places to the King at York; so far from being willing to involve themselves in other men's sins, that they declared the constancy of their adhesion to his Majesty's service. These men they branded first by the name of Malignants, and after looked upon them in the notion of evil councillors; for whose removing from the King they pretend to arm, (but now the stale device must be taken up,) as well as in their own defence: Towards the raising of which army, the Presbyterian preachers so bestir themselves, that the wealthy citizens send in their plate, the zealous sisters robbed themselves of their bodkins and thimbles, and some poor wives cast in their wedding-rings, like the widow's mite, to advance the service. Besides which, they set forth instructions, dispersed into all parts of the realm, for bringing in of horses, arms, plate, money, jewels, to be repayed again on the public faith; appoint their treasurers for the war; and nominate the Earl of Essex for their chief commander, whom some disgraces from the court had made wholly theirs. Him they commissionate to bring the King from his evil counsellors, with power to kill and slay all such as opposed them in it."

The description given by Dr. Heylin of the seditious doctrines that were promulgated at that period by the Calvinists, is exceedingly piquant, and reminds one of many of the terms of the French Revolutionists in our days:

"It was also preached and printed by the Presbyterians to the same effect, (as Buchanan and Knox, Calvin and some others of the sect had before delivered) that all power was originally in the people of a State or Nation; in Kings no otherwise than by delegation, or by way of trust; which trust might ' be recalled when the people pleased: That when the underived Majesty (as they loved to phrase it) of the common peoIple was by their voluntary act transferred on the supreme Magistrate, it rested on that Magistrate no otherwise than 'cumulativè; but privativè by no means, in reference unto them that gave it: That though the King was Major singulis, yet 'he was Minor universis; superior only unto any one, but far 'inferior to the whole body of the people: That it was lawful. 'for the subjects to resist their Princes, even by force of arms, ' and to raise armies also, if need required, for the preservation ́ of religion, and the common liberties.† And finally, (for what

+ On no point did the Calvinists of that age render themselves so vulnerable to the attacks of the Papists, as on this of bearing arms against governors. What a paltry excuse for rebellion Richard Baxter makes, when he says, in his Key for Catholics: "They will tell us of our war, and killing the king in England. But of this I have given them their answer before. To which I add, (1.) The Protestant doctrine expressed in the confessions of all their

else can follow such dangerous premises?) that Kings being ' only the sworn officers of the commonwealth, they might be 'called to an account, and punished in case of mal-adminis'tration, even to imprisonment, deposition, and to death it'self, if lawfully convicted of it.' But that which served their turns best, was a new distinction which they had coined between the Personal and Political capacity of the supreme Magistrate; alledging, that the King was present with the Houses of Parliament, in his Political capacity, though in his Personal at York; that they might fight against the King in his Personal capacity, though not in his Politic, and consequently might destroy CHARLES STUART without hurting the KING. This was good Presbyterian doctrine; but not so edifying at York as it was at Westminster. For his Majesty finding a necessity to defend CHARLES STUART, if he desired to save the King, began to entertain such forces as repaired unto him, and put himself into a posture of defence against all his adversaries."

That such doctrines should induce a consonant practice, is not at all wonderful. One instance of which Dr. Heylin gives in his account of the Fight at Brentford : "Out of which town he beat two of their choicest regiments, sunk many pieces of cannon, and much ammunition, put many of them to sword in the heat of the fight, and took about five hundred prisoners for a taste of his mercy. For, knowing well how miserably they had been mis-guided, he spared their lives; and gave them liberty on no other conditions, but only the taking of their oaths not to serve against him. But the Houses of Parliament, Churches, and in the constant stream of their writers, is for obedience to the sovereign powers, and against resisting them upon any pretences of heresy or excommunication, or such like. (2.) The wars in England were raised between a king and parliament, that, joined together, did constitute the highest power; and upon the lamentable division, (occasioned by the Papists,) the people were many of them uncertain which part was the higher and of greatest authority: some thought the king, and others thought the parliament, as being the representative body of the people (in whom politicians say is the Majestas realis,) and the highest judicature, and having the chief part in legislation and declaration what is just or unjust, what is law and what is against law. Had we all been resolved in England which side was by law the higher power, here had been no war. So that here was no avowed resisting of the higher powers. None but a parliament could have drawn an army of Protestants here under their banner. (3.) And withal that very parliament (consisting of nobles, knights, gentlemen and lawyers, who all declared to the people, that by law they were bound to obey and assist them,) did yet profess to take up offensive arms only against delinquents, or rather, even but defensive against those men that had got an army to secure them from justice: and they still professed and avowed fidelity to the king." The sophistry of this reasoning is exposed in another part of the Appendix. But the phrase of "not resisting the sovereign powers upon any pretences of heresy, excommunication, or such-like," is an artifice too palpable to be overlooked: For these alleged crimes were not among the "pretences" usually adduced by the Calvinists of that age, as palliations for the murder of their lawful monarch. But it must be recolfected, that Baxter wrote this paragraph about a year prior to the Restoration. Between several of his statements and arguments before and after that event, any person may easily discover a marvellous discrepancy.

being loath to lose so many good men, appointed Mr. Stephen Marshall, (a principal zealot at that time in the cause of Presbytery) to call them together, and to absolve them from that oath: Which he performed with so much confidence and authority, that the Pope himself could scarce have done it with the like."

*What reply do the defenders of the Puritans give to this statement, which is confirmed by that of two eminent historians of that period? One of those defenders says: "This has all the appearance of forgery.-Priestly absolution was as remote as possible from the practices of the Puritans; and they rejected all claims to the power of it, with the utmost abhorrence. The Parliament's army, at the same time, stood in so little need of these prisoners, which were only 150 men, that there is good reason to suspect the whole account to be a falsehood."-What a pitiful evasion! "Because the Puritans rejected priestly absolution, the whole account is a falsehood:" Excellent logician! Yet this is the method adopted by BROOK, in his Laves of the Puritans, to extenuate the crimes of such blood-thirsty fanatics as Marshall. In the absence of all historic testimony even from the greatest admirers of his author, this famous biographer, in his sketch of Marshall's Life, affords us glaring instances of this luminous mode of ratiocination.

This is another: Lord Clarendon had said, in reference to the ministers' petition, presented to Parliament, "The petition itself was cut off, and a new one of a very different nature annexed to the long list of names: And when some of the ministers complained to Mr. Marshall, with whom the petition was lodged, that they never saw the petition to which their names were annexed, but had signed another petition against the canons, Mr. Marshall replied, that it was thought fit, by those who understood the business better than they, that the latter petition should be preferred, rather than the 'former.' (Hist. i, 239.)-What is Mr. Brook's answer? "This, indeed, is a charge of a very high nature, and ought to have been well substantiated. Why did not the ministers complain to the committee appointed by the House of Commons to enquire into their regular methods of procuring hands to petitions? The learned historian answers, that they were prevailed upon to sit still and pass it by: For the truth of which we have only his lordship's word, as nothing of the kind appears in Rushworth, Whitlocke, or any other impartial writer of those times. The whole affair has, therefore, the appearance of a mere forgery, designed to blacken the memory of Mr. Marshall and the rest of the Puritans."

Omitting all animadversion on the expression only his lordship's word, (though for "unbending veracity" Lord Clarendon's name is celebrated throughout Europe,) omitting likewise any allusion to Rushworth and Whitlocke as "impartial writers," one might ask Mr. Brook, if, in our own reforming age, he never read or heard of such an exchange being effected between two petitions" of a very different nature." But if his recollection will not furnish him with fit precedents in the modern history of petitioning, I will furnish him with one of a more ancient date. It is in reference to the famous Presbyterian Testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, of which some mention has been made, page 305, and concerning which it is said in JACKSON'S Life of John Goodwin: "Very dishonourable collusion was prac tised in obtaining signatures to this objectionable document. In the copy that was laid before Mr. John Downame, and to which he affixed his name, no mention was made either of Dr. Hammond or of Mr. Goodwin; their reputed errors and heresies being foisted in afterwards. It happened unluckily, that Downame had licensed the Doctor's book for publication, and thus recommended it to general perusal. When he therefore found, that, by a manœuvre of his Presbyterian friends, he was made to condemn as heretical a work to which he had given his public sanction, he complained bitterly of their disingenuous conduct. Others of the subscribers, one would hope for their own credit, were imposed upon in the same manner."

On the most flimsy foundation of Mr. Brook's assertion or suspicion, rest many other of his palliations and defences of Mr. Marshall, who might