Sect. I. Of the Right of Retractations.

COnsidering that sin and errour are so near of kin, as that the [...] pec­care & aber­rare. [...] er­rare & pecca­re. S. Jarchi in Judic. 20.16. & in Job 5.24. names are oftentimes reciprocal; and that the voice of one touch­ing the former, is the truth in all: Ps. 51. ‘I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me; who can deny concurrence with him in that exclamation of his, in reference unto the lat­ter;’ [Page 2] ‘Who can understand his errours? Ps. 19. Cleanse thou me from my secret faults?’ And yet this was a man 1 Sam. 13.14. after Gods own heart, in matter of Godliness. His son and successour, ‘whose heart was 1 King. 4.29. enlarged, as the sand on the Sea-shore in point of wisdome, leaves posterity this Apophthegme: Eccles. 1. ult.’ ‘He that increaseth wisdome, increaseth sorrow:’ To wit, for the know­ledge of his folly. Cic. Tusc. 5. As the Antient Sages were first sty­led [...], wise men; Afterwards [...], lovers of wisdome: Last of all, [...], plain fools; that is, they perceived themselves to be so. Hence that of the (repu­ted) wisest of them: Socrat. ap. Cic. in Academ. [...]. Arist. Elenchi l. 2. c. 8 Hoc unum scio, me nihil sci­re; one thing I know, that I know nothing, viz. as I ough [...] to know.

Sect. II. The first Causes original of our obnoxiousness to Errour;

The Rise, and first Original whereof, if we inquire 1 for, the great Apostle of the Gentiles will explain unto us. Corrupt Na­ture. Who lamenting his surprisals, and being deceived (though not in Doctrine) even after he was in the faith, (according to Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 23. &c. 26. & ad Bo­nisac. l. 1. c. 10. S. Austin's reformed judgement) lays the fault on the Rom. 7.11.24. body of death, or Law in the mem­bers, that is, on nature it self, as it is now corrupted. And 1 Cor. 13. elsewhere, he professeth, ‘That the most per­fect here, do know but in part, and see truth but as in a glass darkly.’ Implying in both, that, without espe­cial grace, we are by the principles of our very na­ture now, obnoxious to imperfection in our judgments, to be imposed upon, and to erre. Consonant whereunto is that of Aug. de Ci­vil. d. l. 22. c. 22 à principio. A second ge­neral Cause, Ignorance. him, (next unto that order in spirit and judgment;) rendring a nearer and more particular cause of errour: nam quod ad primam originem pertinet, omni­um mortalium progeniem fuisse damnatam. — Quid aliud indicat horrenda quaedam profunditas ignorantiae, ex qua omnis error extitit, qui omnes filios Adam tenebroso, quodam sinu suscipit; ut homo ab illo liberari sine labore, [Page 3] dolore, timore non possit. ‘That at the first all mans poste­rity (saith he) was condemned. —What else shews that certain horrible abyss of ignorance, from whence all er­rour doth arise, which receiveth into its dark bosome all the sons of Adam, so that a man without labour, sorrow and fear, cannot be delivered from it.’ The nearer yet, 3. Cause, our Incapacity of the greatest truths. and natural reason hereof, is given by the head of all Philosophers, (as the Learned Hook. Ec­cles. Polit. l. 5. § 71. Hooker styles him) because saith he, Aristot. Me­taph. l. 2. c. 1. [...]. ‘Because as the eyes of a Bat are unto the day-light, so is the eye of our souls unto those things which are in themselves the clearest.’ But the supernatural, 4. Cause, op­position unto spiritual things. and nearest cause (in reference unto matters of Religion) is rendred by the Apostle; 1 Cor. 2.24. ‘for that the natural man receiveth not the things that are of God, for they are foolishness un­to him.’ Errour therefore and lability thereunto, be­ing congenious to our very nature, and not wholly cured by grace it self, without particular protection; who shall forbid this common remedy unto this Universal and Epidemical Disease of mankind, (especially where we have been contagious unto others) Repentance and Retra­ctation. Unless we force them on this temptation, to co­ver their sin, to save their credit, and so bring that curse upon themselves: Prov. 28.13. ‘He that hideth his sin, shall not prosper.’ Oppose not therefore that of the Apostle; Gal. 2.18. Object. Answ. ‘If I build again the things that I destroyed, I make my self a transgressor.’ Unto which, Austins reply shall be my answer. Aug. Epist. 48. Vincentio ad finem. Confusio autem adduoit gratiam & gloriam, cum erubescit quisque de propriâ iniquitate, & poenitendo in meliùs commutatur. Quod te facere piget, illâ perniciosâ confusione superatum; nè tibi ab ho­minibus nescientibus quid loquantur, objiciatur illa Apo­stolica sententia: si enim quae destruxi, &c. quae si etiam dici posset in eos, qui veritatem correcti praedicant, in ipsum Paulum primitùs diceretur, &c. ‘ Honest shame (saith he) brings grace and glory; when any is ashamed [Page 4] of his own iniquity, and by repentance is changed to the better. Which thou art loth to do, being vanquished with sinful and destructive shame; lest by men, that know not what they say, there should be objected a­gainst thee that sentence of the Apostle: If I build a­gain the things that I destroyed, &c. which if it might be applyed to those, which being reformed, do publish the truth; then it should first be verified of Paul him­self, for whom the Churches glorified God, Gal. 1. penul. for that he now preached that Faith, which before he perse­cuted.’

Sect. 3. Examples of Retractation.

But to come to some Instances and Examples of Er­rour, 1. In general. and of Retractation. And first in General. I have read this sentence either in, or cited out of Phil. de Co­mines. Phi­lippe de Comines, (for the Book is not now at hand) viz. ‘A Prince, or any other man that hath not been deceived, can be but a beast, because he discerns not the difference between good and evil.’ Consonant unto that of the Antient now quoted: Aug. Epist. 7 Nullum unquam verbum, inquit, quod revocare vellet, emisit. Quae quidem laus, quanquam praeclarissima videatur, tamen credibilior est, de nimium fatuo, quam de sapiente perfecto. Nam illi quos moriones vocant, quanto magis à sensu communi dissonant, magísque insulsi & absurdi sunt; tanto ma­gis nullum verbum emittunt, quod revocare velint; quia dicti mali, vel stulti, vel incommodi poenitere, utique cordatorum est. That is, Tully saith of the Roman, ‘That he never uttered any word which he wished were unspoken: Which commendation, though it be very splendid, yet is it more like to be true of an absolute fool, then of a perfect wise man; for those whom we call Ideots, by how much they are farther off from com­mon sense, and are more absurd and witless; by so [Page 5] much the more, they never utter any word, that they will retract. For to repent of an evil, idle, or inconsi­derate speech, is indeed the part of a prudent and cor­dial man; thus far he.’ And to come nearer to our own time and occasion. I shall give you the vivid speech of one yet living, (for ought I know) Letter to one of the Lords of the Council con­cerning the Declarat. of Octob. 13. 1655. ‘Whosoever (saith he) hath not been deceived in the current of these last fifteen years, hath been preserved from being so, by such an absence of friendship, confidence and cha­rity, and by such an enmity to mankind; by such a mea­sure of distrust, jealousie and villany in his nature, that I had rather be a dog then that man.’ I shall leave unto the Authour his passion and expressions; and only im­prove his notion as complying with the premises. But 2 to come to some particulars. Particular Instances. We might fetch them from the whole rational creature, and from the top-branch of it, the Angels. For those of them that fell, al­though 1 through malice, they will not retract, The lapsed Angels. yet there is no doubt but they do repent, though not with godly sorrow. And what is Retractation but Repentance cer­tified? Adam the first and flower of the meer rational 2 creature here on earth, did not only repent, The first man. but retract his errour, (though the expression of it be not verbally set down) else could he not have been capable of salva­tion; for 'tis only 1 Joh. 1.9. ‘if we confess our sin, that God hath obliged his faithfulness and truth to forgive us. And though with the heart man believe unto righteous­ness, yet with the mouth confession must be made unto salvation, saith the Apostle. Rom 10.’ Unto this head therefore of Retractation (not criticising on the word) appertain all the confessions of sin we read of in the Scripture. But 3 take a few particulars, Other Script. Inst. and you shall find them to be the choicest of the Saints.

Job Job. 1. ‘(like unto whom in his time, was none on 1 earth, by the Lords own testimony, yet he) retracts, Ch. 40.4, 5. &c. 42.6. I have spoken words, (saith he) w ^ch I understood not, therefore I abhor my self, and repent in dust and ashes. 2 2 Sam. 23.2 David, David. by whom the Spirit of God frequently [Page 6] spake; he retracts; 2 Sam. 24.10. I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant, for I have done very foolishly.’ Solomon, who 1 King. 10.23. exceeded all the Kings of the earth, both in riches and wisdome, he retracts. Eccles. 2.20, 21. ‘ 3 Therefore I hated all my labour: Cap. 1.17. Chald. Paraph. In Eccles. and he calls his travel in wisdome, Solomon madness and folly.’ And it is supposed that the whole Book of Ecclesiastes is nothing else but his retractations, especially if we credit the Chaldee Paraphrase, (but not that in the King of Spains Bible) who makes the ground of it to be, that Solomon foresaw he should leave his wisdome and Kingdome to 4 a fool, to Rehoboam. Some also might perhaps bring S. Paul himself near the matter of a retractation, If not S. Paul. as to the style of a Letter which he wrote to the Corinthians, the good effect whereof, made him in the issue not re­pent, 2 Cor. 7.8. though he saith, 'he did repent. But because the Calv. in loc. doctiss. interpres (as he is often styled) expounds the place otherwise, I insist not on it. But without query, Gal. 2.11. ‘he by whose mouth the Gentiles first re­ceived 5 the Gospel and believed, not only repented of a mortal sin, Yet doubtless Peter. (the denying of his Lord) but retracted, no doubt, an errour, by his example made much more dangerous, the withdrawing, namely, from the Gentiles in eating bread, Gal. 2. and compelling thereby the Gentiles to 'live as the Jews did, so betraying the liberty of the Gospel.’ Which may be a note for those, who claim suc­cession from him, not to arrogate unto themselves an unerring spirit, Adversaries to Retractation. no not in Cathedrâ, as doth the Bishop of Rome, the only enemy of all Christians, unto retra­ctations. 4

Examples in the Antient Church.But to come lower; S. Austin the best Learned of all Antient Doctors (in the judgement of the Church of England Homil. a­gainst peril of Idolatry, part. 2. pag. 25. he not only retracts himself, and wrote two whole Books of that argument, whose spirit in this parti­cular may in few be seen in that excellent Epistle of 1 his unto Marcellinus Epi. 7. and libb. of Retrac. ( Ep. 7.) But also therein ex­horts every other man that hath been mistaken; S. Austin. secundas habeat partes modestiae, qui primas non potuit habere sa­pientiae; [Page 7] ‘that every such one should take the second boat of modesty and retracting, that could not get the first of wisdome, by not erring.’ The reason is: Idem ibid. nam nimis perversè seipsum amat, qui & alios vult errare, ut error suus lateat; ‘for he too passionately loves him­self, that is willing others should still wander, that his own straying may be unobserved.’ Yea, he admonish­eth [o] Hieron of a revocation of his opinion, touch­ing the controversie betwixt Paul and Peter, Gal. 2. Aug. Ep. 9. Ad Hieron. Ar­ripe, obsecro te, ingenuam, & verè Christianam cum cha­ritate severitatem, ad illud opus corrigendum atque emen­dandum, & palinodiam, ut dicitur cane; incomparabiliter enim pulchrior est veritas Christianorum, quam Helena Graecorum, pro quâ mille Heroes adversus Trojam dimi­carunt. ‘I beseech thee (saith he) take resolute hold upon an ingenuous and true Christian severity joined with charity, for the correcting and amending of that work, and sing a palinody or peccavi; for more beautiful incomparably is the truth of Christians, then the Helen of the Grecians, for whom thousands of gallant men fought at Troy.’ S. Jerome also (unto whom one while Erasm. gives the primacy next the Scripture, S. Hierom. Ep. Ded. ope­rib. Hierom. 1516. Ep. Ded. operib. Cyp [...]. 1520. though af­terward 2 he renders it to Cyprian: in neither with too much judgement,) if that Epistle be his, which is Ep. 8. Tom. 4. Edit. 1533. Paris. But in the latter Editions it is the eighth of the ninth Tome: Hierome I say, hath this religious sentence, and gives us a fundamental reason, and his own example for this practice, where there is just occasion, viz. Dicat unusquisque quod velit; ego interim de me, pro sensus mei parvitate, judicavi meliùs esse confundi coram peccatoribus super terram, quàm co­ram Sanctis Angelis in coelo, vel ubicunque judicium suum Dominus voluerit demonstrare. That is, ‘Let every man say what he pleaseth, for my part, I have, accor­ding to my small judgement, determined; that it is better to take shame (to wit, by acknowledgement of our errours) before sinners on earth, then before the ho­ly Angels in heaven, or wheresoever the Lord shall [Page 8] appear in Judgement.’ Thus farre he.

5 In these latter times, greater men of the Reformati­on (after Luther) then Bucer and Calvin, Modern Ex­amples. we have not. The commendation of the first we have from the Calv. Epist. Ded. ante com. in ep. ad Rom. S. Grynaeo. lat­ter in these words: siquidem vir ille, ut nosti, praeter recon­ditam eruditionem, copiosam (que) multarum rerum scientiam, praeter ingenii perspicaciam, multam lectionem, alias (que) multas ac varias virtutes, quibus à nemine hodiè ferè vincitur, cum paucis est conferendus, plurimis antecellit; hanc sibi propriam laudem habet, quòd nullus hac me­moriâ, exactiore diligentiâ in Scripture interpretatione versatus est. ‘That man (saith Calvin, speaking of Bucer Bucer.) as thou knowest, hath besides abstruse Learn­ing, rarity of knowledge, sharp wit, much reading, and many other vertues, wherein he is excelled almost by no man in our time, can be compared but with few, and exceedeth the most; hath this peculiar commenda­tion besides, that no man in our memory hath with more exact diligence travelled in the Exposition of Scripture.’ The superlative encomium of Calvin him­self, is rendred by one who in all things understood well what he said, and was not a man that knew how to flat­ter, especially not him, against whom he wrote (in point of Discipline) namely, the incomparable Hooker, as he is commonly and deservedly styled. Hook. Ec­cles. Polit. in Prafat. Sect. 2. ‘For mine own part, (saith he) I think him incomparably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy, since the houre that it enjoyed him. Calvin. And again, Though thou­sands were beholding to him, yet he to none, but only to God, the Authour of that most blessed Fountain, the Book of Life; and of the admirable dexterity of wit, together with the helps of other Learning, which were his guides. Again, two things of principal moment there are, which have deservedly procured him honour throughout the world; the one, his exceeding great pains in composing the Institutions of Christian Reli­gion; His Instituti­ons. His Commen­taries. the other, his no less industrious travel for Ex­position of Scripture, according to the same Institutions.’ [Page 9] Now both these Authours (as indeed all others) have had their water to their wine; as D. George Abbot L. Arch­bishop of Cant. my honorable Lord and Ma­ster. a great and grave Prelate of this Church would say. Bucer praesat. dedic. D. Foxio Ep. Hereford. prefix. Com­ment. suis in 4 Evangel. Bucer relates his for­mer doctrine touching the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per, and his retracting of it again, and closes the Discourse with these words. Habet R. P. T. & quicun­que haec legent, ut in contentione Sacramentorum pertra­ctus sim, in eâ me gesserim, & ab eâ, Domini ope ere­ptus sim; quaeque ratio sit consilii mei, quae causa quod retractare in animum induxi, &c. ‘Thus have I given (saith he) your Reverend Fatherhood an account, and all other men that shall read these writings, how I was wound into these Controversies about the Sacra­ments; How I carryed my self in it; and how, the Lord assisting, I was delivered out of it; and upon what grounds and reasons, I was induced to retract.’ Which retractation was almost followed with a tretracta­tion (as I may so speak) for Bucer. Zanchy hath touching it these words. Bucerus post illam retractationem, Defens. Ad­mon. Neostadi­an. in ipso sine Tom. 8. in po­sterioribus scriptis, clariùs se explicans, idem docuit quod & nos de corpore Christi, déque illius praesentiâ. That is, Vid. Scripta ejus Anglican. ‘ Bucer after that retractation in his latter writings explaining himself more fully, taught the same thing concerning the Body of Christ and his Presence, that we do.’ Thus far of him. Touching Calvin, al­though 2 Beza in vita Calv. prope fi­nem. Beza in the Narrative of his life, saith: Calvin. In doctrinâ quam initio tradidit, ad extremum constans, ni­hil prorsus immutavit, quod paucis nostrâ memoriâ con­tigit: ‘That in the Doctrine which he first delivered, he was constant to the end, and altered nothing; a priviledge, saith he, that hath happened but to few Di­vines in our time:’ Howsoever this were so in Do­ctrine (although, some few things, not of the greatest moment, might have admitted of farther consideration) yet in a point of Government in the Church of Geneva, you may read him deeply retracting, Epist. S. Grynaei Calvino: Fac esse quòd tuâ unius gravissimâ culpâ, res Christi sic labefactatae sunt Genevae. That is, ‘ Calv. Epist. edit. 2. San­ctandr. p. 364. Grant [Page 10] that by your most hainous fault alone, the affairs of Christ are so ruined at Geneva, (for so Calvin had bewailed to Farel in an Epistle) yet in this want of Ministers you ought not to lie still, whilest any place, though never so small is offered.’ Calvins Calvin. own words unto Farel are: Si­quidem, ut coram Deo & populo ejus fateamur; impe­ritia, socordia, negligentia, errore nostri factum ex parte esse, ut Ecclesia vobis commissa, tam miserè collopsa sit — dignam fuisse nostram hinc inscitiam, hinc incu­riam, quae tali exemplo castigaretur: culpâ nostrâ cor­ruisse miseram illam Ecclesiam, nunquam sum concessurus. Calv. Epist. to Farel. Ann. 1538. p. 283. The summe is, ‘he distinguisheth betwixt miscarri­age by errour, ignorance and negligence (which he ac­knowledgeth, and the Lords correction of him for it) and wilful guilt, and intentional mischief, which he denyeth to have been in that affair; but retracting and lamenting we have him in the former.’ Adde to these, 3 Mr. Ridley Bishop Bishop Ridley. of Lond, and one of the Learnedest of the Martyrs in Q. Marys time: Whom his An­swer to the Q. Commissioners, April 2. 1554. hath these words: His notable expression and protestation of Liberty to Retract. ‘These things I do rather recite at this present, because it may happen to some of you here­after, as in times past it hath done unto me.—God may open it unto you in time to come.— Therefore I Fox Act and Mon. in Q. Mary. protest here publickly, that it may be lawful for me —to adde or diminish whatsoever shall seem hereafter more convenient and meet for the purpose, through more sound judgement, better deliberation, and more exact tryal of every particular thing.’ Nay, even Bel­larmine himself, that wrote against all Errants of his time, whether real or imagined, as if himself had been without errour, and whom our Contro. 1. Epist. Dedic. ad D. Cecil. Whitaker styleth, Virum sanè doctum, ingenio foelicem, judicio subtili, lectione multiplici praeditum; and to whom being a Car­dinal, and a Pillar, it might be scandalous to alter any thing; Yet he hath also the Recognition of his Works, wherein he retracts several things he had formerly asser­ted, Bellarmine. 4 and this formally. Not to insist on his retracta­tions [Page 11] real and in effect, who whilest he writes for, Recognit. oper. prefix. Editio­nibus recent. (Cyn­thius aurem vellit & admonuit) undermines the main foundations of his own cause, as might be shewn. Yea, and the five Independent Br. themselves, (that I may 5 have them the more exorable Judges) do profess and say: ‘In a jealousie of our selves, Independents. Apologetic. Narrat. p 11. we kept this re­serve, to alter and retract (though not lightly) what­ever should be discovered to be taken up out of a mis­understanding of the rule, &c.’ Now Coronidis loco, to set a Crown (with the conclusion) upon the ingenuity of the former Company, His late Ma­jesty. We have His Royal Majesty 6 our late Soveraign, condescending unto Retractations, yea, even once and again. We must (saith he) without endeavouring to excuse, that, Kings Answ. to the Re­monstr of May 19. 42. p. 10. which in truth was an er­rour, Our going to the House of Commons. Again else­where, having spoken of his consenting to the deposition of Episcopal Government in Scotland, he saith; ‘If any shall impute My yielding to them as My failing and sin, I can easily acknowledge it, &c. Icon Basilic. Medit. 17. p. 156.’ Seeing therefore imperfection and obnoxiousness unto errour, is not only as the shadow to this body of death, always following of it; but also that the best and wisest of men in all Ages, have judged it their parts to retract, and denie their former judgements, if found erroneous; I shall con­clude this first point, touching the right, causes and in­stances of Retractations, with that of the great exam­ple in this kind, so often quoted. Aug. de Do­no perseveran­tiae cap. 21. Bonae quippe spei est homo, si eum sic proficientem dies ultimus vitae hujus invenerit, ut adjiciantur ei, quae proficienti defuerunt, & perficiendus quàm puniendus potiùs judicetur. ‘There is good hope of that man, saith he, whom the last day of his life shall find going forward (in the pursuit of truth) that there may be added to the thriving man, what he yet wants, and he may be counted worthy ra­ther to be perfected, then punished.’

Sect. I. How far the Authour lapsed in the Church Affairs.

IT follows next to represent in short, how far only, I proceeded in my lapse, what was my carriage there­in, and by what means it pleased God [...], to stir up the sparks of light for my arising. Of the first.

‘ 1 Sam. 2. Psal 37.There is a promise that God will keep the feet of his Saints, so that though they fall, they shall not be cast off, for the Lord will put under his hand. And that they shall hear a voice behind them, Isa. 30. saying, this is the way, walk in it, when they turn to the right hand, and when they turn to the left, according to that of the wise man, Eccles. 5. ult. He that feareth God, (namely, in sinceri­ty) shall come out of them all. 1 Joh. 3. chap. 5. For he that is born of God, cannot sin, to wit, that sin unto death, and of final Apostacy. The reason is, first, his seed remaineth in him, Job 19. even the root of the matter, as Job speaks.’ And then again, 1 Pet. 1. he is kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, as S. Peter uttereth it. ‘All which, like as we have heard, Psal. 48. so have we seen, in the City of the Lord of Hosts, in the City of our God, (the Church) that God will establish it for ever, Matth. 16. so that the gates of Hell shall not for ever prevail against it.’ For at my receding from the Church, the many Conflicts of my spirit, brought forth this protestation at my very first At Colch. Apr. 15. 1644. Artic. 3. ad­mission [Page 13] into that Company, The Authors protestation atentring into Indepency. Which he no­teth, not as owning eve­ry expres­sion in it, but as to evidence his opposition even then to Separation. viz. Causes and Motives of my present motion. First, ‘Of coming off from the way I have been in, 1. Negatively, what they are not. Not because the Congregations of England are all false Churches, and the Ministers false ones, and the Ordinances none. For I conceive first, that where any number of visible Christians, have chosen expresly, or by consent a fit Pastor, and joyn in spirit with him, and one with another, in the things of God, according to his Word, though there be no express Covenant, nor Separation from the multitude, for want of light in these things, they become a true Church, they ha­ving thereby all the essential [...] of one. Secondly, where God ordinarily and plentifully works to edifica­tion, there must be something of a Church, for he is not ordinarily present to edification, but in his house.’ 2. Positively what they were; namely, an apprehensi­on of more purity in Assemblies and Ordinances. Secondly, ‘Under what condition I desire to be taken on, scil. of a profession, 1. Of my acknowledgement of the Authority of Magistracy over all persons in Civil Cau­ses. 2. In Church matters, for the point of publick exercise, so, as not to raise tumults, and by force to obtain the exercise of Religion, 3. Of my resolution to keep all communion in affection, and as much as may be in Ordinances with the godly in the Parochial Con­gregations, though of different judgement from my self. 4. Of keeping my mine eye and ear open to any light or advice that shall be brought from the Word, though di­verse from what now I have in matter of gathering, and government of the Church and Ordinances there­of.’

Sect. 2. How he behaved himself in it.

Accordingly indeed I did hold fellowship and com­munion in Ordinances with all such particular Congre­gations, [Page 14] whilst I was in this way, and as a real proof thereof I did Baptise my children, onely in those the Paro­chial Congregations, St. Peters. one in the place where I preach'd, and another in a neighbour Town; Lawford. where I made also the like declaration, as appears by the testimony of the then Minister of the place, Mr. John Edes which I have by me under his hand. So that I never, blessed be God, proceeded so far as Separation, much less to Anabaptism. But on the con­trary, they would say, that I was ground between Sepa­ration and Presbytery, as betwixt two Milstons. Nay, I never came fully, and, as we use to say, cleverly off to Independency. A proof whereof appears, in that I refused the Pastors Office (the former being deceased) although desired, Mr. John W. sometime of Norwich. and my self, after advice with some that way, for a time, was somewhat inclined, but durst not close, till thoughts ripening by experience and observation, I wholly declined it, as also the way it self (gradatim; and by little and little) not continuing but two or three years, as I take it, for I left communion before I left the place, and that I did, from my first closing, Dated. Octob. 10 1648. above four years, as appears by a Certificate of my dismission: Which leads me to the last particular, viz. what occasioned my awakening and recovery.

Sect. 3. §. 3. What excited his Return.

I found my expectation of the beauty of holiness, in Ʋnity, Order, and more effectual edification in Faith, Love, Meekness, Patience, Temperance, Peace, and Mortification, mainly frustrated. Fractions, confusion, breaches, doting about fruitlesse endless Questions; time vainly spent in them. The Pastor (an honest well-mean­ing man) despised. Covetousness, contempt of others, and, in some, impurities, &c. growing, and injustice eminent. That it was fully verified which Saltem apud se experti, quàm multes malos pro pace Donati ferre cogantur, im­pacatas illorum calumnias pa­ce sua correcti­onis Extingue­rent. Cont. Parm. l. 3. c. 2. Austin once said of their fathers the Donatists, that,

So also, unless we would hear that for Independency's sake, that we would not hear in the Assemblies Paro­chial for Unity's and for Christ's sake; there was a ne­cessity of Separation again, which also came to pass. Also I observed, that almost all the companies of this way fell in sunder, or into horrible opinions, or leud practises, as well as ours. Besides, whilst we were in our vain alter­cations on the Lords days, after the afternoon Sermon, our Families were neglected. Withal, others in the Pa­rochial Assemblies were deserted, both in point of Pastoral offices, as also of other care, whilst they were look'd upon as people of another world. Moreover they were brought into a Maze, not knowing which way to take, who to follow, nor whether they were in the way of salvation or not, and so shaking the very foundations of their faith; a most horrid evil. Add hereunto, I noted, that gene­rally they were for maintaining of their way by Arms, in case they had strenth; and that this contest had born a great part in the confusion of the Nation. These and other the like ill f [...]uits, (though some there were of a more sincere spirit, who for their vertues and piety I yet honor, who yet had their tinctures not so warrantable) made me look further into the root, which I have not onely found, but I think also in the sequel evidenced to be rotten, for, by their fruits you shall know them. Now renting and tearing of themselves, of the Church, and Common-wealth, is the fruit of thorns and thistles, Matth. 7.16. illustrated. not of Ʋines or Fig-trees, as our Saviour long since fore­warn'd.

I profess, I am more confirm'd in my faith in Christ, by his Sermons than by his Miracles, they are so con­vincing; [Page 16] Those were not in our view, These the immu­table truth of them we daily might, did we mark it, see. I have often observed, with wonder, by what spirit he spake (though little notice is taken of it) when he did de­sign some persons in the Church by whited Sepulchers, The proof. Matth. 23. and graves that appear not. Thereby noting both their non-appearance, and their dangerousness, especially their swallowing faculty, as Agur, ‘The Grave saith not, I have enough. Prov. 30.’ This unsatiable spirit was singularly noted in the old Separatists the Pharisees (for both the name signifies so (as well as expounding) and their pra­ctise, Matth. 9.11. by condemning our Saviour for eating with the common people) ‘The Pharisees also, Luk. 16.14. Matth. 23 14. which were co­vetous (saith the Text.)’ And, ‘Ye devour widows houses. Aug. cont. Parm. l. 3. c. 2.’ Now, Potuitne gravius divinis eloquiis accu­sari Avaritia, quàm ut idololatriae demonstraretur aequa­lis, & ejus nominis appellaretur, dicente Apostolo, Et Avaritia, Eph. 5.5. Col. 3.5. quae est Idolorum servitus? potuitne majori poena digna judicari, quàm ut inter illa crimina ponere­tur, quibus obsessi regnum Dei non possidebunt? aperian­tur oculi cordis, ne frustra pateant oculi corporis: ‘Could any thing be spoken more to shew the foulness of the sin of covetousness, than when the Apostle calls it (twice) Idolatry? And could any sin be more sorely punished, than by exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven. Let the eyes of the heart be open, lest those of the head see to no purpose.’ And it is to be observed of our Saviour also, how tartly, yet fully and most apt­ly he directs unto the discovery of them, when he saith, their fruit shall be like that of thorns and thistles, Matth. 7. noting the rents and divisions they should make, and by that might be known. Ibid. And to the same effect in the same place he saith: ‘Their cloathing should be like that of sheep, but their work that of wolves, which elsewhere he says is scattering and destruction. Joh. 10.’ The same which Paul more plainly; ‘Those who cause divi­sions, Rom. 16. contrary to the doctrine ye have learned, are such as serve their own bellies.’ Which I assure you, some are [Page 17] well known to have, even unto Epicurism and Excess, as our Saviour speaks. Matth. 23.25. Upon consideration of the pre­mises, though I did not renounce wholly, yet were our meetings interrupted, and we remained socii sine socie­tate, and brethren without communion; till wearied with that spirit, and by occasion of the Siedge (by the help of some of those, whom I had not wholly left, as Austin once, of which afterwards) invited thence, and withdrawn, being out of the crowd and smoaks, I have had time and clearness to review things better. Which, through Gods mercy, I have so improved, that it hath produced in me both in word and walking, now many years both verbal and real retractations, having felt that true: ‘Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, Jer. 2.19. and thy back slidings shall reprove thee. Know therefore and see, that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that my feat is not in thee, saith the Lord of hosts.’ So true is that, Brightm. in Apocyl. cap. 3.20. Si fugia­tis hunc Christum, qui eum electis in nostris coetibus coenat, ac eos vicissimi excip t, profectò nusquam invenietis. ‘If you (saith mine Author) fly from Christ, who, with his Cho­sen, sups in our Assemblies (in the Church of England) and again also entertaineth them; in truth you will find him no where.’ This for the Church affair.

The next is that of the Common-wealth, how far I went in that.

Sect. 4. How far the Author proceeded in the Civil Controversie.

First, Never could I disgest the opposition against, and attempts touching the life of the King, though I took it down for a few days, but was not able to concoct it, as shall be shewed. Which leads me to the second par­ticular, What first did more especially open my eyes, and excite my spirit to a recognition, in that particular also.

Sect. 5. What recalled him.

When the Army had the King at Causham by Redding, and moved openly against the Lords and Commons in Parliament, I made a journey thither to satisfie my self touching the grounds of their proceedings; and spake with the persons of greatest in­fluence, both in the Army, and of the Ministery, some whereof I found most earnest against them, Note. because they acted beyond and against their Commission, who since have turned tail, as I may so speak. But so little satisfaction I received, that from that time forward I ever declined from the Army. Next, when that abhorred Conspi­racy for the death of our late Soveraign began to ripen, and was drawing near unto execution? I my self with some others address'd our selves both unto the General, and the L [...]eutenant-general Cromwel. The first we found civil, and, as we thought, flexible; the other (I must now speak it) I plainly fell out, with. And, though some way related to him, and having merited some good in­terest in him, yet from that day I never spake with him, nor did ever after come near unto him, but reflected on him with horror. Gal. 1.20. Behold, before God I lie not, and all that have ever known me this twelve years day and upward can bear me witness. Yet for some few days after this (for I speak, as I shall answer before the judg­ment-seat of Christ) being over-powered, 2 Cor. 5. against my own judgment, by the authority of some, whose reason I preferred far before my own, whereas I had before publickly appeared against that unexemplified impiety; I was so weak, as to resile and recal what I had said in the same place. But (which I desire the Reader to take notice of) I was soon after so oppressed in my spirit, Note. both with the sense of the horror of that act, the de­struction of the King (which I thought I saw to be fatal [Page 19] to the Nation, and an irrecoverable evil, and such, in its proportion, as was the death of Christ our Lord and Sa­viour, unto Jerusalem) as also with my own gui [...]t, in re­calling what I had well spoken, that I cou d h [...]rdly keep from sinking in despair in my mind; and the spirits of my body and my nerves were to resolved and loo [...]ened, that though I felt neither cold nor pain, yet I could not lie in my bed without perpetual shaking, as if I had had an ague: This brought restlesness and want of sleep with it, and so into the peril of some further evil. But upon the reception of some Physick, and with-drawing a little in­to the Country, through Gods mercy I recovered that, but not my peace and inward quiet, Note. untill I had pub­lickly again declared my return unto my former thoughts, concerning the death of his Majesty, and with this Emphasis, That I must speak it, though it should be the last I should ever speak unto them. And I was after­wards look'd upon with such an eye, that I was in danger since to be laid in prison there, (as they term'd it) for Malignancy. And about that time, my selfe and an­other Scholar of the Independent way (but of too good a spirit for that Schism) did draw a Letter to have been presented to the General, Mr. Tho. Waterh. (but by my neglect omitted) by way of disswasion from that enterprise. And this also may be a further proof of the integrity of my return to my Allegiance, that I refused the Engagement, (which I desire may be noted) although the Commissioners about it, sate in the same Town where I lived, and yet do. And in my publick Sermons in the Lecture At Alesb. Com. Bucks. near where I live, I concealed not my spirit. Neither have any other in these parts had, for the time above specified, any other conceptions of me. But the greatest demonstration of all was, that Anno 1659. when, God is witsness, I did not know, nor could foresee, any present ground to bel [...]eve, Note. that I should live to see any change of the Government that then was; I published the sum and heads of these Re­tractations (as was noted above, and as they are in the next Chapter of this Treatise) for the discharge of my [Page 20] consciene (though I knew it hazardous to my outward condition) whether I liv'd or dy'd. And I took, and do take great comfort in it, and humbly bless God for the putting it into my heart, and giving me opportunity to perfect and publish it, And necessitating me thereunto, by that contest about Baptism, and the printing thereof, In which also, I hope, and have heard, that there hath been some service performed to the Church. Yea, at the publishing of this now, I am not without manifold fears; so great sins committed against God, and so great animo­sities among men, Matth. 12. that it threatens this Kingdom (divided against it self, and in great measure from God) the dan­ger of not standing. And I may come to answer for what I now write. 2 Cor. 12. ‘But the Lord perfect his power in my weakness, and he grant, that the godly sorrow which he hath effected in my heart, 2 Cor. 7. in the resentment of the premises, and which hath wrought this repentance, may never be repented of; nor that there ever be cause that I retract these retractations, Amen.’ Yea, there may be those, who having lost me, may, by some artifice, effect, that I shall lose those whom they think I now intend to win; that so, being by both deserted, I might be ruined. But God, who sees their plots, and my plainness in this affair, will, I hope, disappoint them. But if he shall, for his glory, and my further mortification, permit them, I hope my suffering shall be like that of Mephibosheth, (for even David may be abused) by a treacherous Ziba for my Loyalty, 2 Sam. 19.27. 1 King. 2. not like that of Shimei for my Apostacy. And that I shall never prove either Qui Sacr. libros trade­banc [...] ethnicis. Traditor or Pro­ditor, false to this Church, or faithless to my Country. Quia qui in pace, militibus suis futuram praenunciat pug­n [...]m, dabit militantibus in congressione vict [...]riam. ‘Be­cause he that hath warned his Souldiers of the approach­ing Battel, Cypr. Epist. 2. l. 1. will also in the conflict assist to victory.’ And, I may give them this taste of my spirit, and his grace, That whereas upon his Majesties return (by prayer) I was often importuned to ask, and assured to have; I wi­ling [...]y let slip the season, that I might evidence I did [Page 21] not follow Christ for the L [...]eaves, nor the King for a Living. As also, that I might by the publishing this, (being not onely my retractation, but confession also of my faith) clearly be known, and so no error personae, or ignorantia facti, be complained of afterward. Besides, Providence hath so disposed in outward matters, that I may in the state I am, perhaps not uncomfortably subsist without much addition.

Sect. 6. Proof, that the Author went no further.

Now for close and confirmation, that my lapse was not so exorbitant (through the mercy of God) as to my principles, in either of the former causes, I shall subjoyn a passage touching each out of those my actings, which were most eminent in these particulars; and first for the War. Serm. on Judg 5.23. Jun 19 1642. at Trin. Ch. in Camb. Prov. 19. In that Discourse wherein I gave Answer in the University unto Dr. Feams Book, at its first appearance, there are these words. Object. 3. ‘But the King forbids this help, ( viz. by the War) and commands the con­trary: Now where the word of a King is, there is power, and his wrath is as the roaring of a Lion. Eccles. 8. Ibid. And I counsel thee, obey the Kings commandment, and that because of the Oath of God. vers. 4. Rom. 13. And who shall say to the King, What dost thou? And, He that resists, resists the Ordinance of God, &c. Answ. We are not to take notice of the Kings commands as they look upon the publick, but by his Laws, which are his deliberate will — and by those whom the Law hath appointed interpreters of it. And then indeed, when a King comes in his Laws, he is more than a man, for he is the Minister of God, and whosoever resists, resists the Ordinance of God, and he that resists shall receive to himself damnation. Object, 4. But the King saith, He proceeded according to Law; who shall judge? Resp. The same body rightly gathered, that made the Law, [Page 22] i. e. the Common-wealth can best judge of its own meaning. And seeing Law is not declared by the King but in his Courts, and the higher Court being that of Parliament, we are to rest in their declaration, unless we see manifestly to the contrary. By which passage it doth appear, that there was this especially that did mis­guide me, viz.’ The misapplication of some true principles. First, That the Law of Nature allowing self-preservati­on to a Nation as well as a Man; it might be endeavoured in case of necessity, as to particular Laws, illegally. Which is untrue; Rom. 3. for, We must not do evil that good may come thereof. Secondly, That the King being always to be obey'd in his Laws declared in his Courts, and the Par­liament being the highest Court; therefore what the two H. H. did declare to be Law, was so; wherein there was a doubble mistake. 1. That the two Houses were the Parliament in exclusion of, and opposition to the King, (that I say not a lesser part, for number of Lords and Commons; though enough in formality of Law.) 2. That it was Law which they declared to be so, See the De­claration of 2 H. H. No­vemb. 2. 1642. in answer to that of the Kings, May 26. pag. 22. though no Law was shewed, but a sentence out of Bracton, who wrote in Hen. 3. in the time of the Barons Wars, and who in another place hath the clean contrary, as shall appear; and it may be a sentence or two out of some other pri­vate Lawyer, against the constant sentence of Lawyers, and the known practice of the Law and Parliaments. This for the War; that I might shew, that Law, the Au­thority of Parliament mistaken, and no private headiness, did transport me. Next, for Independency: In the Tract I published on that Argument, Vindiciae Ca­tholicae cap. 1. p. 3. there is this passage, ‘Now the scope of this Treatise is, not to unfasten the ground of all Church-combination, and to lay a foun­dation for absolute Independency. The conveniency, and sometime, the necessity of Classes and Synods for directi­on and determination, and that by Divine Authority, is freely acknowledged, (though no with power pro­perly Juridical) yea, I add, that Episcopacy it self was, and might be maintained, as also Presbytery (if confined [Page 23] to a particular Church, and not subjected to Superior Ecclesiastical power, which was the most antient way of it) might both consist together in a particular one.’ Again, ‘The violation of Parochial limits, oft-times manifestly prejudicial to edification— yet am not I for the drawing of any godly, able, pag. 69. and faithful Mini­sters people from him, who is for the substance of Reformation, though with many defects in lesser things.’ Again, ‘But this is not their (my own and some others) opinion, pag. 79. that it is essentially requisite to the being of a visible Church, that it meet in one place; they hold it (de benè esse) for conveniency, not abso­lutely necessary.’ From which passages it is evident, first; That not such an Independency as some practised was pleaded for; but such as might agree, not with Presby­tery onely, but with Episcopacy; and not onely with a Parochial Church, or the Church of a City, but such as might agree with a Nation also. As indeed the Church of England, and other National Churches, are indepen­dent as to right of Jurisdiction, from all other Churches. There being no such thing in re, as an universal Visible governing Church (as I have, I think, evinced in the Treatise above mentioned) but every expression in that passage I own not. But to conclude, I repeat that of Bucer: Habet jam— quicunque haec legent, ut ìn con­tentionem — pertractus sim, in eâ me gesserim, & ab eâ Domini ope, ereptus sim; quaeque ratio sit consilii mei, quae causae, quod retractare in animum induxi. ‘Thus have you (as saith mine Author) how I was drawn into this contestment; how I behaved my self in it; and how, by the mercy of God, I have been delivered out of it; upon what grounds also and reasons I thought fit to retract.’

[The Chapter following was published in May 1659. verbatim (in the entrance of a Book written by the Au­thor in defence of Infant-Baptism, entituled, The Pastor and the Clerk *; when there was neither appearance [Page 24] abroad, nor apprehension in his own thoughts, of that change of publick affairs which Providence hath effected since) with this Inscription, A Retractation, or Recalling, &c.]

Sect. 1. Neither distaste of, nor affection unto persons.

And first, for persons. To which I shall the rather speak; because there is danger of falling into Scylla, whilst we would avoid Charybdis; and that a Matth. 23.18. Proselyte may by Pharisaism and hypocrisie; become two-fold more the child of hell than he was by profaneness. Therefore that I may not seem to commit the same error against some now, that was admitted against others before; I shall represent my spirit and opinion touching persons of the side I have deserted; and then of those, whom in these cases I return unto. Matth. 5. 1 Pet. 2.17. Gal. 6. ‘First, We are obliged to love and honor all men, though especially the houshold of faith.’ St. Austin not onely styles the persons he wrote against, or had departed from, sometimes Dominis prae­dicalibus & dilectissimis fratribus me­daurensib. ep. 42. Dilect [...]ssimo fratri vinientio epist. 48. honored, or reverend, or beloved brethren; but also expresses his ' spirit toward them, which I desire may be mine also, in reference unto those I have now reflected on. Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt cum quo labore, verum invenia­tur, & quam difficile caveantur errores. Illi in vos saevi­ant, qui nesciunt quàm rarum & arduum sit, carnalia phantasmata, piae mentis serenitare superare. Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt cum quantâ difficultate sanatur [Page 29] oculus interioris hominis ut possit intueri solem — Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt, quibus suspiriis & gemi­tibus fiat, ut ex quantacunque parte possit intelligi Deus. Aug. contr. epist. q. voc. Fundam. cap. 2. Pastrento, illi in vos saeviant, qui nullo tali errore decepti sunt, quali vos deceptos vident. Ego saevire in vos omnino non possunt; quos sicut meipsum illo tempore; ita nunc de­beo sustinere; & tanta patientiâ vobiscum agere, quantae mecum egerunt proximi mei, cum in vestro dogmate caecus errarem. ‘Let them (saith he) rage against you, who do not know with what labour truth is found, 1. The difficulty of Truth. and how dif­ficult it is to avoid errors. Let them rage against you, who know not how rare and hard a thing it is, to scatter fleshly fancies by the light of a pious heart. Let them rage against you, who understand not how choice a thing it is so to cure the eye of the inward man, that it may be able to behold the Sun. Let them rage against you, who know not with what sighs and groans it is ef­fected, that even the back-parts of God may be known. Lastly, Let them rage against you, who have not been deceived with any such error, as they see you to be de­ceived with. For my self, I can by no means be vio­lent against you, (he means their persons, and the persons of those, that were not turbulent) whom I ought now to bear, as I did then my self; and to deal with you in the same degree of patience, that my friends did with me, when I blindly wandred in your opinions.’

2. Besides, the persons and worth of some, 2. The worth, and unwor­thiness of per­sons on both sides. R. Hooker pre­sat. ad Pol. Eccles. n. 2. from whom I now decline, challengeth all due respect, and some of those, whom I now adhere unto as little. We should be injurious to vertue it self, saith Mr. Hooker, if we did derogate from them, whom their industry hath made great. Bucer acknowledgeth both the usefulness of the labours even of the very Heathens toward Religion, and highly predicates the Religion and piety of some of them. Neminem verò offendat, Bucer in Joh. 4.31. &c. quòd & Philosophorum laborem profuisse ad Evangelium puto: omnis enim veritas à Deo est, & veritas sanè plurima in scriptis Philosopho­rum [Page 30] & Poetarum legitur. Jam quantulumcumque id fuerit, quod de veritate Philosophi tradiderunt, ad Deum certè animos hominum attraxerunt, eosque ad Evan­gelium praepararunt — sed quid opus est verbis? Qui vel non in Cicerone, Cicero. miram Dei solidaeque pietatis cog­nitionem agnoscit, eum necesse est ignorare, quid sit & Deus & pietas. ‘Let no man (saith he) be offended, that I judge the labours of the Philosophers to have been useful unto the Gospel, for all truth is of God; and verily there are many truths in the writings of the Philosophers and of the Poets. Now how little soever it were of truth that they delivered, surely it drew the minds of men unto God, and by that, did prepare them unto the Gospel— But what need words? he that doth not acknowledge even in Cicero a wonderful knowledge of God, and of sound (he meaneth serious, not saving) piety; it must needs be, that he knoweth neither what God nor piety means.’ Thus far he. St. Paul himself gives testimony to some of the Heathen Poets, Ti [...]. 1. and calls one of them a kind of Prophet, and also a true witness; and gives a high Elogy of zeal to the Jews and Pharisees, Rom. 10.2. even then whilst he writes against them. St. Austin (in that notable Directory of his for the stu­dy of Divinity, Austin 's Di­rectory. namely, his Books de Doctrina Christia­na) commends a Book of one of his Adversaries, and an Heretick (containing certain Rules for the understand­ing of the Scripture) unto the reading of his hearers, and inserts much of it into his own Tractate, and calls it, Elaboratum & utile opus, De doctr. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 30. an elaborate and useful work, Quod ideo dicendum putavi, ut liber ipse legatur à studio­sis, quia plurimùm adjuvat ad intelligendus scripturas. ‘Which I therefore say (saith he) that the Book it self may be read by the studious, for it very much helpeth to the understanding of the Scripture.’ Our Lord and Saviour by his own example hath instructed us, upon just occasion, to declare our selves very freely against the vanities that be in men, whether vice or error; and yet to exosculate and kiss their vertues, as 'tis said [Page 31] himself did, ‘He loved, or as Casaubon. in Marc. 10.21. ex Origine. some read it, he kissed the young man, for the good things that he saw in him; and yet inveighed against his covetousness.’ So did our Saviour acknowledge what was commendable in those Churches, whose Candlesticks, Rev. 2.2, 3 4, 5. for the things he had against them, he was ready to remove; yea, in that Church which he was ready to spew out of his mouth, Laodicea, chap. 3.16. for 'tis said, He loved it. According to this, our late Sove­raign, speaking of some Ministers, against whom, about the late contests in Church and State, he had conceived some displeasure, yet saith of them: ‘Whom I respect for that worth and piety which may be in them. Eicon Basilic. Medit. 24.’ Fi­nally, My opinion of the persons of many of those whom I have left, and of those whom I now cleave un­to, both in the Civil and Ecclesiastical affair; I shall re­present in the words of one in repute with the best of both parties. Who having effectually, and with full acrimony, written in a certain point, against the Papists, concludes thus; Neque sic mihi succenseant viri inter Papistas probi, honesti, honorati. Non enim in ipsos, Zanchi. de di­vortiis, lib. 2. in ipso sine. sed in ipsorum haec à me scribuntur religionem, propter qùam unam religionem fit, ut ill ne (que) fratres à nobis appellari possint — Cùm interim non diffitear, nec diffiteri possim, illorum permultos maximis dignos esse laudibus; quòd Dei sint timentes, quòd aequitalis studiosi, quòd honesti, quòd denique variis virtutibus ornati: sicut contra inter nostros quam plurimos esse minimè negamus; qui hac tantum de causâ inter fratres censeantur; quòd eandem Christi puram religionem nobiscum profite­antur. Cum alioqui, nihil minus revera sint quàm fratres, propter innumerabilia, quibus scatent vitia. ‘But let not any worthy, honest, and honorable Papist (saith he) be offended with me; for what I have written is not against them, but against their opinions in Religion. For which cause of Religion alone it is, that we cannot call them Brethren (he means in a strict consideration) whereas in the mean time I do not den [...], nor indeed can do; but that there are very many of them worthy of the highest commendations; as being men fearing [Page 32] God, studious of equity, just men, and, in a word, adorn'd with many vertues. Whereas on the contrary, we cannot deny at all, but that there are exceeding ma­ny of ours, whom for this onely cause we acknowledge for brethren: because they profess the same pure Reli­gion of Christ with us. Whereas otherwise, they are no­thing less than brethren, by reason of the innumerable vices wherewith they even swarm.’ Thus far he.

3. Personal En­gagements.3. But unto the personal worth, and useful labours of some, whom I recede from; my own private engage­ments oblige me unto acknowledgment. Austin doth confess, that he obtained a place of employment and sub­sistence by the favour of the Manichees, even then, when he desired to be freed from them; which was in part my own condition: Aug. confess. lib. 5. cap. 13. Ego ipse ambivi per eosdem ipsos Ma­nichaeos vanitatibus ebrios, quibus ut carerem ibam. ‘I endeavoured to obtain the place (saith he) by those same persons, that were drunken with the errors of the Manichees, and I went, that I might be delivered from them. ibid.’ Et veni Mediolanum ad Ambrosium— Ad eum autem ducebar abs te nesciens, ut per eum ad te sciens ducerer. ‘And so I came to Millan unto Am­brose, unto whom I was brought by thee, unwitting to my self; that by him, I might be brought to thee (O God) on better knowledge. ibid.’ — appropinquabam sensim & nescivi. ‘I did thereby draw near unto thee by degrees, and knew it not.’ The like hapned to my self also. For the absence from those wanderers, and the privacy of the Country, and the urgences of the affairs of the place, Note. together with the unfaithfulness of those who failed in their engagement (to do all offices for me in the Church affair but preaching) occasioned me, that, as I was awakened before in the Civil affair; and wam­bled also in that of the Ecclesiastical: upon farther con­sideration, reading, and prayer; God let me hear a voice behind me, Isa. 30. saying: 'This is the way, walk in it. So that though, through the desertion of those, who should have assisted me (and promised so to do) I have been consi­derably [Page 33] detrimented in my [...] condition, by the place they commended me unto; Col. 3. 2 Cor. 4. yet by this means my inward man, in true knowledge, as the Apostle speaks, hath been renewed day by day. What hand God will lead us home by is in his disposing; sometimes by our own wandrings and sins; as Onesimus was brought to Paul, Philem. and my self to the opportunity of light by those, who were themselves in darkness. But yet we must remem­ber; ‘Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, Deut. 23.7. because thou wast a stranger in his land.’ From whence we learn, That differences in Religion, must not obliterate the duty we owe to our natural or civil relations, and such as have done us good, although by accident. This as to persons.

SECT. 2. Nor hope of outward things.

2. NExt for things, and advantage worldly. I may usurp here, and I hope truly, that expression of the Apostle above mentioned: ‘Our exhortation was not of deceipt, nor of uncleanness, nor of guile; 1 Thess. 2.3. I may adde, 'nor of gain, nor of vain-glory. For I coveted no mans silver, nor gold, nor apparel; But so spake, not as pleasing men but God, who trieth our hearts. Nei­ther at any time designed we flattering words, nor a cloak of covetousness, God is witness, yea, and man also.’ For I neither endevoured nor received, though offered, (as some things were) any thing material all that time, either of advance or advantage; but was then, Note. and am since, in much worse condition, than I was before I en­gaged that way, and then those who did that party far less service. And this one thing may, I hope, excuse me, though not à toto and wholly, yet à tanto and in part. Seeing our Lord himself makes it a note of an honest and true meaning person, Joh. 7.18. viz. that he seeks not his own [Page 34] honor or advantage, but of him that sends him. This title of integrity and of an honest man, I had the honor in my younger time, to receive from Dr. George Abbot, and Dr. William Laud, L. L. Arch­bishops of Can­terbury. two Witnesses, that were prime and Primate, in their rank, of this whole Nation, and upon that account was preferred by them both. Now,

And it were better for me doubtless to die, than to make either the opinion of such persons, 1 Cor. 9.15. or my own glorying on this behalf really void. For this is my comfort, the testimony of a good conscience, 2 Cor. 7.12. that in godly sincerity I have had my conversation in the world, and more abun­dantly in both these affairs, wherein I hazarded all that was dear unto me. 'I am become a fool in glorying, but the occasion hath constrained me. 2 Cor. 12.11. ‘Yet because not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth. 1 Cor. 4.4. And though I know nothing by my self (as to any evil intendment) yet am I not thereby justified, 1 Joh. 3.20. because God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things in them, better than we do our selves. Psal. 143.2. Enter not therefore into judgment with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.’ I conclude these negative causes with that memorable profession of Mr. Ridley, In his Answer to the Q. Commissio­ners, April 2. 1554. Bishop and Martyr, touching the change of his judgment from Popery unto the Protestant Religion; ‘Albeit (saith he) plainly to confess unto you the truth, in these things which ye now demand of me, I have thought otherwise in times past than now I do; yet God I call to record upon my soul, I lie not, I have not altered my judgment as now it is, either by constraint of any man or laws, either for the dread of any danger of this world, or for any hope of commodity; but onely [Page 35] for the love of the truth revealed unto me by the grace of God, as I am undoubtedly perswaded, in his holy Word, and in the reading of the antient faithful Fathers.’ Thus far he. And the same is my profession before the same Person, and with the same solemnity that he appeal'd unto, and used therein. The Negative causes are ended.

SECT. I. God Almighty.

BUT because, Scire, est per causam cognoscere; [...]. Anal. l. 1. c. 2. We doe then know, when we see the reasons and origi­nals of things; those, of my falling, I shall next design. They are colligible both from the dimensions and Ʋbi's: upward, viz. and downward, outward and inward. God Almighty, though he tempteth no man, either by in­fusion of evil, or for evil ends; yet our prayer against it, from him, doth imply that, he doth sometimes, and that justly, lead into temptation. Hence that of the Father, Aug. Confess. l. 1. c. 2. Bona mea instituta tua sunt & dona tua; mala mea de­licta mea sunt & judicia tua, i. e. ‘What is good in me, is of thine appointment and donation; what is evil, is of my sin and thy judgment.’ For though the Tempter be not wanting, and, ipse diabolus suam quidem habet cupiditatem nocendi; facultatem non nisi quae datur, [Page 36] vel ad subvertenda ac perdenda vasa irae, Aug. de Genes. ad lit. lib. 11. cap. 12. vel ad humilian­da sive probanda vasa misericordiae: ‘The Devil (as saith Saint Austine) hath indeed a desire to do mischief, but power he hath none, but what is given him; either for the overthrow and destruction of the vessels of wrath; or the humiliation and triall, of the vessels of mercy.’ And this God doth for gracious purposes. As first, for conviction, Eccles. 3.18. that men may know themselves to be but beasts, as the Wise-man speaks. Next for correction and humi­liation. God shaketh us, that the soyl may come up, we may see it and be ashamed. He draweth out our cor­ruptions by tentations, Deut. 8.2. to humble and to trie what is in the heart: Where, we have them both together. And severally, 2 Chron. 33.31. first for discovery. God left him (saith the Text of Hezekiah) ‘to know (or make known) all that was in his heart.’ Next for humiliation hereby. It is said of him (in the same place) that ‘ Hezekiah humbled himself, vers. 26. after that his heart was lifted up.’ So true is that, Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. 14. cap. 13. Audeo dicere, superbis esse utile cadere in aliquod apertum manifestumque peccatum, unde sibi displiceant, qui jam sibi placendo ceciderant. — Hoc dicit sacer Psal­mus, Imple facies eorum ignominia ut quaerant nomen tuum Domine, Note. &c. ‘I dare be bold to speak it (saith he) that it is good for high and conceited men, to fall into some open and apparent sin; that thence they may come to dislike themselves a little; who by being over pleased with themselves, fell into transgression. And this is it, which the holy Psalm saith, Fill their faces with shame, Psal. 83.16. that they may seek thy Name, O Lord, &c.’

SECT. 2. Satan.

2. AGain, although Satan, the first sinner, is virtually in every sin; yet more specially in those for­mally [Page 37] he is; which in their Idea and nature, do imitate his original. viz. Apostacy from, and rebellion against God and good order, both in the Church and in the Common-wealth. Ephes. 6. Joh. 8. For these are more properly spiritual wickednesses in high places, and those real lies against the truth, whereof he is the genuine father. Though the seed of all sin be in us, yet the heat that excites it, and the moisture that foments it, and the midwifry that brings it forth, in great evils, is more formally from Sathan. And where there is remarkable miscarriage of the un­derstanding, or eminent pravity of the will. Seldom is it, in such great lapses, and, as it w [...]re, Matth. 4. from the pina­cle of the Temple; but that his hand is in it, who would have cast our Lord and Saviour thence first. Satan tempted David to number the people. And, 2 Chron. 24. Joh. 13. Act. 5. 1 Cor. 7. Satan having now put into the heart of Judas to betray him. And, Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the holy Ghost? Again, Lest Satan tempt you for your inconti­nency. Hence in great civil crimes among our selves, the form of Indictment runs, That such an one moved by the instigation of the Devil, &c. committed this or that. Quommodo Deus Pater genuit filium veritatem, Aug. sic diabolus lapsus, genuit quasi filium mendacium. ‘As God (saith he) the Father begat the Son, who is Truth; so Satan being fallen, hath begotten, as it were, his son also, which is Falshood, for he is a lyer, Matth. 13. and the father of it. The enemy then that sows these Tares is the devil.’

SECT. 3. Outward Causes.

THe outward causes of my wandring, were answe­rable unto all the points of Latitude, before me, behind me, on the right hand, and on the left. First, 1. Before. Be­fore me; the seeming fairness of the way, and the ap­pearing [Page 38] straitness of the steps, of those who walked in it. And indeed, had the one been such as the Map de­scribed; and the other such as those, who went out of Hierusalem in the simplicity of their hearts, 2 Sam. 15.11. (though to as ill an action) or those that at the first were such, had they continued so; it might have been a temptation still, as it was then (malle errare cum Platone) to choose, Cic. namely, almost to wander with so good company, rather than to keep path with other men. 2. Behind. Again, Behind me. The dark, rugged, and new-cast ways, that some iron­shod cattel had both marred and stumbled in. Who seem'd to verifie that; Q Curtius, l. 8. non longè ab initio. Male humanis ingeniis natura (he should have said corrupta) consuluit, quòd plerunque non futura, sed transacta perpendimus. That is, ‘Nature, in some men, hath set their wits awry, in that, for the most part, they weigh not their future, but their by-past actions.’ Now the former seemed to decline those paths. Again, on the right-hand: 3. On the right hand. The success afterward of the one, Providence it self seeming to pronounce for them, and that after solemn appeal thereunto of both sides. And on the left-hand, 4. On the left. the dysasters and calamities of the other; See the seve­ral Declara­tions of the Lords and Commons, especially the Speeches of Mr. Cromwel to both H. H. representing it as fatal to all that espoused that Cause and Party. wherein I forgat Eccles. 7.17. Isa. 8.10. Ezek. 14.4, 5. that, There is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his days in his iniquity. ‘That when we are directed to the Law and to the Testi­mony; if we come before God with an idol, and appeal of another designment in our hearts; the Lord may an­swer according to our own hearts.’ And lastly, that sometimes His Majesties Letter to Gen. Monk from Breda, Apr. 4. 1660. Eccles. 5.12, 13. 5. Other Ap­pendixes. God hath encreased the confusion, by giving all the success that hath been desired; and brought that to pass without effect, which the designers have proposed as the best means to settle and compose the Nation. 'Tis not therefore always true, Victrix causa Deo placuit; for, 'I have seen riches kept for the hurt of the owner, saith Solomon. And, ‘He begetteth a son, and there is nothing in his hand.’

5. Add hereunto, Engagements of acquaintance and [Page 39] otherwise, unto persons of that party, and such appen­dixes. Which like smaller Rillets to the Stream, though the wheel would have gone without them, yet did quick­en and accellerate the motion.

SECT. 4. Inward Causes.

4. BUt when all is said, that will be found true, Every man when he is tempted, Jam. 1. is drawn away of his own concupiscence and enticed; for God, he tempteth no man properly. And as touching Satan, he indeed filled the heart of Ananias to lie to the holy Ghost, Act. 5. but the fault is laid on the man himself, Why hath Satan filled thine heart? And for motives from without, whether things or men, it excused neither Judas nor the Jews; Act. 4. Joh. 13.1. that Gods counsel, Satans motion, Cesars terror, and other things concurred unto Christs betraying. The reason is, because Gods decree of events, constreins no mans will, nor prompts his reason, to use unlawful means. Job 13.7. Jam. 4. 1 Joh. 5. ‘He does not need our lie or sin. The devil, if we resist him, will flee from us.’ And if we have faith and grace within, we shall overcome the world without.

SECT. V. More particular Causes, but common to both Controversies.

BUt to come unto particulars. And though several might here be named, yet a few shall serve, and such as tend most to admonition. And first, that which the Apostle makes first in these kind of lapses. 1 Unground­edness. 2. Conceited­ness. A young Scholar (as Mr. Tindal reads it) whether in years or judgment, if he be in the Ministery, will be apt (to a [Page 40] second fault, 1 Tim. 3.6. namely) to be puffed up, and so fall into the snare and condemnation of the devil, 1. [...]. 2. [...]. (that is, into his sin, to wit, of Apostasie, and sedition against God and his Church) as the Apostle hath it. And again, in the same Epistle, chap. 6.4. speaking of an Heterodox Teacher, he puts them both together in one word, (for [...] will bear both) and says, So in the Mar­gin. He is a fool, and proud, or proud, knowing nothing. Now we know, pride goes be­fore a fall, Prov. 16.18. and objects us unto temptation and opini­ons. Quis his pollicitationibus non alliceretur; praesertim adolescentis animus cupidus veri, Aug. de Utili­tate credendi, cap. 1. etiam nonnullorum in Scholâ doctorum hominum disputationibus superbus & ga­rulus, qualem me tunc illi invenerunt? ‘Who would not have been perswaded by their promises? especially the mind of a young man thirsty for truth; and by the disputations of some men learned in the Schools, made proud and prating; such a one, as they then found me to be, saith St. Austin.’ I refuse not so great a president. If objects then unto temptations of opinions, and that in Gods just judgment (for He resists the proud. Jam. 4.) And in his great mercy: Aug. de Civit. lib. 14. cap. 13. Salubriùs enim Petrus sibi displicuit quando flevit, quàm sibi placuit, quando presumsit — ‘For Peter (saith he) was more savingly displeased with himself when he wept, then when he was pleasing to himself and presumed, R. Hook. Ser­mon of Pride, near the end. &c. And if the blessed Apostle did need the corrosive of sharp and bitter strokes, lest his heart should swell, with too great abundance of heavenly Revelations; 2 Cor. 12. Surely upon us, whatsoever God in this world doth, or shall inflict; it cannot seem more than our pride doth exact, not onely by way of revenge, but of remedy.’ Saith a learned and good man. Hence that of the Father noted above, namely; That it is good for high and conceited men to fall into some mani­fest sin, Aug. de Civit. l. 14. cap. 13. ut tu eis placeas quaerentibus nomen tuum, qui sibi placuerant quaerendo suum: ‘That thou maist please them when they seek thy Name, who pleased them­selves in seeking of their own.’

3. Neglect of Reading.3. Hence the neglect of using such helps, and fol­lowing [Page 41] such directions, as in the improvement whereof I might have been preserved. Negligence in study, 1. In general. and of the Ministry of the Word, must needs have had, like some ominous Constellation, a sinister influence here. The Ministery is onus etiam Angelicis humeris formidandum. 2 Cor. 2 16. ‘A burden that the shoulder of an Angel may shake under.’ Of which the Apostle; [...]; 'For these things sufficient, what man is there? for so the expression may be rendred. Hence that of the same Author to all of this profession, 1 Tim. 4.13, &c. [...]. Which I mention in this form; because they were so commended unto me in my younger years, by a learned, Mr. Sam. ward, sometime Preacher of Ipswich. religious and elegant man, In an Inscription written with his own hand on his works, ( works indeed, being ela­borate pieces) with the donation whereof he was pleased to befriend me. This for studies in the general. To come unto particulars. And first the study of the Scriptures; of which, note what one spake, Homil. of the per [...]l of Idola­try, part 2. (that was the best learned in them, of all antient Doctors saith the Church of England, as was noted above.) Tanta est Christianorum profundit as literarum, ut— si eas solas ab ineunte pueritiâ, u [...]que ad decrepitam senectutem, maximo otio, summo studio, meliore ingenio conarer ad­discere, in eis quotidie proficerem. Aug. epist. 3. Non quod ea quae ne­cessaria sunt saluti, tanta in eis perveniatur difficultate; sed cum quisque ibi fidem tenuerit, sine quâ piè recte (que) non vivitur; tam multa, tam (que) multiplicibus mysteriorum umbraculis opaca, intelligenda proficientibus restat; tanta (que) non solum in verbis, quibus ista dicta sunt; verum etiam in rebus, quae intelligendae sunt, latet altitudo sapientiae; ut annosissimis, acutissimis, Ecclus. 18.6. flagrantissimis cupiditate dis­cendi, hoc contingat, quod eadem Scriptura quodam loco habet; cum consummaverit homo, tunc incipit. That is, ‘So great is the depth of the Scripture, and Christian learning, that I might every day profit and gain more in them, though I should study them onely, and that from childhood even unto decrepit age; with full lei­sure, [Page 42] earnest intention, and a better understanding than I have. Not that unto those things, which are neces­sary unto salvation, Austin's Cau­tion. asscent is so difficult. But thus; that after a man hath learned as much thence, as may ena­ble him to believe, (without which, we cannot live neither godly nor uprightly) there remains so many things, so darkly involved in so many veils and my­steries, that are further to be understood by him that would go forward: And there lies hid so great a heighth of wisdom, not onely in the words wherein these things are uttered, but also in the things that are to be known: That this will befall the most antient, the most acute, and the most studious Reader, which the same Scrip­ture saith in another place, viz. When a man hath end­ed, Austin ex­plained. he must then begin. Where, by the way, let it not offend the Reader, that St. Austin calls the Book of Ecclesiasticus Scripture.’ Whereas, according to the Do­ctrine of the Church of England, it is none of it, but Apocrypha onely. For the Canon of Scripture was ta­ken by him strictly and largely, as the Artic 6. of the sufficiency the Scriptures. learned note. When strictly; he acknowledgeth, that there is no certain Authority but in the Books received in the Hebrew Ca­non, whereof this is none. Whitak. Con­trov. 1. Q. 1. cap. 4. & cap. 14. Adversus contradicentes, non tanta firmitate proferuntur, D. Civit. lib. 17. cap. 20. quae scripta non sunt in Canone Judaeorum. In tribus vero illis libris (Proverbiis, Ec­clesiaste, & Cantico Canticorum) quos Salomonis esse constat, &c. ‘Against Opponents, saith he, we cannot with so good security produce any thing, that is not written in the Hebrew Canon. But in those three Books, which it is certain are Solomon's, that is, Proverbs, Ec­clesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, &c.’ But this occa­sionally. And so much for the study of the Scriptures.

Next. Touching the perusing of other good Authors 2. Other good Authors. also, that the neglect thereof, doth object unto error and seducement. I remember, that when Mr. William Sedg­wick Will. Sedgwick. had fallen into that delirium touching the end of the world, to be terminated by such a day: After the time was some while passed, certain Ministers (Independent) [Page 43] meeting on other occasion, and among them my self; discourse falling in concerning him. Mr. Bridge (as I re­member) conceiving him to be obsessed (a degree below possession) by a spirit, (communicated unto him by the A woman near Ely that put this con­ceit into his head. woman that possessed him with that delusion) and his understanding thereby bowed down, as it were, (a thing to be well observed:) Mr. Sydr. Symson (as rendring the cause of his lying open unto such temptations) said: ‘That Mr. Sedgwick had lived upon his fancy this seven years, and had neglected the reading of the Scripture and other good books.’ Touching other Books; Note. a friend of his lying in his Study at Ely, and observing he made no use of his Library; asked in mirth, to give him his Books, saying; 'I see you make no use of them. He re­plyed; 'They were good Introductions; intimating, that he was now beyond them. And for the Scripture, my self having some discourse with him about his former mistakes, (which then he Atheistically justified, saying; ‘ There was no other end of the world but this; just with Hymeneus and Philetus; And that God had burnt up all corruptio [...] in him &c.)’ And speech falling in about the Scripture, he said: 2 Tim. 2.17, 18. He could have a glorious use of them, and he could be without them. Reading surely, as it doth enlarge our abilities. (An tu existimas, aut suppetere nobis posse, Cic. pro. Archia. Poet. quod quotidie dicamus in tanta varietate rerum, nisi animos nostros doctrinâ excolamus. ‘Canst thou think (saith Tully) that we can have material supply, to speak daily in such variety of matters, if we did not encrease our parts by study.)’ So also it sharpneth our reasoning, to see both into words and things, even in Religion it self. Ut de sermone rectiùs judicemus, Melanchton praefat. in Hesi­odum. & ut dogmata religionis enarrare & explicare, quoties hoc poscit publicus usus, possimus; variè subigendum est ingenium, & omnibus disciplinis exco­lendum. ‘That we may the better judge of the meaning of words, and be able also to open and explain the do­ctrine of Religion, so often as the Publick calls for [Page 44] it. The mind is to be tilled several ways, and furnished with all kind of learning, Psal. 119.98, 99, 100. saith Melanchton.’ Lastly, It fixeth our judgment. Hence David did not count it va­nity to boast: ‘Thou through thy commandements hast made me wiser than mine enemies, for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teach­ers, for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the antients, because I keep thy precepts.’ Namely, I keep first, to the reading & considering of them. Hence the Apostle charges Timothy, not to live upon his own fancy; 1 Tim. 4. ‘but to give attendance to reading, to exhor­tation and doctrine, and to meditate on what he read.’ Yea, and himself also, as appears, had read all sorts of Authors, for he quotes the Greek Poets. So even when old, and, as himself saith, near his end, yet he gives order unto Timothy to bring him his Books and Parch­ments, 2 Tim. 4. in which perhaps his gatherings in his readings were. Aug. prolog. in lib. de doct. Christ. I conclude this point with that of the Father, finding such temptations in some of his time: Quod per hominem discendum est, sine superbia discat, & per quem docetur alius, sine superbia & sine invidia tradat quod ac­cepit. Neque tentemus eum cui credimus, ne talibus ini­mici versutiis & perversitate decepti, ad ipsum quo (que) evangelium audiendum at (que) discendum nolimus ire in ec­clesias — & expectemus rapi— caveamus tales tenta­tiones superbissimas & periculosissimas, magis (que) cogitemus & ipsum Apostolum Paulum, licet divinâ & coelesti voce prostratum & instructum, ad hominem tamen mis­sum — Quomodo enim verum esset, Templum Dei sanctum est, quod vos estis, si Deus de humano Templo re­sponsa non redderet? ‘That which may be learned from man (saith he) let the Christian receive without pride; and let him, by whom another is taught, deliver with­out pride, and without envy, what he hath received. Neither let us tempt him in whom we believe; lest being deluded with such fine and nice conceits of the enemy, we at length come to refuse to go to Church, to hear the very Gospel it self, but wait till we are in­spired. [Page 45] Let us take heed of such proud and perilous temptations; Note. Quakers in Austins time. and rather consider that even the Apostle Paul himself, although dejected and instructed by Christs own voice from heaven; was yet for all that sent unto man (namely, Ananias, for further informati­on.) For how else should it be verified which is pro­mised, (viz.) That the Temple of God is holy, 1 Cor. 3.16. which Temple are ye; if so be that God did not give forth Oracles out of this humane Sanctuary.’ Thus far he. And that for the second point, neglect of other Authors besides the Scripture.

Come we to the third defect in reading, 3. Controver­sies of the times neglect­ed. viz. Not studying what might be said on both sides, And the controversies of the times neglected. I remember that Dr. Sibs (a man Prov. 31. Dr. Sibbs St. Austin's seventh Tome useful in these times. whose works do praise him in the gate) the then Master of our Colledge, on occasion of certain opinions started by some at that time amongst us; commended unto me the reading of Austins seventh Tome. God preserved me from that infection (although I lived for some time in a Holland-like aire (from whence that wind blew) and near that w ter which was conceived to exhale some such vapours) without that Antidote. But had I read then all that Tome; it had, with his blessing, secured me against Independency; the one half of whose evil consists in Dona [...]sm and Sep r [...]tion. Against which St. Austin in one half of that work strenuously disputes. Of one Tract whereof Bucer saith thus: Particularly Contr. Epist. Parmen. lib. 3. Is locus hac maximè tempestate nobis singulari diligentiâ legendus & perpendendus est. That is: ‘That Treatise ( viz. St. Austins third Book against Parmenian) is in these times espe­cially to be read and pondered on, Bucer in Matth. 18.7. with special indu­stry.’ Thus of the third cause, neglect of Reading.

Now as the Beast, 4. Cause, Zeal unguid­ed. Job 39.22, 28. whose neck is cloath'd with thun­der, as Job speaks, cannot stand still when he smells the Battel, and if he want his eyes must needs do mischief, so that zeal which I had of God, wanting the due con­duct of knowledge; did indeed precipitate as well as provoke me unto these actings. What the dire effects of [Page 46] these two in conjunction would prove, our Saviour be­fore hand shews us, when he saith: that those who are acted by them, even then, when they persecute the Saints to death, Joh. 16.2. shall think they do God service. The Apo­stle himself was an example of it; who, before conversion, was exceedingly mad against the Saints, Act. 26.11. and persecuted them even unto strange cities. And after him his Schol­lar Austin ( St. Austin studied Paul especially. for St. Paul's writings at first he chiefly studied) acknow­ledgeth his unguided zeal, Itaque avidissimè arripui venera­bilem stylum Spiritus tui & prae cae­teris Apost. Paulum. Aug. confess. lib. 7. cap. 21. and the pernicious effects of it. Omnia illa figmenta & quaesivi curiosè, & attente audivi, & temerè credidi, & instanter quibus potui, persuasi, & adversus alios pertinaciter ani­moseque defendi. S. Aug. contr. Epist. quam vo­cant Funda­menti, cap. 3. ‘All those fancies (saith he) I sought after curiously, and heard them diligently, and believ­ed them rashly, and perswaded them to whom I could earnestly, against others I defended them with pertinacy and passion.’ Thus he of himself, whilst an heretical and schismatical Manichee.

5. Cause, Idolizing some persons.5. St. Paul, a man as full of charity as of faith, yet did with great prudence labour to take off from the Church­es, the too great opinion they had conceived of some persons. Nay, he spares not his friend Apollos, nor him­self neither. ‘What is Paul (saith he) or what is Apollos, but the Ministers by whom ye believed? 1 Cor. 3.5. That they might learn in them not to think of others above that which is written. chap. 4.6.’ Their idolizing of some, had been the occasion of the Apostasie of many. His Pupil Austin puts this Lecture into practice; who in his writings against the separation of his time, the Donatists and others, en­deavours to undeceive the people, and sets down the faults as well as the errors of those Schismaticks. One place for all, Ʋnde tantae turbae convivarum, ebriosorum & innuptarum, Aug. contr. ep. Parmen. lib. 3. cap. 3. sed non incorruptarum: innumerabilia stu­pra foeminarum, unde tanta turba raptorum, avarorum, faeneratorum? Ʋnde tam multi per suas qui (que) regiones notissimi, tantundem volentes, sed non valentes Optati? [Page 47] ‘If you be wheat and not chaff (saith he) whence is it that there is in Optatus (the Donatist or Separatist) his faction, such a crowd of luxurious persons, drunkards, unmarried, but not unmarr'd women; innumerable rapes and ravishments? whence this throng, among you of oppressors, of covetous, of usurers? whence is it that there are so many, who are well known in their se­veral Countries, to be as curst Cows, though they have shorter horns. Matth. 7.15.16.’ But had our Saviour been either under­stood or believed, the ravening Wolves had never crept into the flock in their Sheeps cloathing, but they would, if observed, have been discerned by their fruits. interpreted. Rending and tearing, as was said before, being a fruit of thorns and thistles, not of the vine or fig-tree. ‘St. Paul at­tributes it to the folly and negligence, Rom. 16.17. as well as the cha­rity of the Romans; that they did not observe, that those who caused divisions amongst them, contrary to the doctrine which they had received, did but with flatter­ing words and sweet preaching (according to Mr. Tin­dals version) deceive the simple, and serve their own bellies.’ But yet I must add that distinction here, which our Saviour uses in another case; I speak not of them all. Joh. 6.70. But as the Sea, the more it flows on one side the channel, the lower it ebbs on the other; so the immoderate prefer­ring of some, doth necessarily carry with it the under­valuing of, and prejudice against others, With the con­tempt of others. better oft-times than the former. This appeared in the Corinthians and Galatians; who by how much the more they doted on their new teachers; by so much deeplier were they pre­judiced against their old Minister and Apostle. Inso­much that he could neither speak nor write, but he was taken either for a fool, or a mad-man, or an enemy. 2 Cor. 10.10, chap. 5.13. His speech is contemptible, say they. And, ‘If I be besides my self, saith he, it is for your consolation, (implying, that they thought so of him,’ And, Gal. 4.16. ‘Am I become your enemy be­cause I tell you the truth?’ Now the fruit of this evill root, in my self, was; that I did not greatly mind what those of the contrary part, either said or wrote, Whom if I [Page 48] had piously and considerately heard and read, it had in all likelyhood, either prevented, or recovered, my falling, sooner. Euseb. hist. lib. 6. cap. 6. But not onely Dionysius in the Historian, hath taught us to become, boni numularii, omnia Probantes, & quod bonum fuerit retinentes. Good mony-changers, 'proving all, and keeping that which is good. But Austin himself also hath informed us, that a real adversary to the truth, may be read, so it be warily, and with wis­dom. Hence it is, that he commends the Rules of Ticho­nius the Donatist unto the reading of all men, as we saw already: Quod ideo dicendum putavi, ut liber ipse lega­tur à studiosis— cautè sanè legendus est, Aug. de doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 30. ad fin. non solùm prop­ter quaedam, in quibus ut homo erravit; sed maximè propter illa quae sicut Donatista haereticus posuit. ‘Which I therefore speak, saith he, that the book it self (of Tycho­nius) may be read by the studious, so it be warily; not only in regard of those things wherein he erred as a man; but especially in regard of those which he wrote as a Donatist. Job. 7.51.’ But read he might be. It was the pre­cipitancy of the old Pharisees, condemned by one of themselves, when he came to some farther moderation: ‘That they condemned and judged a man, before they heard what he could say for himself.’ This is that, which a Minister of the Gospel, above all men should observe; so to walk in the very eye of Christ, as to do nothing by partiality. 1 Tim. 5.21. This Canon therefore was transgressed.

6. Cause, Want of due reverence to the Church and State. 1. In general.6. As the wisdom of Law-givers is seen, not onely in the matter, but the order also of their Laws; so the Lord, with great prudence, placed that Precept first in the second Table of his Laws, from whence directly or occasionally the observation of the rest depend. Honor thy father and thy mother. The true exposition of which, is contained in the first rudiments to be instilled into children, but through that neglect, we want the effi­cacy of it being men, yea, and Teachers also: viz. ‘A neglect, Catechism in the Book of Common-Prayer. duly and heartily, to honor, and obey the King and his Ministers. To submit our selves to all our governors, teachers, spiritual pastors, &c.’ That is, [Page 49] a default in my reverence to the Church and Common-wealth, with the Governors of both; was another, and an eminent cause of my prevaricating. For the trans­gression of which commandment, as I deprived my self of the promise annexed, so incurred I the threatning implyed; so that had it not been for the rich mercy of God, and clemency of others, my days might not have been so long in the land of the living, as they have; Al­though I committed nothing by Law criminal. Isa. 8.20. To the ' Law and to the Testimony, saith the Prophet. Which is not to be restrained to the Scriptures onely, (though so meant there) but unto all expressions of the wisdom, goodness, and government of Almighty God toward men, declared in the Laws, which are nothing else but (as I may so speak) copies of those Attributes, and of Gods eternal Law, the first Original. Hence the diso­bedience unto the Legitimate Governors, Administra­tors, and Expounders of the Law of God, is made Re­bellion against himself, and a presumptuous sin by the Lord in Moses. And in particular, Deut. 17.2. In particu­lar. 1. Our own Church. R. Hook. Ec­cles. Pol. l. 5. § 71. touching the Church, the Laws, Governors, and body of it. That speech of one doth not want its weight (as none of his did) ‘As becometh them, that follow in all humility the ways of peace, we honor, reverence, and obey, in the very next degree unto God, the voice of the Church of God wherein we live. And they whose wits are too glorious to fall to so low an ebb; they that have risen and swollen so high, that the banks of ordinary Rivers are unable to keep them in; they whose wanton con­tentions, in the causes whereof we have spoken, do make all where they go a Sea; even they at their highest float, may be constrained, both to see and grant, that what their fancy will not yield to like, their judgments cannot with reason condemn.’ Thus he. Which is not spoken to put the spirit of bondage and blind belief, but the spirit of Sonship and Adoption into mens breasts, in order to the Church, the spirit of filial and child-like, not of slavish obedience. This for the Church. Then [Page 50] touching the Laws of our Nation, 2. The Laws of this Nation. it is to be observed, that there is so great a sacredness upon them, that the Apostles both Intermination and Prediction hath ever been verified, Rom. 13.2. ‘that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, as the Prophet speaks, the violation and resisting of them, and the legitimate Go­vernors by them,’ hath proved a ‘resistance of the Ordi­nance of God: and they that have so done, have re­ceived unto themselves judgment from the Lord, for neglecting of his good and wholesome Laws; In the Act for uniformity of Common-Prayer.’ As the Par­liament phraseth it. Neither is this spoken in treachery to civil liberties, or to make men slaves, but subjects. ‘The Laws of these Kingdoms— by an admirable temperament, give very much to subjects liberty, and happiness, and yet reserve enough to the Majesty and Prerogative of any King, who owns his people as subjects, Eikon Basil. M dit. 27. not as slaves; Says his late Majesty.’ As im­plying, that the reverence of the Laws, preserves both the People from Rebellion, and the Prince from Tyranny, and both from ruine. Memorable to this purpose is the counsel of that pious and peaceable man, Dr. Sibs, in a book of his, which a M [...]. H. Ward. The first, he counted, A Treatise on Rom. 8. inti­tuled, Christ opened, &c. Dr. Sibs Souls Const ct. Edit. 1st. viz. 1635. pag. 364. great wit counted the second next the Scripture, as to the argument it treats on (he might perhaps have said the first.) The Doctors words are: ‘The Laws under which we live are particular determi­nations of the Law of God; and therefore ought to be a rule unto us, so far as they reach.— Law being the joynt reason and consent of many men for publick good, hath an use for the guidance of all actions that fall under the same. Where it dashes not against Gods Law, what is agreeable to Law is agreeable to consci­ence.’ Thus he. Which passage, as it seems was not a present truth, or not a truth for the present times, and therefore some did evirate, geld, alter, and enervate into this in the following Editions (unless mended in the later) viz. ‘The Laws under which we live are parti­cular determinations of the Laws of God, in some things of the second Table.’ That which he laid down generally, [Page 51] they put a double restriction upon. First, to the second Table. Again, to some things onely therein. Then they add an instance, which though it illustrates the Text, yet is it not in the first Edition, viz. ‘For example (says the following Editions) The Law of God says, Exact no more than what is thy due; but what in particular is thy due, and what another mans, the Laws of men deter­mine. Thus far the Addition. Now this wound being received by the Doctor in the house of his friends, A wound re­ceived by Dr. Sibs in the house of his friend. Zech. 13.6. (for so I understand) and when scarce cold in his grave; and his books being in the hands of all men; what may we think Authors more antient, in the hands of enemies, and re-published, have met withal.’ Wherein we are the more to observe the providence of God, who hath made the Jews and Turks, Capsarios nostros, Aug. Enarrat. Psal. 40. as St. Au­stin speaks; the faithful keepers of our Libraries.

7. 7. Cause, Not weighing Causes, so much as Per­sons and Ap­pendixes. But the more immediate spring of this irregular motion, was, the reflecting on persons on both sides, and some appendant and concomitant things, as was noted above; rather then unpartial weighing the causes them­selves, as denuded of all Patrons, Concomitants, and Appendixes. viz. What ground of the war? what plea for Independency? The fallacy was, by arguing à non causa ad causam, and not applying solid Logick to sound Di­vinity. St. Austins offer to his adversary is good ad­vice, Cont. Maximin. A [...]ian. lib. 3. cap. 14. Scripturarum authoritatibus, non quorumvis pro­priis, sed utris (que) communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concertet. ‘Let matter, saith he, contend with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason, by authority of Scripture, which may not be proper to one side, but common unto both.’

I am clear, One cause of the miscarri­age in the late differences. Jam. 2.1. that this hath imposed on many on both sides, and in both causes, viz. that men have had the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons, or at the least of consequences; and have eye [...] more the persons engaged, or wh [...]t might be the issue of things, than the matters themselves. Rom. 3.8. But the Apostle prohibits a disproportion between the means and the end. We [Page 52] 'must not do evil that good may come thereof. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. Plutarch. in vi­ta Aristid. n. 609. We must do what is right, though heaven and earth go together. The Athenians, though Heathen, yet in a certain case they rejected the counsel of Themistocles, though useful to the Common-wealth, because it was not honest. It was the occasion of the first sin in the world, Respect of person; for it was, in gratiam uxoris, Gen. 3. for the pleasing of his wife, in all likelihood. But our esteem of persons, is best directed by the origi­nal rule. And there, prima secundae, the first command­ment with promise is, that we honor our father and mo­ther; but which? especiallv the Father of our c untry, and the Mother of our Christianity. The King and the Church. And for effects and consequences, Matth. 7.16. our Saviours and the Apo [...]les Philosophy and Logick (for Contr. Cres­con. lib. 1. cap. 14 cap. 17. Austin proves them to have used both) would have directed us, to make that a vine, and not a thorn, whereof we expect grapes. Gal. 6.7. If we sow to the flesh, and act on earthly grounds, we shall from it reap corruption. I conclude this with that of the wise-man, Prov. 23.26. ‘My son give me thy heart; that's the end: And let thine eyes observe my ways, there's the means. chap. 4.27. Let thine eyes look right on, to the true scope. And turn not to the right hand, or to the left, of unlawful means. If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light; Matth. 6.22. if thine eye (and aim) be evil, thy whole body (of thy actions) will be full of darkness, (and in darkness men do not walk even) said our Sa­viour.’

8. Cause, Ne­gligence in Religious du­ties. Jam. 4.8. In the next place, there was no doubt, either neglect of, or some other defect in prayer and religious duties. ‘For though the thing were not omitted, yet it seems there was an asking and not receiving, which could not have been (for he is faithful who had promised) but that there was an asking amiss. Heb. 10. Now the promise cannot fail, T [...]t. 1. Jam. 1. because God cannot lie, and the promise is, If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth (it) liberally.’ It hath even by the light of nature been dis­covered, that great miscarriages in judgment and practise [Page 53] could not happen; but as a punishment for some ne­glect of God, as well as a sin against him. When Alex­ander the Great had in a drunken fit slain Clytus (a man both of valor, Curtius lib. 8. paulo ab initio. and merit towards the King) after that he had spent all night in lamenting and repenting; Scruta­tumque num ira deorum ad tantum nefas actus esset, subiit anniversarium sacrificium Libero patri non esse redditum st to tempore, itaque inter vinum & epulas caede commissa iram Dei fuisse manifestam. ‘Upon search it was found, that the sacrifice to Bacchus was not performed in its season; and therefore in his very benefits (wine, for so they reckoned) the table was made a snare, and in drinking and feasting, slaughter being committed, the anger of god was evident.’ Thus those Heathens. Matth. 6. Sure­ly lead us not into temptation, as it is a necessary, so it should be a daily prayer, and that with earnestness.

9. Add to this, some failing or other, 9. Cause, Fail in practise. either in spirit and sincerity, or in practice and walking. For ‘Good and upright is the Lord, therefore he will teach sinners in the way; but so, that we be tractable; Psal. 25.8, 9, 10. for the meek he will guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way; that is, the plain-hearted, and those that walk with a right foot, and make streight steps unto their feet. Heb. 12. And all the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth, unto them that keep his Covenant, Psal. 25. and his testimonies to do them. And what man is he that feareth the Lord, him shall he teach the way that he shall choose.’ As on the contrary, ‘when we know God, Rom. 1.28. and glorifie him not as God, he often delivers us to an erring and unjudicious spirit. 2 Thess. 2. And the not receiving the truth in the love of it, introduceth frequently strong delusions.’ The close shall be St. Austins, Diriget mites, In Psal. 24. diriges. nec perturbabit in judicio eos, qui sequuntur voluntatem ejus, nec ei resistendo, praepenunt suam. That is, ‘He shall direct the meek, nor shall he disturb them in their judgment, which follow his will, and do not by resisting prefer their own.’

The last of those general causes, which I shall name, 10. Cause [...]. of my back-sliding, was, Being too busie without my [Page 54] sphere, 1 Thes. 4.11. and in the things did not belong unto me. A practice consequent unto the former negligence, as is implied by the Apostle, whilst he saith; ‘Do your own business, and work with your hands the thing that is good. Psal. 131.1.’ It was one thing that preserved David from se­dition, ‘that he exercised not himself in things too high for him, and above his place, but refrained his soul as a weaned child. 2 King. 11.’ Not but that Jehoiada the High-prie [...] may, according to his office, and power given him, deal in the greatest affairs of a kingdom. Yea, and not onely Zadoc and Abiather the chief; but even also Ahimaaz and Jonathan the inferior Priests, when regularly, may put their hand to save the Throne as well as the Altar. But the case with me was different. I need not explain how. That Prophesie, ‘Take unto thee the instruments of a foolish shepherd, Zech. 11.15. &c. was applied by one, late in power, unto the Ministers dealing in affairs of State, Lieutenant General Crom­wels Letter to the Speaker out of Scotland Sept. 4. 1650. when yet himself and party played their first and best game by their hands in so medling.’ He saith, ‘Such means will not be effectual, for the setting up the Kingdom of Christ, and neglect, or not trust to the word of God, the sword of the Spirit, which alone is powerful and able for the setting up that Kingdom: and when trusted to, will be found effectually able to that end, and will also do it.’ Thus he. Oh that so much had been said by him at the beginning of the English, as it was at the be­ginning of the Scotish War. But then it would have spoil'd the sport, 2 Pet. 1.12. and it seems, there is a present truth, as some apply those words of Peter, not capable of any other moments of time, past or to come. But to re­turn. Johannes Funccius Johan. Func­cius. (that notable and good Chro­nologer) a Divine, also Chaplain and Chancellor unto the Duke of Borussia, having as it seems, counsell'd some act that was disgusted vehemently by the State; Bucholcer. Chronol. ad Ann. 1566. they rested not, till they had his head that contriv'd it: who, as he went to execution, gave forth this Distich:

Which I have sometime thus rendred,

Somewhat like was that of Justus Jonas, Justus Jonas idem ad Ann. 1567. the year fol­lowing, which he gave forth as he went to the same calamity.

But he was of another Trade, to wit, a Lawyer.

‘I conclude this with the Apostles warning, 1 Thess. 4. that we study to be quiet, and to do our own business, 1 Pet. 4. lest we suffer as evil doers, and busie-bodies in other mens affairs.’ The Causes general are ended.

SECT. I. Cause General and Privative, viz. Resisting of the Spirit of God.

AS touching particular ones, namely, those which induced me unto the civil Controversie, and those which lead me to the Ecclesiastical. Concerning the first, 1. In the Ci­vil Contro­versie. I closed with the one party in the civil contest for these causes, whereof the one is General and Privative, the other Positive and Particular. The former was the grieving or resisting the Spirit of God, from whom I received no small concussion about this matter, especially at the coming forth of The resolv­ing of consci­ence, &c. Edit. Cambr. 1642. Dr. Fearn's first book, in opposition to the Lords and Commons, in their taking up Arms against the King. The authority of Scripture there urged (unto which God had given me ever to bear an awful reverence) the Spirit setting it on, exercised me more than all his arguments. But ¹ being in heart enclined unto the good things the other side proposed to be contended for; and ² judging his reasons might all be answered; and ³ apprehending it much concerned the cause of God, and of his servants; and ⁴ my own reputation also being pre-engaged; ⁵ and lastly, my place seeming to call for it, (I hold­ing then the publick Lecture in Cambridge) I took all the former reluctancy of spirit to be onely a temptation. [Page 57] and accordingly resolved to reply, On Judg. 5.23. on which Mr. St. M. had preached before, of whose notions, that I know of, I made no use. Mr. J. B. which I did the next Lords day, after the publishing of that Book, wherein I answered all that seemed material in that Book, and so answered it, That some who were of the other judgment were pleased to say, that so bad a cause could not be bet­ter pleaded. Upon this, I was sollicited to the publish­ing of my Answer. But coming to London, and finding another had done it before, but especially my spirit working too and fro, betwixt resolution and fear, I did suppress it. But that of Zachary hath been fulfilled in me since: In that day the Prophets shall be ashamed, Zach. 13.5. every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied. And blessed be God, who hath verified another also towards me, viz. Thou shalt hear a voice behind thee, saying, Isa. 30.21. This is the way, walk in it, when thou turnest to the right-hand, and when thou turnest to the left. And blessed be his Name, that although I have been a rebellious child (as it is in the first verse of that chapter) that would not take counsel of him, nor cover with the covering of his spirit: yet he hath not cast me away from his presence, Psal. 51.11. nor taken his holy Spirit from me. Deliver me from bloods, O Lord, thou God of my salvation, A Prayer. and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. The sacrifice of God is a broken spi­rit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not de­spise. And, Ʋphold me, O Lord, with thy spirit, then will I teach sinners thy ways, and transgressors shall be con­verted unto thee. Lastly, ‘Do good in thy good pleasure unto Sion, build thou the walls of Jerusalem, then shall they offer young bullocks upon thine altar.’ Amen. Sed irrideant nos fortes & potentes, Aug. confess. l. 4. c. 1. nos autem infirmi & inopes confiteamur tibi; ‘But let great and ove [...]-grown spirits laugh at this; let us that are infirm and poor in heart confess to thee.’ Tota palea areae ipsius irridet eum, Aug. in Ps. 21. in Prefat. in Expos. 2. & gemit triticum irrideri dominum. ‘All the chaff of Christs own floor laughs at him, and the good corn la­ments its Lords derision.’ Thus of the general and pri­vative cause.

SECT. II. Particular Motives.

2. THe particular follow, and they were such as these. 1. 1. Propound­ed. The excellency and necessity of the things held forth to be contended for, the Laws namely, and the Liberties of the Nation, and that which made them both most precious, Religion (Protestant) by them esta­blished and secured. 2. Next, the credit that I gave unto the persons that did propound them, both for their ability, and for their faithfulness. 3. A third was the awful opinion, that I conceived of the power and au­thority of that place, from which they seem'd to issue, to wit, the Parliament. 4. That the exigences being such, there was a virtual bond, by all Laws, to use remedies that were not usual. 5. and lastly, That examples of the like had been in Scripture; among the Jews, in the Pri­mitive Church; the former against Antiochus by the Mac­cabees, the latter of the Christians against Maximinus. Also in the Reformed Churches, as the French, Holland, Scottish; and owned by our former Princes, and (then) present King; defended also by our own Divines and Bishops, as Jewel, Abbot, Bilson, &c.

2. Replies un­to them.But all these, and such like, as applyed to our case, being put into the ballance of the Sanctuary, in my eye, seem much too light. As touching the first, my opinion and veneration of the Protestant Religion, 1. Religion. the Laws and Liberties of the Nation, I hope is greater now than it was, as I know them somewhat better. But touching Re­ligion to be defended by Arms, especially of Subjects, well spake the Dantzikers, A notable speech of the Dantzike [...]s. in their material Letter to the Duke of Croy, (exhorting them to the like) May 27. 1656. ‘Evidently it doth appear (say they) how much the Roman-Catholicks are incensed through this war, and that from thence no small persecutions, yea, the [Page 59] greatest danger, may befall the Reformed Churches, Vid. Mercurius Politicus, Jul. 3. 1656. if God do not prevent it in his mercy. We do confi­dently believe, that no body can think, or impute it to us, as if God took pleasure in Apostates and Hypocrites, and as if he would have Religion promoted in casting off the lawful Magistrate, Note. and in the slender esteem of a well grounded government— Call to mind how at all times by Warrs the spirits of men grow more barbarous and inhumane, Note. and how the wars for Reli­gion use commonly to extinguish Religion.’ Thus they. Note. Now I call God to witness upon my soul, that the sense of the dishonor done unto the Protestant Religion, 2 Cor. 1. work­ing upon my heart, hath been one main occasion of fur­ther examining the grounds of those transactions, and of altering my thoughts. Homil. of dis­obedience, part 4. pag. 300. And particularly one passage in the doctrine of this Protestant Church, expressed in the Homily of disobedience, did much affect me, of which anon. This for Religion.

2. Then for the Laws and Liberties, seeing first, 2. Laws and Liberties. that both Houses of Lords and Commons, in all their so­lemn addresses to the King, and that in Parliament, and as such a Parliamentary body, 1. Style of the H. H. do usually style themselves thus, Your Majesties most humble and loyal subjects, the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled. In that Remonstrance, which the King saith, Kings Decla­ration Aug. 12. 1642. Remonstr. of the State of the Kingdom, Dec. 15. 1642. was the fountain of all the following mischiefs, The very first line is, ‘Your Majesties most humble and loyal subjects, the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled.’ Next, the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy do declare, ‘That the Kings Majesty is the onely Supream Gover­nor of this Realm, over all persons, and in all causes, 2. Oathes of Supremacy and Allegi­ance. 3 Eliz. cap. 1. Kings Answer to the Remon­strance of May 26. 1642. Remonstr. of Lords and Commons, Nov. 2. 1642. Ecclesiastical and Temporal, and of all other his Do­minions and Countries.’ Yea, and every Parliament­man, before he can sit, is bound by Law to swear them.

Now this is not answered in my judgment, by a say­ing out of a Private Fleta. lib. 1. cap. 17. de justitiariis substituendis. Lawyer, that, Rex habet in populo regendo superiores, legem per quam factus est, & curiam [Page 60] suam videlicet Comites & Barones. And by that other, that Rex est major singulis, but minor universis. For the former Author hath that sentence and words out of Bracton, who hath several times also the quite contrary, as shall appear. Again, It is against the tenor and cur­rent of Law and Lawyers, and the known practise of the Nation. Thirdly, It may bear an other interpretation, namely, understanding the Law, either of God, who makes Kings, Prov. 8. or of men, made with the Kings consent, whereunto he hath voluntarily obliged himself, from which at first he might be free. And by the superiority of his Court, their legal jurisdiction conferred on them by his approbation, for decision of ordinary controver­sies, that may fall betwixt himself and his Subjects, but not simply his superiors; first, because he calls it His Court; now the owner is greater than the thing owned as such. Again, else the Earls and Barons were the supe­rior power to the King. Fourthly, This refers not at all to the House of Commons, whereof neither Fleta, nor his Author Bracton, in this sentence make any mention.

2 Again, secondly, the Oathes of Supremacy and Al­legiance, and the style the Parliament speak in, of his Majesties loyal and humble subjects, the Lords and Com­mons assembled in Parliament, Remonstr. Nov. 2. 1642. are not answered by saying, that this of supream head and governor, over all persons, Object. in all causes, ‘is meant of singular persons rather than of Courts, or of the collective Body of the whole Kingdom: And that it is meant in Curia, not in Came­ra; in his Courts, not in his private Capacity; and pro­perly onely in his high Court of Parliament, wherein and wherewith his Majesty hath supream Power.’ For first, Answ. 1 The Oathes speak comprehensively, both of Persons and Causes, over all, and in all. So again, the 2 style of humble and obedient subjects, is spoken as from them, as the two Houses of Parliament, for so they say, assembled in Parliament. Now if Subjects, then and there, sure Soveraigns or associates in Soveraignty, they can­not be, the terms in the same respect are contradictory. [Page 61] Thirdly, If the King be acknowledged to be the fountain 3 of justice, as the Law and Lawyers say he is, (of which anon) then both Laws and Courts flow from him, and thence are called his Laws, his Courts; and so ordine na­turae & dignitatis, both in nature and dignity must be before and above both. His splendor is in his Courts, but his Supremacy not onely there, but in his person al­so, from whence it was derived to his Courts. For there must be a First in nature, either the King or his Courts; and if they be His Courts, then he made them, and there­fore in esse naturae before them.

Neither doth it hence follow, as is there inferred, Object. ‘That then the King may over-rule all his Courts, Ibid. even the Parliament it self, and so the goodly frame of Go­vernment should soon be dissolved, and Arbitrary power brought in. Answ. ’ For the King having both consent­ed and sworn to the Laws, and to the maintaining the ju­risdiction of his Courts acting according to those Laws, is not now in that respect sui juris, and arbitrary in Go­vernment, but obliged both to God and man to act by Laws, and to preserve his Courts unviolate. But if any Court shall assume a greater power than the King and Law hath given them, or act in opposition to that power from whom they had their being, whilst he doth not open­ly reject all Laws and Government, much less when he doth rationally, together with as many or more, both of Lords and Commons (though excluded the formality of being in such a place) judge, that he acts according to Law in the main of his proceedings: In such case, and in such actings, they are not such a Court, nor are not authorised with power from above, but act excentrically, and as private persons, unto whom the Declaration grants the King to be superior. As the Army having received Commission from the two Houses of Parliament, after­ward turned their Arms against them, which they could not do by their Commission, as also a great fautor of their proceedings since, then spake in my hearing, God thereby perhaps representing to the Houses by the [Page 62] Army, their own failings toward their Superior. And the Armies reasoning was on the like principles, viz. ‘That they were entrusted with power for the Kingdoms preservation; and that, the Parliament degenerating, they must not see the Kingdom perish.’

Object. 3 ‘Neither may it be received, that if the Parliament may take account of what is done by his Majesty in his inferiour Courts, Ibid. much more of what is done by him without the authority of any Court.’ For to speak properly, the Parliament takes account, not of the Kings actions or authority in his Courts, but of his Offi­cers, and of their administration of that authority; and this also by the Kings consent established by Law, where­by they are enabled so to do. Or to speak yet more properly, The Parliament, that is, the King, Lords and Commons; for the Parliament is not without the King, as being the Head of it; but without, and in opposition unto him and the Laws, they do not take such cogni­zance.

2 Again, for that saying, ‘That they might much more take account of the Kings actions, that are done with­out the authority of any Court; meaning the great ad­ministration of Justice, and the raising of Arms:’ Seeing no Court is superior to its Author, the King; therefore no Court can give authority to him, but he to them; nor can they call him to account, for then they were his su­periors, and had the Regal Power, and himself should be no King, as is expresly affirm'd in Mr. St. John's speech against Ship-mony, of which afterward. Humbly repre­sent to him they may his miscarriages, and punish his Ministers, so it may be done without sedition, and assum­ing the Sword, which is inseparable from the Supreme Power.

3 Lastly, How can this be assented unto, that because when the Title is dubious, Ibid. pag. ult. he is to be accepted for King whom the two Houses declare to be so, by the Statute of 11 H. 7. that therefore much more they may judge in the great question, what is the best service of the [Page 63] King and Kingdom: Whence also it will follow, that they have the power of declaring Law in all cases: How, I say, can this be received, namely, to argue from a power in doubtful cases, to a power in cases that are clear in Law and reason, or sense. Secondly, when there is no King actually, their power may be more, as the wife that hath no husband. Thirdly, The Declaration of Parlia­ment doth not give the King his title or authority; but onely declares, recognizeth, and acknowledges, that he had it before. As for those assertions in that Declaration, Ibid. viz. That the Soveraign Power resides in the King and both Houses of Parliament. That the two Houses are judges, superior to all others. That the Kings negative voice doth not imply a liberty to deny, &c. because no Law is produced, and that they oppose such as are known, as also the practise of Parliament in this Nation: conscience is to seek for a foundation of assent unto them. It is delivered as Law; that ‘the King is the Mr. Pym's speech at the attainder of the Earl of Straff [...]rd, p. 10. Father, the Husband of the Common-wealth; he is the Head, they are the body. Mr. St. Johns speech at the same Attaind. p. m. 7. That the Laws are the Kings Laws, he is the fountain, from whence in their several chan­nels they are derived to the subject. The case of Ship-mony, a speech in Par­liament, Nov. 3. 1640. pag. 12, 13. Note. That he is the soul of the Law, in whose power it is ALONE to exe­cute Law, and yet not be constrained thereunto. That the Sacred PERSON of the King is INVIOLABLE, and subject to no force or compulsion of any other— and free from any coercive or vindicative power. —That this freedom is unsepar ble (from the Person of the King) because no force can be used, but by Superiors or Equals; and he that hath Superiors or Equals is no KING.’

Again, first, The Judges in Calv. case re­cited by D. Austin Allegi­ance not im­peached. cap. 1. ‘That allegiance of the subject is due to the King by the Law of Nature. Secondly, That the Law of Nature was before any Judicial or Municipal Law, as being written from the beginning in mans heart. Thirdly, That the Law of Nature is immutable. Fourthly, That this immutable Law of Nature, Bracto [...]. is a part of the Law of England.’ That Rex in regno parem habere non [Page 64] debet, cum par in parem non habeat potestatem, multo fortiùs non habeat superiorem. ‘The King in his King­dom ought to have no equal, because one equal cannot have power over another, much less should he have any superior. Object. And this is not to be taken with that expo­sition as above, Remonstr. Nov. 2. 1642. Serg. Bradshaw at the sen­tencing h [...]s late Majesty. v [...]z.’ That he is major singulis, minor universis, Greater then any one, but less then all. For both the Statute is express: ‘That this Realm of England hath been accepted for an Empire, governed by one su­pream Head; unto whom a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People, Answ. of the Spirituality and Tem­porality, 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. 4. Declarat. of Parliament. Proposition in Parliament, Apr. 25. 4 Car. propos. 5. Rushworth. Collect. p. 553. are bound, next unto God, in a natural obedi­ence.’ As also it is acknowledged in full Parliament: First, in general, by the House of Lords: As touching his Majesties Royal Prerogative, intrinsecal to his So­veraignty, and betrusted him withall from God: ‘ Ad com­munem totius populi salutem & non ad destructionem, That his Majesty would resolve not to use or divert the same, to the prejudice of any of his loyal people, in the property of their goods, or liberty of their persons: is prayed by the Lords.’ And in particular by the Com­mons, ‘Most dread Soveraign— We your dutiful Commons now assembled in Parliament— we think it is a meet and most necessary duty, being called by your Majesty to consult and advise of the great and urgent affairs of this Church and Common-wealth, Commons Re­monstrance against the Duke. 4 Car. Anno 1628. Rush. Collect. pag. 631. Note. find­ing them at this time in apparent danger of ruine and de­struction, faithfully and dutifully to inform your Ma­jesty thereof, and with bleeding hearts, and bended knees, to crave your speedy redress therein, as to your wisdom ( unto which, we most humbly SUBMIT our selves and our desires) shall seem most convenient.’ 1 So then, first, the Kings prerogative is intrinsecal unto his Soveraignty, and betrusted to him by God, say the 2 House of Lords. And they most humbly submit them­selves and their desires to the wisd [...]m of the King, say the House of Commons; even then when both Church and Common-wealth were in apparent danger of ruine and de­struction. [Page 65] And (to return again unto the judgment of the Sages of the Law) the former Author saith, ‘That the King is the most excellent Bract. l. 1. c. 8. Majestas In­temerata. pag. 38. Bract. l. 2. de Acquir. rer. domin. c. 24. Stamf. r. 7. 11. Majestas In­temerata. p. 32. part of the Common-wealth, next unto [...]od.’ Again, Dominus Rex habet ordinariam jurisdictionem, dignitatem & potestatem super omnes qui in regno suo sunt— ‘Our Lord the King, saith the same Bracton cited by Stamford, lib. 2. cap. 2. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant, sect. 7. pag. 27. Bracton, hath ordinary jurisdiction, dignity and power, over all which are in his Kingdom.’ — And, ea quae jurisdictionis sunt & pacis ad nullum pertinent nisi ad Coronam & dignitatem regiam, nec à Coronâ separari possunt. ‘And that there­fore those things which are annexed to justice and peace, belong to none but the Crown and dignity Royal; neither can they be separated from the Crown.’

We have heard the testimony of Lawyers, yea, and of the Law it self; the dialect also and speech of Parliament, and the judgment of those who have, not by the way, Dr. Bilson of Subj. & Rebel. Part. 3. ed. Lond. 1586. p. 277. but, ex professo, handled this argument; with the full witness of one of which number, and that an eminent one, I shall conclude this particular, who speaking of the Ger­man Wars, and of their Laws and ours, saith, ‘Their States be free, and may resist any wrong by the Laws of the Empire. —The German Emperor is elected, and his power abated by the liberties and prerogatives of his Princes— The Queen of England inheri­teth, and hath ONE and the same right over ALL her subjects, be they NOBLES or others.’

Now all the fore-mentioned allegations, concern­ing the Person, Power, and Prerogative of the King, and the subjection of all persons, and our allegiance due by nature to him, being uttered as Law, and in Parliament, and cited by those, that in the late contest appeared against him, are authentick. And the the things being so as they came farther into my knowledge and considera­tion, the same sense of the Laws, and my allegiance, as [Page 66] that before of Religion, did concuss and shake me from the one, and setle me on the other side. And this to the first Motive.

2. The Integri­ty of the per­sons, and their ability.To the second, the integrity and ability of many of the persons inviting to this contest, might be very great; yet all of them were not for it, as shall be seen anon. Besides, Answ. it is the doctrine of our Church, that a Council may, Artic. 21. Paphnut. Socrates H. lib. 1. cap. 8. 3. Authority of the two Houses. and have erred, even in things pertaining to God. And in the first and great Council of the Primitive Church, in a very material point, they all erred but one, and suffered themselves by him to be corrected.

To the third, the Authority of the two Houses, I did not then so throughly consider, though I had some doubts (as was noted above) that they were the Child, the King Answ. 1 the Parent; that they were the Spouse, the King the Hus­band; 1. Their Re­lation. that they were the Body, the King the Head, as we heard above out of Mr. Pym. Now these relations doubt­less could not regularly act without, much less in oppo­sition to the chief relatum, unless in cases of infancy, alienation of mind, voluntary absence, abdication of the Government, 2. Their Style. and such like, of which more anon. Be­sides, we heard even now, themselves, in Parliament, style themselves, His Majesties most humble and loyal subjects, the Lords and Commons in Parliament, in that Declaration, wherein they did not onely pare the nails, but even also pierce the quick.

3. Their Title and Power, whereon founded, and in what con­sisting.Moreover, what power and authority they have, it must be by Law. Power publick and authoritative, I suppose, consists especially in three points; first, in ma­king Laws; secondly, in declaring Law; lastly, in exe­cuting Law. Touching the first, Although the King, be­ing the fountain of Law, it must primarily flow from him, though into his Courts; yet it is condescended unto, and a share is granted them, in making Laws, and pro­tecting Liberties; Kings answer to the 19 pro­p [...]sit. 1642. pag. 12. what that is, his late Majesty (you will say) hath fully opened: ‘In this Kingdom (saith he) the Laws are joyntly made by a King, by a House of Peers, and by a House of Commons, chosen by the People, [Page 67] all having free votes, and particular privileges. The Government according to those Laws is trusted to the King; ¹ power of Treaties of war and peace; 1. Kings pre­rogative. ² of mak­ing Peers; ³ of choosing Officers and Counsellors for State; ⁴ Judges for Law; ⁵ Commanders for Forts and Castles; ⁶ giving Commissions for raising men, to make war abroad, or to prevent or provide against invasions, or insurrections at home: ⁷ benefit of confiscations; ⁸ power of pardoning, and some more of the like kind, are placed in the King. 2. House of Commons, Next for the House of Com­mons, he saith: 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 favourites and followers, to the detriment of his people. The House of Commons (an excellent conserver of liberty, but ne­ver intended for any share in government, for they do not administer an Oath. or the choos­ing of them that should govern) is solely intrusted with the first Propositions, concerning the levies of monies (which is the sinews as well of peace as of war) and the impeachment of those, who for their own ends, (though countenanced by any surreptitiously gotten command of the King, have violated that Law, which he is bound when he knows it to protect, and to the protection of which they were bound to advise him; at least not to serve him in the contrary.’ This for the Commons. Next for the House of Lords, he proceedeth.

‘And the Lords, 3. House of Lords. being trusted with a judicatory power, are an excellent skreen and bank between the Prince and People, to assist each against any encroach­ment of the other, and by just judgment to preserve that Law, which ought to be the rule of every one of the three. Whence he adds, Since therefore the power legally placed in both Houses, is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of tyranny, &c.’ Thus far the King. A share then they have in their seve­ral degrees in the Legislative power, though neither su­preme nor co-ordinate, but subalternate, and by descent [Page 68] from the high unto the lower. 2. Declaring Law. In his speech after his assent to the Petiti­on of Right. Kings Answer to the Remon­strance of the 19 of May, 1642. pag. 21. Touching the next, the power of declaring Law; though the King do avow, ‘That the power of declaring Law be not in either or both Houses of Parliament without his consent, and that the Judges are the interpreters of Law under him­self.’ Yet he saith, ‘We deny not but that they (the Lords and Commons in Parliament) may have a power to declare, in a particular doubtful case, regularly brought before them, what Law is; but to make a ge­neral declaration, whereby the known rule of the Law may be crossed or altered, they have no power, nor can exercise any, without bringing the life and liberty of the subject to a lawless and arbitrary subjection.’

Lastly, as to the execution of Law, or judging by it, This is not in any other, 3. Execution of Laws. but either in the House of Peers in Parliament, with the Kings consent, who must sign all their capital sentences; or in the Judges and other Officers, by Commission from the King, in whose name they all proceed. So then, the power of govern­ment original and final, and of execution of the Laws, is in the King, so far as is made known by the constant practice of the Nation. A power therefore of resistance, publickly, and by Arms, how should they have, in op­position to the King, who have no power of judging, or execution of the Law, but by authority from him, and his consent formally expressed?

4. Their si­lence in point of particular Law.Lastly, There was (though spoken of, and they urged to produce it) never any Law shewn, nor the Charter, or Custom, or Act named, that did either formally or virtually imply a power of Government, and much less of Arms, without and in opposition to the King, which might settle and satisfie the conscience. The Barons Wars. For some presidents in tumultuous times of some great men, will not be a fit example for a Parliament. And some very few sentences of one or two Lawyers, Object. whereof one contradicts himself, is not a sufficient [...], a firm footing to stand upon, to shake, not the earth onely, but heaven also.

Bracton writing in Henry the third his time, fol. 34. A. when the Bar [...]ns had raised a Militia against the King, saith in­deed, Rex habet superiorem, Deum scilicet, item legem per quàm factus est Rex, item curiam suam, viz. Comites & Barones, &c. ‘That the King hath a Superior, name­ly, God; also the Law, whereby he was made King; also his Court, to wit, the Earls and Barons.’ The like sen­tence verbatim almost is cited out of lib. 1. c. 17. de justitiariis substituendis. Declar. L. L. Com. Nov. 2. 1642. pag. 22. Fleta, that the King had in popul [...] regendo superiores, legem, per quam f ctus est, & curiam suam, viz. Comites & Barones, &c. ‘But the former place in Bracton (and so in Fleta) is not meant of the Court of Parliament, for there's no men­tion of the Commons; but it follows in the same place, debent ei fraenum imponere, they ought to bridle him; Dr. Fearns's Conscience sa­tisfied, sect. 4. pag. 17. 1248. It is likely he spake this in favour of the Militia raised against Henry the third, (for then he wrote) and might call that Assembly of Earls and Barons, then combined against the King, Curiam, the higher Court or Counsel.’ But he contradicts this else-where, not onely in that sentence, Rex in regno, parem habere non debet, cum par in parem non habeat potestatem, multò fortiùs non habeat superiorem; ‘That the King in his Kingdom ought to have no equal, because one equal can have no power over another, much less should he have any superior.’ But also by other sentences quoted out of him above. Somewhat perhaps like Cicero, some­time with Pompey, sometime for Cesar, as not a few have been in our time.

Another also is cited, who saith, 2. Fortescue. fol. 25. [...]. By the fuller answer to Dr. Fearn. pag. 3. Ad hanc potestatem a p [...]pulo effluxam ipse habet, quo non licet ei potestate aliâ populo suo dominari. ‘That the King, by having this power flowing from the people, is obliged so, that it is not lawful for him to rule over them by any other au­thority.’ Answ. 1 But this assertion, being back'd with no an­tient record, or custom, nor with any judged case, or Act of Parliament, yea, contrary to the known process and practise of the Law, and Acts of Parliament, and gene­ral sentences of Lawyers, cannot satisfie, especially if [Page 70] we consider, that if such power had flowen from the peo­ple, yet, as the King observes, ‘it doth not follow, that it must therefore return unto them, 2. Answer to the Remonstr. of May 26. 1642. pag. 10. at least when and in what manner they will.’ As in the case of the power of the Husband, which first did flow unto him from the Wife, but may not be resumed without breach of wed­lock, 3. 24 H. 8. c. 12. and that also adjudged lawfully. The Law is other­wise, which teacheth us, That this Realm of England hath been accepted for an Empire, governed by one su­pream Head, unto whom a body politick, compact of all sorts and degrees of people, of the Spiritualty, and Tem­poralty, are bound to bear, next unto God, a natural obedi­ence. ‘And that by the Law of nature, and of the Land, we owe Allegiance, as we saw above. Now this is not answered, Reply to Dr. Ferm's answer sect. 3. pag. 18. by saying, 'By the preamble of the Sta­tute it appears so to be made, to prevent appeals to Rome; and that by the supreme Head is meant such a one, as is able to do all needful acts of justice, which the King in his natural capacity cannot do, and therefore must be understood in his politick capacity, which takes in Law and Parliament.’ For the whole body po­litick, whether Parliament or People, are governed and made sub [...]ect to this Supreme Head, and do owe unto him natural obedience. And accordingly in His, not in the Houses of Parliament's name, though sitting, do all judgments and executions of Law proceed. The autho­rity then of the two Houses of Parliament, is the au­thority of the Body, not of the Head, by which, even it also must be governed, and against which it may not op­pose it self. 1 Tim. 2. For as he said, ‘I permit not a woman to usurp authority over the man, but to live in subjection; holds betwixt the political Spouse and Husband also.’ (I have done with the third.)

4. Case of Necessity.To the fourth Motive the case of Necessity. We must here note Thesin, & Hypothesin; the general and the par­ticular state of the Question. 1. In Thesi, and in gene­ral. 'Tis true, Pleaders for Regal power do acknow­ledge, that there may indeed fall out some cases, where­in [Page 71] such designments may be warrantable. As first, Abbot de An­ti-Ch. cap. 7. n. 5. & 6. in ge­neral, when per patrias leges licere judicarunt — Hîc verò politica res agitur, Quid principi juris in subditos per leges cujus (que) reipublicae fundatrices permissum sit, &c. ‘When they might judge that it was lawful by the Laws of their Country. Now here the Question is civil and political, namely, What power is given to the Prince over his subjects, by the fundamental Laws of each Common-wealth, &c. saith the Bishop of Salisbury.’ Here Law is made the bottom in general; but that Law must be produced that may be known. In particular two or three cases are alleadg'd, wherein onely it is found al­lowable. Non alias igitur populo in eum potestas est, Gull. Barcla. contr. Monar­chom. lib. 3. prope sin. quàm si id committat, propter quod ipso jure Rex esse desinat. Tunc enim, quia se ipse principatu exuit, atque in priva­tis constituit, liber hoc modo populus & superior efficitur, reverso ad illum scilicet, jure illo, quod ante regem inau­guratum in interregno habuit— duo tantum (com­missa) invenio— duos inquam casus— Horum unus est, si regnum & Rempublicam evertere conetur, hoc est, Aurel. Victor. de Caesarib. Sueton. cap. 49. & cap. 30. si id ei propositum ea (que) intentio fuerit ut regnum disperdat, quemadmodum de Nerone fertur— & de Caligula. —Talia cum Rex aliquis meditatur & molitur serio, omnem regnandi curam & animum illico abjicit, ac pro­inde imperium in subditos amittit, ut l. 1. & ult. D. pro. derelict. dominus servi pro derelicto habiti dominium. Alter casus est, si Rex in ali­cujus clientelam se contulerit, ac regnum quòd liberum à majoribus & populo traditum accepit, alienae ditioni man­cipaverit, &c. And instanceth in Baliol King of Scots, that subjected his Crown and Kingdom to Edward the first, of England; then adds, Ejurationem spontalem ex­cipio, de qua nulla inter mortales dubitatio, which I need not English, Bilson of Subj. & Rebel. part. 3. edit. Lond. 1586. pag. 276, 280. because for substance the same is delivered before him by our own Bishop of Winchester. ‘I must confess, saith he, that except the Laws of those Realms do permit the people to stand on their right, if the Prince would offer that wrong, I dare not allow their arms— Cases may fall out, even in Christian [Page 72] Kingdoms, where the people may plead their right against the Prince, and not be charged with rebellion. Phil. As when for example? Theop. If the Prince 1 should go about to subject his Kingdom to a forreign 2 Realm, or change the form of the Common-wealth 3 from Empery to Tyranny; or neglect the Laws esta­blished by common consent of Prince and People, to execute his own pleasure: In these, and other cases which might be named, if the Nobles and Commons joyn together to defend their antient and accustomed Liberty, Regiment, and Laws, they may not well be counted Rebels. —I never denyed that the people might preserve the foundation, But part 3. pag. 144. he saith, It is the Popes Divinity, that Princes have their power from the people, which, he saith, they have from God. free­dom, and form of their Common-wealth, which they fore-prised, when they first con­sented to have a King.— I never said, That Kingdoms and Common-wealths might not proportion their States as they thought best by their publick Laws, which afterward the Princes themselves may not violate— In King­doms where Princes bear rule by the sword, Princes will. we do not mean the Princes private will against his Laws; but his Precept derived from his Laws, and agreeing with his Laws; which though it be wicked, yet may not be resisted of any subject with armed violence. Mary when Princes offer their subjects not justice, but force, and despise all Laws to practise their lusts, Not every, nor any private man may take the sword to redress the Prince: But if the LAWS of the land appoint the nobles, as next to the King, to assert him in doing right, and with-hold him from doing wrong; Note. If the Laws appoint. THEN be they licensed by mans LAW, and so not prohibited by Gods, to interpose themselves for safeguard of equity and innocency: and by all lawful and needful means to procure the Prince to be reformed, but in no case deprived, Note. Not disinherit. where the Scepter is inherited— But he explains himself further in the very next page, ( viz. That he meant still according unto Law.)’ ‘The [Page 73] rest of the Nobles (saith he) that did assist them (the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde, against the King of France) if it were the Kings act that did op­press them, and not the Guises: Note. except the LAWS of the land do permit them means to save the State from open tyranny, I wi [...]l not excuse.’ And part 3. pag. 144. else­where, ‘I will not (saith he) examine the Popes Divinity, ( Zachary, in his answer to the German Legates, Aventin. lib. p. 299. wherein he saith, the people create their King, and the people may, when the cause so requireth, forsake their King: 'tis, you see, the Popes Doctrine) I will not saith he, examine the Popes Divinity, in that he saith, Princes have their powers of the people, which the Scripture saith, they have of God. And before, ( part. 2. p. m. 328.) This is the Supremacy which we attribute to Princes, that all men within their territories should obey their Laws, or abide their pleasure; and that no man on earth hath authority to take their Swords from them, by Judicial sentence, or Martial violence.’

Howsoever, as I said, ☜ those things before may be so in Thesi, and the matter absolutely considered; yet be­ing excited by the fruits to view all the roots again, I cannot satisfie my conscience, that in Hypothesi, and in particular, hîc and nunc, Note. Mr. Pyms speech at the charge of the Earl of Stras­ford, pag. m. 5. Protection and Alleg. 1. Parliament Testimony. Remonstr. of the state of the Kingdom, Novemb. 15. 1641. pag. 26. 1. Bills p [...]ss'd by the King. the case was such with us at the beginning of the war. And if there had been any urgency to any of those cases, yet Mr. Pym whom all men know was no passionate Royallist, saith, ‘If you take away the protection of the King, the vigour and cheerfulness of Allegiance will be taken away, though the OBLIGATION remain.’ Protection then and Al­legiance are not such correlatives, as that they do se mu­tuò ponere & tollere, as some would have. But to return. That the case was not so with us, and that this may ap­pear to have been no groundless conceit of my own, I produce the two Houses of Lords and Commons: ‘We acknowledge (say they) with much thankfulness, that his Majesty hath passed more good Bills, to the advantage [Page 74] of the subjects, than have been in MANY AGES.’ This for the matter of concessions. pag. 23. 2. Security to the Subject. Next, for the Security, hear them again: ‘The discontinuance of Parliaments is prevented by a Bill for Trìiennial Parliaments; and the abrupt dissolution of this Parliament by another Bill, by which it is provided, it shall not be dissolved or ad­journ, without the consent of both Houses. Which two Laws well considered, may be thought more advan­tagious than ALL the former, because they SECURE a full operation of the present remedy, and afford a PERPETƲAL spring of remedies for the future.’ Thus the Parliament.

Sir Benjamin Rudyard his testimony.Now secondly, That these considerations did then wo [...]k strongly upon the hearts of some of their own Members, against engaging in the War, may be seen by a speech (printed) of Sr. Benjamin Rudyards, In h [...]s Ep [...]st [...]e Dedicat [...]ry to him of one of his Tr [...]ctates, among the rest of Mr. Rous's works. to whose worth and piety Mr. Francis Rous, a member also, gives, upon his own long and intimate knowledge, a very high elogy. He in that speech in the House of Commons, July the 9. Anno 1642. page 2. saith, ‘Mr. Speaker, I am touched, I am pierced, with an apprehension of the honor of the House, and success of Parliament. The best way to give a stop to these desperate imme­nent mischiefs, Sir B njamin Rudyard his speech in Par­liament. is, to make a fair way for the KING's RE [...]VRN hither; it will likewise give best satisfa­ction to the people, and will be our best justification.’ And again. page 3. Note. ‘If any man could have credibly told us, 1 that within three years you shall have a Parliament; 2 that Ship-mony shall be taken away by an Act of Par­liament, 1. Acts passed. the reasons and grounds of it so rooted out as that neither it, nor any thing like it, can ever grow up again; 3 That Monopolies, 4 the High-commission Court, 5 the Star-chamber, 6 the Bishops Votes, shall be taken away; 7 the Council-table regulated and re­strained; 8 the Forests bounded and limited; 9 that ye shall have a Triennial Parliament; 10 and more then that, a perpetual Parliament, which none shall have power to dissolve without your selves: We should [Page 75] have thought this a dream of happiness, yet now we are in the real possession of it— We stand chiefly upon security, 2. Security. whereas the VERY HAVING of these things is a convenient fair security, mutually securing one another. Then is MORE security offered, even in this last Answer of the Kings, by removing the personal votes of Popish Lords, by the better edu­cation of Papists children, by supplying the defect of Laws against Recusants, &c. — Wherefore, Sir, Note. let us beware we do not contend for such a hazardous unsafe security, as may endanger the loss of what we have already. Let us not think we have nothing, be­cause we have not all we desire; and though we had, we cannot make a MATHEMATICAL security. All humane caution is susceptible of corruption and failing. Gods providence will not be bound, Note. success must be His. —Every man here, is bound in conscience to employ his uttermost endeavours, to prevent the effusion of BLOOD. BLOOD is a CRYING sin, Note. it pollutes a Land. LET ƲS SAVE OƲR LIBER­TY AND ESTATES, AS WE MAY SAVE OUR SOƲLS TOO. Now I have freely delivered my own conscience, I leave every man freely to his.’

Thus far that worthy Knight; and I have been told by one acquainted with him, and that did sometime vi­sit him in his last sickness, that he said, ‘That some of the most active men would not have been for the raising of Arms, but that they had a strong opinion, Mr. Ham [...]. M [...], Pym (and others) whom he named. that the King had so little interest in the affections of the people, that he would never be able to raise force to oppose them. One occasion of the War. And that he (the said Sir Benjam [...]n Rudyard) did labour earnestly to disswade them from that conception, but could not.’

Add hereunto in the third place, 3. Gods Testi­mony. Psal. 111. Gods own active testimony, as it appears against the courses pursued, which is not lightly to be passed; for as the Psalmist saith, ‘He doth so perform his works, that they ought to be had in remembrance.’ For although the Word of God 1 [Page 76] 2 and, the particular determination of it unto our spe­cial condition by wholesome Laws, is a sufficient light 'unto our feet, and lanthorn unto our paths; yet this Word receives much illustration and confirmation, by 3 his works, both of nature (and therefore these are joyned with it in the Psalm) and of providence, Psal. 19. as Constantine the Great Observes, Euseb. de vit. Constant. l. 2. c. 25. viz. ‘That believers had light enough by the Word to discern the true Religion from the false, yet the working of providence in order there­unto did make the matter much more evident.’ So in the present affair, Ends of the War defeated. for whereas there were but two main things for which the War was undertaken, Religion, and the Laws. God seems to declare his judgment concerning our undertaking this way to defend them, providence de­feating us in both, yea and that both after full victory obtained, and quiet possession enjoyed: ‘Whence you may very reasonably believe, Kings Letter from Breda un­to the Gene­ral, April 4. 1660 that God is not pleased with the attempts that have been made, since he hath usually encreased the confusion by all the success that hath been desired; and brought that to pass without effect, which the designers have proposed, as the best means to settle and compose the Nation; as a better hand hath notably observed. 1. Religion.’ First, for Religion, not onely the infinite growth of all, even the most horrid opin [...]ons, and sects and factions of such, denying not onely the Lord that bought them, 2 Pet. 2. as the Apostle speaks, but the Principle it self, the Scriptures; together with the contempt of Gods worship it self, as well as the established form thereof, doth abundantly shew, de facto, that we have lost Religion; but above all, that unparallel'd Act for Toleration, Proclamation for Tolerat [...]on Feb. 15. 1654. that de jure we must lose it, doth demon­strate. And the precedent thereof, that Ordinance of the Lords and Commons, whereby the security of it, the established Liturgy was removed, Ordinance of Lords and Commons, Jan. 3. 1644. and the Act against Recusancy repealed, whereby the flood-gates for opinions and practices in Religion was thrown open; since which, that which was but then in semine, is now in arbore, and that such an one, as all the unclean fouls under heaven [Page 77] came and lodged in the branches of it. This for Religion. Then for the Laws, and our Liberties conteined in them; 2. The Laws. first, the Court of Justice, (untruly so called) did de facto, and in deed, extirpate that, Court of Ju­stice. and pluck it up by the roots, as seizing upon any mans estate, liberty and life against Law, and upon arbitrary power, against the Great Charter. But secondly, it is avowed by him, that of late assumed the Supreme Power, that all our Laws and government was dissolved, and that he might do de jure and of right what he pleased; so the other ground and foundation of the War, the Law, was lost also. And because in this cause he is a very authentick witness, as having been so deep an actor in the motion, we will hear himself speak, and that in the face of the Nation, in an Assembly of it, which he call'd a Parliament, that so God might openly shew us what we would not see be­fore: He saith, Note. Lord Protect­or's speech, Sept. 12. 1654. page 11, 13. ‘That those honest ends of our fighting were not attained and setled. Again, My power (saith he) by this resignation (from the convention of a few called by himself) was BOƲNDLESS and ƲNLI­MITED. And upon the matter, ALL GOVERN­MENT DISSOLVED, all civil Administrations at an end.’ Again, pag. 19. the Soldiery were a considerable part of the Nation, especially ALL GOVERNMENT be­ing DISSOLVED; I say, when ALL GOVERN­MENT was thus DISSOLVED, and nothing to keep things in order but the SWORD. Where, by the way, you may perceive, that the mystery of this iniquity, even from the beginning, and before there was a blow strucken, did work. For at the time when the Horses were lifting, Note. and mony and plate was brought into Guild-Hall, dis­course being betwixt him and one I know, in my hear­ing, touching the final resolution of power: He saith, That if the King did not do his duty, 1. Resolution of Govern­ment in a Le­vellers sense. it descended to the Parliament; and if the Parliament did not do theirs, it devolved to the People. Now, a few days before the death of the King, being pressed in my hearing, 2. The appli­cation. why the Army should act such a thing, and asked, if they [Page 78] were the judgment of the Kingdom? He replyed, Shew me such a body of people in the Nation as the Army is, that have not forfeited their liberties; and so implying, that they might assume unto themselves the judgment of the Kingdom, (though in that case the Kingdom it self could not judge, as was shewed above out of Mr. St. Johns speech, because the Royal Person is exempt from vindicative justice.) So here in this speech, all Govern­ment being, as he said, dissolved, the Army were a con­siderable part of the Nation. Nay, by what follows, that there was left nothing to keep things in order but the sword, he might have said as before, That they were the onely judgment of the Nation. But this by the way, though not out of it. Again, in the former speech: ‘The Judges (saith he) thinking, pag. 21. that there was a dissolution of the Government— did declare one to ano­ther, Note. The Judges. that they could not administer justice to the satis­faction of their consciences, untill they had received Commissions from me. pag. 33. The Parliam.’ And as touching the Parlia­ment, and the Militia, the great Helena of our Trojan War, The Militia, whether to be in Parliament. whether it should remain in the King, or the Par­liament have power of it, he saith, ‘Whether the Parlia­ment have not liberty to alter the form of Government, to Aristocracy, to Democracy, to Anarchy, to any thing, if this [THE MILITIA] be fully in them? Note.’ yea, unto all CONFƲSION, and that without remedy. Lastly, The Kings Negative voice. pag. 34. as touching the Supreme Magistrate, whose Per­son then he had usurped, he saith, I shall be willing to be bound more then I am, in any thing that I may be CONVINCED of, may be for the good of the people; which point was like the Armour of Hector, betwixt Ajax and Ʋlysses, at the beginning of the War.

Corollaries from the for­mer speech.Now from these expressions we may observe, 1. That the ends of the War, Religion and Law, were not at­tained but perverted. 2. That the government of the Nation was dissolved, in their judgment, and not setled. 3. Note. That we were under an absolute arbitrary power. 4. That in his judgment, the Parliament ought not to [Page 79] have the Militia in them. 5. And lastly, That the Su­preme Magistrate must be convinced in his own judgment, before he yield to alter what (by right) he is possessed of; in reference unto all which, the War was under­taken.

But to close this point, 4. Testimony of the Parl. grounds of the war, declar. Aug. 3. 1642. of the grounds of the war. and to leave it with some fur­ther authentick demonstration and evidence; The two Houses of Parliament in their Declaration, setting forth the grounds of their taki [...]g up Arms, published August 3. 1642. do represent onely three sorts of them, viz. 1. either some former miscarriages of the Kings Govern­ment; or 2. some preparations on his part to War, with the incidents thereunto; or lastly, his refusal to grant their petitions, especially that of July 16. 1642. con­taining their desire of the Militia, the leaving Delin­quents to their tryal, the Kings return, and concurrence with the Houses. Together with the result of all these, the danger to the Kingdom in Laws, Liberty, and Reli­gion.

Now for the first of these, the King had not onely ac­knowledged 1 some of them, as, ‘the dissolution of the Par­liament before; of the unhappy dissolution of the last, Former errors in Govern­ment. saith the King, by the uninformation and advice of some persons, looked upon now under another cha­racter.’ Where they should remember, that some mis­carriages in government is incident unto all Princes, (yea, all Governors) whereof Dioclesian maketh a very serious complaint: Vopiscus in vi­tâ Aurelian. cit. à Bucholc. Chronol. ad Anx. d. 304. Nihil est (inquit) difficilius quàm benè imperare. Nam quatuor vel quinque viri se colli­gunt, at (que) unum consilium c piunt ad Imperatorem de­cipiendum, dicunt quod probandum sit. Imperator qui domi clausus est, vera non novit; Cogitur hoc tantum scire quod illi loquuntur; Facit judices quos fieri non oportebat; amovet à Republicâ quos retinere debebat. Quid multa? Bonus, cautus & optimus venditur imperator. ‘There is nothing more difficult (saith he) than to rule well. Four or five men associate themselves, and take counsel to­gether to delude the King; they advise what is to be [Page 80] done. A Note for Princes. The Prince, who is shut up at home, knows no­thing of the certainty of things, but is constrain­ed to know onely that which they acquaint him with; He makes (hereupon) those Judges whom he ought not, and removes those from government that he should not. To be short, a good, provident and ex­cellent Prince, is bought and sold.’ Thus he. And the Parliament themselves were not a little abused by their informers. Again the King acknowledges his failing in coming in person to the house of Commons to seize the five Members, Kings answer to the Decla­tion of May 19. 1642. p. 10. Edit. Cambr. and saith, ‘As if by that single casual mi­stake of ours, in form onely, we had forfeited all duty, credit, and allegiance from our people. We must, with­out endeavouring to excuse that, which in truth was an error, our going to the House of Commons.’ But besides 2 these acknowledgments, the King made real, both amends and security for the future, not onely by solemn promise, but by passing such Acts of Parliament, that did not onely remove the former grievances, but also secure the subject for the time to come, as we saw above, both by the acknowledgment of the Commons in the Re­monstrance of the state of the Kingdom; among other things, these, ‘The Monopolies are all supprest. That which is more beneficial than all this is, pag. 22, 23, 24. that the root of those evils is taken away, which was the arbitrary power, pretended to be in his Majesty, of taxing the subject, or charging their estates without consent in Parliament, which is now declared to be against Law, by the judgment of both Houses, and likewise by an Act of Parliament (now the Kings consent was there) —The evil Counsellors so quelled— the Star-chamber, the High-commission, the Co [...]rts of the Pre­sident, and Council in the North, are all taken away. The immoderate power of the Council-Table is ordered and restrained; we may well hope, that no such things— will appear in future times, but onely stories, Note. to give us and our posterity more occasion to praise God for his Majesties goodness, and the faithful [Page 81] endeavours of this Parliament. The Canons, and power of Canon-making are blasted by the vote of both Houses; the exorbitant power of Bishops and their Courts, are much abated; the Authors or many Inno­vations in Doctrine and Ceremonies— terrified; —the Forrests are by a good Law reduced to their right bounds; the —oppressions of the Stannary Courts; the extortions of the Clerk of the Market; the compulsion of subjects to receive Knighthood— are by other beneficial Laws reformed.— Many ex­cellent Laws and provisions are in preparation, which they there enumerate. Then a little before they say, The discontinuance of Parliament is prevented by a Bill for a Triennial Parliament; and the abrupt disso­lution of this by another Bill.’ Whence they truly collect, and profess, pag. 26. ‘We acknowledge with much thankfulness, that h [...]s Majesty hath passed more good Bills to the advantage of the subject, than have been in MANY ages.’ Thus they. Now were not the former failings of Government sufficiently remedied? and the fear of future is acknowledged here to be secured and prevented. No ground then of the War for what was passed.

Come we to the second, K [...]ngs prepa­ration for war. The Kings preparations for War; he saith they were first, they the contrary; if it be hard to determine, perhaps it is not greatly material, seeing they were very near one the other; and that argued both jealousie (I say a jealousie) of intentions to destroy each the other, and actings to prevent it. Now take it at the worst, that the King prepared first (which yet doth not appear) yet considering that he having granted all the former Acts (acknowledged to amend the past, and secure the future) and they not satisfying, (but high de­mandings and declarations still and actings) in his con­science no doubt he did, as in reason he might, apprehend intentions (in some) to destroy the Government, (as it hath since come to pass) and the Laws of the Nation: he might be induced thereunto by a consideration of his [Page 82] duty, and doubtless was, seeing no other way, though often tryed, would prevail. The motions of the Houses, and specially of the Commons, did give occasion to him to think of securing the Liberties from such intrench­ings.

3. Not yield­ing the Mili­tia, &c.Touching the last, ‘His not granting that Petition, and giving way to the Militia, and rendring up those who adhered to him, and returning to London, and concur­ring with the Houses, and disbanding his forces, and re­calling his Commissions of Array, and others Military:’ The rendring of the Militia had been to depose himself of Soveraignty, whose especial ensign and security is the power of the Sword. His giving up those who adhered to him, 1 Sam. 11. had (in appearance) been to send Uriah for his faithful service to his enemies. To return to London, was to object him to those temptations, which he could not, nor perhaps any Prince ought to hazard himself un­to, unless more effectual order had been taken to prevent both contumely and danger, which is a truth, howsoever flighted. To concur with the Houses at this time, had been to have given up at once both his safety and con­science. The recalling his Commissions, and disbanding his Forces, unless both themselves had done so too, and also had declared their repentance for their provocations of him, had been to strip both himself and Kingdom of necessary defence against those, whom he had cause to think would invade both, as it proved afterward. So that by high and extraordinary actings, to provoke the King to like undertakings, and then to raise Arms, be­cause he would not desert them without security, is, as if one should by assault provoke a man to draw his sword, and then fight him, because he will not put it up again, and stand to mercy.

4. No Law alleadged for the war in particular.But a fundamental error it was in that declaration, that held out the grounds of the war, That no particular Law was alledg'd, to enable them to that way of securing the Nation: For granting all to be as was suggested, yet onely id possumus quod jure possumus. Rom. 3. ‘We may not [Page 83] do evil, as all actings above our sphere is, that good may come of it.’ This should have been the chief ground for conscience to rest upon. Kings Procla­mation from York, Jun. 18. 1642. forbid­ding levying of Soldiers. Whereas on the con­trary, the King alledges divers particular Laws for his bearing of the Sword, as also examples of men, that have upon necessity, some real, some pretended, taken the Sword, and though they have done service to the King and Common-wealth by it, have been forc'd to obtain their pardon. There is no need here to name particulars, the constant practise in the Nation justifying the Kings sole bearing of the sword. Now to come to an issue, The issue of the Quest. The King as much fears the ruine of the Laws and himself, as the two Houses do the Liberties and themselves, and their grounds we will suppose (though not grant) are equal. The King is in possession, and by Law entrusted with the Sword to protect both: The two Houses pro­duce none. Then sure, as this should have prevented resistance then, so, especially taking in what hath followed, ought it to provoke repentance now. And thus much in answer to the fourth Motive.

SECT. III. Answer to the fifth Motive, Examples.

I Come now to the last, viz. The Examples in Scrip­ture, and in latter times, together with the appro­bation of such Examples, by our Princes and Bishops, above alledg'd. To all which I answer, first, in general, Isa. 10 ‘That we must apply our selves first unto the Law and to the Testimony; if they speak not according to this rule, there is no light in them to guide us by.’ And that in Examples, the greatest of all is the Captain of our Salvation, Matth. 22. who ever did precept and practice to give unto Cesar the things that were Cesars; yea, Matth. 17. ult. for peace-sake, to give him that which was not his from some. ‘All other examples we must so follow, 1 Cor. 11.1. as they [Page 84] follow him; Matth. 26.52. now he forbad to resist, for they that take the sword shall perish by the sword;’ namely, if such to whom the sword is not committed, The Sword. which must needs be the supreme Magistrate, the sword being the Ensign of supreme power. Rom. 13. Hence that of the Apostle, ‘The higher powers bear not the sword for nought; they then are they who bear the sword.’ This in general.

2. David.But in particular. 1. David's retaining a few men to guard himself (being design'd King) from the violence of private men, and from the sudden and passionate assaults of Saul's distemper and malice, fleeing, and not fighting, such as was the Prophet Elisha his holding the Kings messenger at the door, 2 Reg. 6.32. who saw the King coming to change his sentence. 1 Sam. 14.45. Also the peoples rescuing of Jo­nathan, not by any set contest or battel, but by a friendly kind of violence. And the Priests thrusting Ʋzziah, being leprous, 2 Chron. 26.20. out of the Temple, but not resisting any of his Regal precepts, or such forcible impressions. All these, and such like, are ridiculous-parallels to the raising of an Army, and managing of a War. For though these examples shew, that there may be some kind of ami­cable or forcible resistance made to the person of a King, in some private affairs, and in some particular occasions, (as David might have held Saul's hands, if he had in the like manner fall'n upon him, as he did cast his Javelin at him; And Bathsheba no doubt might have resisted David, (if he would have forced what he did per­swade) yet these no way infer a publick and armed con­test against him. 2. Keilah. Secondly, David, if by temptation he would have resisted at Keilah, yet God, by letting his friends become treacherous, kept him from giving of such a precedent. As he did also keep him from fight­ing against his own Prince, 1 Sam. 29. or else becoming perfidious, and ingrateful to his benefactor Achish (one of which he must have done) by turning the spirit of the Lords of the Philist [...]ms against him. 3. Cave of Adullam. 1. Sam. 24. and chap. 26. But thirdly, when David was out of temptation, and himself, when power was in his hand, once and again, and he exhorted by some as [Page 85] called by God to do it, yet refused, and that with this reason, because he was the Lords Annointed, Lords An­nointed. which is no more, but that he was Legitimate King; yea, his heart smote him for but cutting off the lap, what would it have done if by war he had occasioned the cutting off the life and head of the King.

For the Revolt of the ten Tribes from Solomon under Jeroboam: First, when others can produce so set, 3. Ten Tribes. See 1 King. 11.29. chap. 12.24. formal, and solemn a call thereunto as then was, and such an ex­press approbation afterward, In loc. we may indulge them the opinion of Abulensis, who on these and other grounds de­fendeth them. But secondly, 2 Chron. 13.5, 6. they are expresly charged with Rebellion by Ahijah, who saith, ‘Ought ye not to to know, that the Lord God of Israel hath given the Kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons by a Covenant of salt? And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the servant of Solomon the son of David, is risen up, and hath REBELLED against his Lord.’ And thirdly, of this judgment are the very weighty, and I think the most Expositors, Jews and Christians; Kimchi in 2 Reg. 11. Pet. Mart. in loc. Sanater in 2 Chron. 13.4. Calv. Instit. lib. 1. cap. c. ult. § ult. Hos. 8.4. Jure damnatur populi (decem Tribuum) rebellio, quòd velut invito Deo, à Davidis posteris desciverit. ‘Justly are the people (of the ten Tribes) condemned, because they would, as it were in spight of God, revolt from the posterity of David, saith Mr. Calvin.’ Lastly, of this judgment the Lord himself declares he was, both by word and action; by word, when he saith, ‘They have set up Kings, but not by me, they have made Princes and I knew it not.’ By action, in that by this means he took both peace and true Religion from them, and withal sent them into captivity long before the other, but never vouchsafed them any publick, visible, and particular return that we read of; Kimchi in 1 Reg. 11.39. it being denied by their own, that the ten Tribes came back when the other two did. I have done with that instance.

The fourth is Libnah, 4. Libnah, 2 Chron. 25. a City of the Priests which re­volted from Joram, because of his idolatry; but this, as that of Edom; who revolted at the same time, Answ. are no en­couragements; [Page 86] they both being recorded as a punishment only of Joram, for his revolting from the Lord God of his Fathers; but no more commended then was Ab­solom's insurrection, which also was by way of punish­ment; or Jeroboam's Apostacy, which was for the ido­latry 2 of Solomon. Again, it was not lawful for either Edom or Libnah so to do, especially the latter, being a City of Priests, who should both have known and taught, that defection from the house of David upon whom the Kingdom was setled, Bils. part. 3 p. 106. and separation f [...]om the Temple, to which the worship was annexed, was rebellion both against God and man. But 'tis true too often, omne malum à Sanctuario; that from the Priests the ill exam­ple of sedition and schism is derived unto the people.

5. Maccabees.5. Next, for the Maccabees, 1. Antiochus against whom they managed the war, and others, were inva­ders not inheritors of the Kingdome. Aliens, not natu­ral Princes, to whom they owed no allegiance by birth, by laws, by oath, by conquest, by succession, by protection. 2. Besides, there are of their own that think the issue of that war proved bad, because the Maccabees went be­yond their calling. 3. Lastly, if Exitus acta probat, this must not be alledged by them, that would finally thrive in such an enterprise, for this at the length mis­carried, and ended in the Roman servitude.

6. The Primi­tive Christi­ans.6. Touching the Primitive Christians under Maxi­minus. We are first to note that they were not subjects to him, but confederates and friends. ‘Moreover a war, 1 saith the Historian, Euseb. Hist. li. 9. cap. 7. did arise to the Tyrant (Maximi­nus) against the Armenians, who even from the be­ginning, were the friends and confederates of the Ro­mans. These, who al [...]o were Christians, and studious of Religion, the hateful Tyrant endeavouring to force unto idolatry, and sacrificing to Devils, of friends made them enemies, and of confederates, adversaries.’ 2 Whence it is apparent they were not subjects. Secondly, for other Christians that might resist in those times, they might be, as some of them were, abetted by a coordinate [Page 87] power: for each of the Emperours of the East and West, had their dominion a part, and the one did not ordinarily middle with the other; yet the Empire was but one, whereof the Emperours that were, had the general pro­tection, and might and did succour the oppressed, with­in the Dominions of their Colleague, Euseb. l. 9. c. c. 9, 10. as Constantine did the Romans against Maxentius; and Licinius against Maximinus; or if it were not so, yet were they co­ordinate Princes, not subjects. This for particular ca­ses; But for the general spirit and practice of Chri­stians 3 of those times, all Writings and Apologies are full of the solemn protestations of the Christians, that though for number and strength they could, yet that it was not lawful for them to resist. As may be seen by that of Justin Martyr. Apolog. 2. ‘God only (saith he) we wor­ship, but in other things, we are cheerfully obedient unto you, whom we acknowledge to be Kings and Princes of men.’ And Irenaeus, Lib. 5. Adv. Haeres. Valen­tin. Cujus jussu homines nascuntur, hujus jussu & Reges constituuntur, apti iis qui in illo tempore ab ipsis Regantur. Quidam enim illorum ad correctionem & utilitati subditorum dantur & conser­vationem justitiae; quidam autem ad tumorem & ad poe­nam & increpationem; Quidam autem ad illusionem & contumeliam & superbiam, quemadmodum & digni sunt, Dei justo judicio in omnibus supervenienti. ‘By whose command (saith he) men are born, by the same command Kings are constituted, fit for those who in each time are to be governed by them. Some of them are given for the amendment and profit of their subjects, and preservation of Justice, but some for terrour and punishment, and rebuke; and some for mockery and contumely, and pride, according as men deserve, the just judgment of God prevailing in all things.’ Thus he, by which he implies prayer and patience, but no resistance. Tertullian likewise; Apologet. cap. 30. (cap. 33. cap. 37.) A quo sunt secundi (Reges) post quem (Deum) primi ante omnes, & super omnes Deos. ‘From whom (God) they (Kings) are se­cond, after whom they are first, before all, and above [Page 88] all Gods; that is, above all inferiour Magistrates.’ In a word, we may see the sense of Antiquity in this point, in him, Instit. l. 3. c. 3. § 10. Aug. Contr. Faust. lib. 22. cap. 75. from whom Calvin would have us learn it in all, viz. S. Austin. Ordo naturalis hoc poscit, ut suscipi­endi belli Anthoritas, penes principem sit; exequendi au­tem ministerium milites debeant. ‘ Natural order (saith he) requires this, that the Authority of undertaking war be in the power of the Prince, but that the souldi­ers owe the service of execution and management.’ And that they wanted not either number or strength one of the former Authours gives us assurance. Tertul. Apolo­get. cap. 37. Si enim hostes extraneos, non tantum vindices occultos agere velle­mus, deesset nobis res numerorum & copiarum? ‘If we would, saith he, become open enemies, and not secret revengers, would there be wanting to us the force either of number or Armies? And so shews that the Christi­ans filled all places; insomuch that should they but have withdrawn themselves only from the rest of men, they should have made a desolation in the world.’ And thus of the Primitive Christians. Anticavalie­rism. 7. Reformed Churches. So vain is it to say, that Tertullian was mistaken in their number.

7. In the last place, come we to the examples of the Reformed Churches, particularly those of France and Holland, who are said to have defended themselves by arms, as we have done; defended by our Writers, and 1 owned by our Princes. For Answer: First, we are to note, that though perhaps it should be granted that it may be lawful in some cases for oppressed subjects to call for help unto other Foraign and lawful power, because these powers are coordinate with their own in respect of degree and dignity, and in such case, there is no viola­tion of order by the rising up of the inferiour against his Prince;

2 But secondly, they were neither defended by our Writers, Difference of Subject and Rebel, part. 3. pag. 279. Ed. Lond. 1586. nor patronized by our Princes, farther then the Laws and their case, as represented by them did allow. ‘If the Laws of the Land (saith Dr. Bilson, speaking of the French, the Scottish, and the Holland Civil wars) [Page 89] do not permit them to guard their lives, when they are assaulted with unjust force against law, we will ne­ver excuse them from rebellion. And a little after; for my part, I must confess, saith he, that except the Laws of those Realms do permit the people to stand on their right, if the Prince would offer that wrong, I dare not allow their arms.’ And another treating of the same example, saith, Quarum injuriarum atrocitates, Abbot. de An­tichrist. cap. 7. n. 5, 6. occasionem fortè dederunt bello civili, dum vim vi propul­sant tantummodo, qui contra jus fas (que) indignissimè habiti, id sibi per patrias LEGES licere judicarunt: ‘The horribleness of which injuries (saith he) peradventure gave occasion to the Civil war, whilst they do only re­pell force by force, and who contrary to all right and equity were treated most unworthily; and did judge that they might do so, by the Laws of their Country.’ And again, Hîc verò politica res agitur, quid principi juris in subditos per leges cujusque Reip. fundatrices permissum sit; The question here, saith he, is matter of Civil po­licy, viz. ‘What power the Prince hath over his subjects, by the fundamental Laws of each Common-wealth.’ So that we see they defended these actions of the Protestants abroad so far only as they were legal. This for their cause. But as to ours, the former Authour shews it to be different. The German Emperour (saith he) is ele­cted, and his power abated by the liberties of the Princes: Bils. of Subj. and Rebel, part 3. p. 277. (But) the Queen of England hath one and the same right over all her subjects, be they NOBLES or others. You see he makes our cause and case, Kings of Engl laws and allegiance to differ from the former.

SECT. I. Law.

TO those from Reason, laid down in the Book quoted in the Margin, a seven fold errour more especi­ally hath miscarried the Authours, (though men other­wise of Learning and Piety) first in mistaking the word Law. They seem to take the word Law to signifie only the agreements, pactions and rules established by mutual consent betwixt Prince and people, and make this only to be the ground of subjection and of commanding. So that what is beyond it, is no way obligatory either to be per­formed or suffered under, farther then necessity and the want of power to resist doth enforce. But they forget that there is another and superiour Law, viz. that of God's Soveraignty, oftentimes appointing an Invader or an Usurper, or a Tyrant to rule for the punishment of a people. Whose will only is the Law, and whom God will have obeyed by all subjects in things lawful, and not resisted in things unlawful. So he appointed Nebuchad­nezzar, [Page 91] Jer. 25.15. not onely to rule over the Jews, but over all the Nations there mentioned, and they are enjoyned to obedience unto him. So Hos. 13.11. Hos. 13.11. Jeroboam and the following Kings over the ten Tribes, in his wrath, as himself saith; or even over all Israel, as Saul, who is understood to be pointed at in that Text. And of their Kings 'tis expresly said, they should onely be able to cry out in that day, which, by their practise, 1 Sam. 8.18. may be understood, that they should be allowed to do no other. For else, why joyned they not with David, or why did not David himself resist him, but always fled from him? And the punishment of all those subjects that re­belled in the ten Tribes may infer, that though their Princes were both Ʋsurpers and Tyrants, ruling by will, and not by Law, yet it was not lawful for their subjects to resist them. Which I extend not further here, than to shew their first mistake, viz. That Law may be, not the municipal Laws of any particular place, but the Su­preme Law of God, touching the subjection and non-resistance of subjects toward their Princes. So in the Roman Emperors, whose will was Law, (for they per­mitted what they would onely to be in force, and over-awed the Senate, whom they were obliged to act by, and for form-sake did) and yet even to Nero, one of the worst of them, Rom. 13. the Apostle enjoyns absolute subjection to all inferiors. And this Supreme Law of subjects not-resistance, is signified by the Author of all government, in his own word, by rule, and by example. By rule, Prov 24.21. ‘Fear God and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change. Where the word of a King is, Eccles. 8.2. there is power, and who may say, What dost thou? Prov. 8. By me Kings reign, &c. And, Eccles. 8.4. I counsel thee to keep the Kings commandment, and that because of the Oath of God.’ These in the Old. In the New Testament, Matth. 22.21. ‘Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars, says our Saviour. And, Let every soul be subject; he that resists, Rom. 13. resists the Or­dinance of God, says the Apostle. And, Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, 1 Pet. 2.13. [Page 92] whether to the King as supreme, &c.’ saith the Apostle Peter. Tit. 3.1. And, ‘Put them in mind to be subject to prin­cipalities and powers, &c.’ 2. By Examples of all we read of that were godly in the Old Testament. And in the New; of Christ our Lord, who, though free, yet, lest he should offend, Matth. 17.27. paid where none was due. Of the Apostles, and of all the primitive Christians, as we saw above. This therefore is their first mistake, not mind­ing a more superior Law of subjection, then, that of particular Nations.

SEECT. 2. Tyranny.

THeir second is about the nature of Tyranny. They say; it is not Gods Ordinance, and therefore not 'commanded to be obeyed by the Apostle, Rom. 13. nor by reason, ‘because there is no rational tye by Law; they are a terror to the good, and tend to the subversion and 1 overthrow of Religion, Laws, and Liberty.’ But first they should remember, that although a moral evil in any kind be not Gods Ordinance, yet the application of it may, and often is Gods Ordinance. As the setting of Satan to ex­ercise his malice upon men, and upon his own elect some­times for their trial and humiliation, as he did upon Job; and the setting up a King in his wrath, Job 1. as we saw above; and the setting of Pharaoh over the Israelites, to whom he gave no power of resistance, though they were not 2 properly subjects. Secondly, though Tyranny be not Gods Ordinance, yet the Subjection to it is his Ordinance. Was not the invasion of Cesar, and reign of Caligula, Nero, and others, a Tyranny, and yet the Apostle saith, Obedience to it was Gods Ordinance, and for their good. 3 Thirdly, Though Tyranny be not Gods Ordinance, yet Government is, though tyrannically exercised, which good there is almost in all Tyrannies. Yea and as was [Page 93] said before, Government Tyrannical is Gods Ordinance by way of punishment and animadversion, he being Gods Minister to execute wrath, even Gods wrath, Rom. 13. not onely upon them that do, but those that have done evil; as also for the tryal of the faith and patience of his Saints for well-doing. ‘That the Trial of their faith, 1 Pet. 1. which is much more precious than of gold, may be found glorious.’ This was the saying of Tamerlane, Tamerlane that most horrid Ty­rant, but yet a truth; Interrogatus aliquando ab h [...]mine Genuensi cur tanta crudelitate uteretur? Commotus ac veluti furens d storta facie ac spirantibus ignem oculis, Aeneas Silv. in descript. Asiae Refer. Bu­cholcer. Chro­nol. An. 1398. respondit; Tu me hominem esse arbitraris? falleris, Ira Dei ego sum, & orbis vastitas. ‘Who being asked by a friend why he would be so cruel? He, being moved with the question, and in a rage, his countenance di­storted, and h [...]s eyes flashing fire, answered; Dost thou think me a man? thou art deceived: I am the wrath of God, and the vastation and destruction of the world.’ Tyranny therefore in this sense explain'd, is oftentimes Gods Ordinance. This is their second error.

SECT. 3. Ground of Non-resistance.

THe third fundamental one, is their mistake of the ground of Non-resistance, or patience, which they make to be onely lawful power, and legal commands, (taking still lawful and legal in their former sense also, according to particular and municipal Laws.) But this, as it is a dangerous, so it is a false position. For the true ground of Non-resistance of subjects, is first the the nature of order; and secondly the prohibition of Gods Ordi­nance.

First, Order requires, that each keep his place, unless 1 extraordinarily called by the Author of order, which is God himself, as Ehud, Barak, Jahel, and others were, Judg. 3. chap. 4. in [Page 94] which case they were not subjects; as neither were the Israelites thieves, Exod. 12. when they borrowed the goods of the Egyptians and restored them not; nor invaders of other mens inheritances in seizing upon the Land of Canaan; Josh. 4. because in these cases they had the order of the God of order. Neither had Abraham been guilty if he had slain his son, as he was not guilty in intending it, for the same reason; but these are not for imitation. Now then, or­der natural is, Rom. 13. That every soul be subject, and do not resist the higher powers, that is, those that are higher than he in his own rank and place, for that tends to the reproach of the God of order, and to the confusion of the whole body, if the members will not be ruled by the head, whilst a head. As when an Army will not be com­manded by their superior Officers; or the inferior Orbs oppose themselves to the motion of the higher ones.

The second ground of non-resistance in subjects is Gods Ordinance, who hath so enjoyned, ‘that every soul should be subject to the higher powers, Rom. 13. so long as they are higher, and in possession of power by right, either from man or God, by special dispensation; those that by such dispensation are under them, are to be subject.’ So the Apostle Peter, 1 Pet. 2.13. ‘ Submit your selves to every Or­dinance of man for the Lords sake, whether to the King as Supreme, &c.’ And, ‘Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and Powers. Tit. 3.1.’ And this not onely to the good and gentle, or to those that command just things, and maintain Religion, Laws, and Liberties; but even to those that are froward, 1 Pet. 2.18, 19, 20. and that do afflict for well-doing. For so the Apostle, speaking to servants, which by proportion holds unto subjects; both because every Master is a Ma­gistrate, but especially because the ground of non-re­sistance here, is not the lawful power he had, neither as to the obtaining of it (for he might take his servant by praedation, pyracy, or other unlawful ways) nor the law­fulness of his commands (for the Apostle supposeth the Masters to be such as punish for well-doing) in which case, God did never give direct power to command, [Page 95] though he have given indirect power for the trial of his servants faith and patience. The Apostle, after he had required subjection to the King, and others under him, 1 Pet. 2.18, 19, 20. explained. in every Ordinance and command, comes in the same chapter unto servants with the same precept, but with this further explication, which belongs to both, that this subjection should be to the froward, that is, to the wick­ed, and for not doing things they commanded against [...]od; for so the sense must be also. The words are: ‘If a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffer­ing wrongfully.’ You see it is [...]ods Ordinance not to resist, though he suffer wrongfully, that is, for things wherein there is no direct right to command; which is the same with that of our Saviour, ‘ Resist not evil, Matth. 5.39. explained. but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek (which sure he hath no right to do) turn to him the other also.’ Which is to be understood especially with reference unto Superiors, and comparatively, that is, rather than resist. Plead a subject may, as Paul did, Act. 16.37. chap. 22.25. against oppression of Magistrates, resist he may not, because God hath in so many places of his Word ordained otherwise; but least of all by arms, and in a publick way. What cases may fall out, wherein subjects may be no subjects, they are very rare, and are spoken to else-where in this Treatise; but are far from our case in this Nation, and so concern us not.

SECT. IV. A State, a Parliament, or inferior Magistrates.

THe fourth mistake of the former Authors, is, that they distinguish in this question betwixt a Parliament, or State, or inferior Magistrates, and private persons; granting defence unto the one, though denyed unto the other, and so would avoid the Scriptures as well as Rea­sons prohibition, not to resist the higher powers. But first, they say, ‘that a private person is not prohibited resistance, but for want of strength, so not for conscience sake; [Page 96] a vile position.’ If the power in a Parliament, or State, or inferior Magistrates, be derived from a Superior, they have no power to use it against him, for it is his, and theirs onely by concession from him; nor is it conferred on them, but with that intention for his service, not his opposition. If they use it against him, it must be by some other superior power that hath conferred other powers upon them (and that must be some visible one too) for their very esse and being, as such, a Parliament, State, or Magistracy, is wholly dependent from him, who con­ferred those powers upon them. This for Reason. Then for the Scripture they would so elude, by saying, That it doth not forbid the Senate to resist, if it did prohibit pri­vate persons, because neither Paul nor Peter wrote to them, not being Christians. We must note, that the Apo­stle, Rom. 13. forbidding every soul to resist the higher powers, as being the Ordinance and order of God, by and among men, 1 Pet. 2. explained. must mean according to the known practise of those times, whether by Law, or Custom, or Will of the Prince. Now if the Law did enable any to resist, as the Senate or other, why then that is the higher power, for resistance is by the Sword, Note. and it is the higher power onely that bears the sword; and so such resistance should not be resistance to, but an execution of the higher power. If the Laws formally or really gave no power; then, by this prohibition of the Apostle, they could not resist, because none might resist the higher power. He speaks distributively, every soul, that he might be understood the more comprehensively, all together. And he speaks indefinitely, without restrain­ing or excepting, lest any should plead exemption. What the Senate did against that Prince, under whose govern­ment they were, when the Apostle wrote to the Romans, viz. Nero, by proclaiming him an enemy to the Com­mon-wealth, proscribing of him, and decreeing he should be punished more majorum: And what their power, or the foundation of it was, and what their case, is not much material for us to query; seeing the constitution, or at least the practice of their State and ours, as they do, so they ought to differ, as much as Heathenism and Chri­stianity. [Page 97] And this for their fourth mistake, in placing any difference betwixt inferior Magistrates and private men, in case of resistance beyond the Laws, for in that respect they are but private men, as genera & species subalternae respectu superiorum. But from the Thesis of States and inferior Magistrates in general, they come

SECT. V. The co-ordinate power of the two Houses in making Laws.

TO the Hypothesis, and in particular, in reference unto the Government of this Nation. They say, ‘That the King is not wholly supreme, because as he hath a negative voice, so also each of the Houses of Parlia­ment, and that he cannot make, alter, or abrogate a Law of himself, but that they have a co-ordinate power with him.’

For answer. It were more for the personal advantage, Answ. and perhaps satisfaction of Kings, if there were no Laws, but that they govern'd after their own judgment. It is therefore of concession, and a departing from their ad­vantage to have Laws, and to limit themselves by them, for the better satisfaction of their subjects. Now al­though it be truly affirm'd by a present and reverend Pen, Dr. Sanderson L. Bishop of Lincoln. Preface to B. Usher of the right of Kings, pag. 4. That the justice of succession is the onely right and proper foundation of Government; wherein he was foregone by him, who saith of succession, D. Hen. Savili­us praefat. ded. R. Jacob. pre­fix. operib. J. Chrysost. Gr. Quod si cui leve videatur, sciat eam rem tanti apud majores nostros fuisse ponderis, ut non priùs justum & legitimum Normannorum in Anglia imperium fuisse arbitrarentur, quàm Ma­thildis Davidis soror Henrico primo enupta regiam nobis sobolem daret, ex antiqua regum Saxonicorum stirpe derivatam. ‘Which Succession (saith mine Author) if it seem a small matter to any man, he must know, that it was of so great weight with our Ancestors, that they [Page 98] never thought that the Government of William the Conqueror, and the Normans, was just and lawful, un­til Mathildis the sister of David ( Abnepos. grandchild to Ethel­red the Saxon King) being married to Henry the first, brought us forth a Royal seed, derived from the antient blood of the Saxon Kings.’ Yet why may we not think, that some of our Princes originally might be as free as an­other lately, who had no such such title either of Succes­sion or Conquest, professeth himself to have been in points of Law and Government, Lord Prote­ctors speech Septemb. 12. p. 11. and p. 13. untill he limited himself. ‘I say (saith he) the Authority I had in my hand being so boundless. Again, my power again by this resignation was boundless and unlimited as before. All things being subject to Arbitrariness, and a person having power over the three Nations, pag. 14. boundless and unlimited. Again. The Government— limited me, and b [...]und my hands, to act nothing to the prejudice of the Nations, without consent of a Councel, until Parliament, and then limited by a Parliament I did accept it— I was arbitrary in power.’ May it not then have been in Princes as it was in this Ʋsurper and invader of the pub­lick Liberties. And indeed the Coronation-Oath seems to imply so much, Coronation-Oath. [H. scrips. 24. Apr. 61. die Co­ronationis, casu non consilio, dum opus recognoscerem.] wherein among other things the King is asked: 'Sir, will you grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightful customs which the Commonalty of this Realm ( consuetu­dines quas vulgus elegerit, His Majesties answer to the Remonstrance of May 26. 1642. pag. 17. & 15.) whether you expound it, have (or shall choose.) Which words do not imply a force up­on the King, It is for the ease of Princes, and satisfaction of Subjects, that that unlimited power given by God to Princes, is bounded in all places by Laws, with their own consent. Dr. Sandersons preface to Dr. Usher, of the right of Kings, pag. 12. but a desire of his engage­ment. Therefore the choice of Laws be­ing not the Princes, but the Peoples ad­vantage and priviledge, is left unto them, not as implying a co-ordinate power, but a concession of liberty, ( not now to be changed, because established both by Law and Oath) yet so, that the [Page 99] King reserves to himself the power of a negative voice, Negative voice. and of refusing to pass their Elections into Laws if he like them not. If it be said, Object. That the Houses have the like ne­gative voice; that's a mistake, Answ. they have it in order the one house to the other, but not in order to the King, be­cause he doth not propound Laws unto them, (his desi [...]es he may) but they to him. So that there is no such thing as a negative voice in the Houses about the Laws in order to the King, it is onely in reference of the one House to the other. So that to speak properly, according to the known practise of the Parliament, the two Houses seem to have no co-ordinate share in making Laws, but in choosing things to be made Laws, the King onely making of them; for the Houses acknowledge, Declar. Parl. 'That they are not Laws till the Royal assent. But I may not correct the King, who saith: Object. ‘in this Kingdom the Laws are joyntly made, by a King, Kings answ. to the 19 propo­sit. p. 12. by a House of Peers, and by a House of Commons chosen by the peo­ple all having free votes, and particular privileges:’ Nor do I, but explain what he must intend. Answ. The making of the matter of the Laws belongs to the two Houses; the conferring of the form, Declar. Parl. in defence of that, May 26. 1642. and giving them the esse and be­ing of Laws, is from the King onely, and so acknowledged by the Houses, viz. That if he do deny, it is no Law with­out him; Script. Reas. sect. 5. p. 64. Kings answ. to 19 Proposit. p. 19. and so acknowledged by the greatest pleaders for the taking up of Arms. But secondly, because his Majesty saith a little after, ‘We conjure you— that you allow us— our share in the Legislative power, which would be counted in us, not onely a breach of priviledge, but Tyranny and subversion of Parliaments, to deny you.’ Which implies the other have a share also. I answer, That they have a share, but derivative, not original, subordinate as subjects even in Parliament, (for so they call themselves) not co-ordinate as equals. The wife hath a share in the government of the family, for sure she is more in point of right relating to the govern­ment of it, than a servant; but it is not a co-ordinate but subordinate power. The King would not be understood [Page 100] to confute his Father, Himself, or the Laws. Not his Father, K. James's Law of Free Monarchies. who saith. ‘That the King is above the Law, as both the Author and giver of strength thereto.’ Not Himself, who hath several times avowed his Soveraign­ty, though not his solitude; his Supremacy, though not his aloneness in government; who at the time of publishing that answer, had drawn his sword to vindicate his Soverein­ty & prerogative. Nor was it his intent to confute the Law, which maketh him the fountain of justice, as we saw above; & therfore what waters of power any else have, must needs flow originally from him. Thirdly the King hath said, he is no Lawyer, neither is it necessary that he should so be; if then his Majesty out of zeal to content his subjects, should let fal any To the 19 Propositions. expression in that answer of his so much insisted on, that might prejudice his legal right, it ought not in duty, as it cannot in conscience, be improved against him, contrary to the known practise of Laws and Parlia­ment. It is true, the two Houses say in their declaration of November 2. 1642. ‘That the Kings Soveraignty is in and with the two Houses. That they are the supreme Court, whose determinations ought not to be question'd by the King. That the Kings power is a trust from the people. That the two Houses may dispose of any thing, of the King or Kingdoms.’ But seeing no Law is pro­duc'd, a sentence of out Fleta, above answered, is not suf­ficient to bottom, in my conscience, so high assertions. To conclude, All that have share in Legislative power, have it not equally, the King is acknowledged by the Oath of Supremacy, sworn by every Parliament man be­fore he sit, to be Supreme over all in these his Dominions. Neither have they it originally, but by concession and grant, though now setledly. But though they have this de­rivative power in Leg [...]slation, and in some cases in de­claring Law, so it be not against the known Lavvs; yet have they none in execution of the Lavvs, much less the povver of the Sword, further then the King shall grant unto them: For vvhich, though Laws vvere spoken of, yet vvere they never produc'd. Though the King de­clare, [Page 101] ‘That there is no power in either or both Houses, Kings Answer to the Decla­ration of both Houses, in an­swer to his Majesties last Message con­cerning the Militia. p. 10. upon any pretence whatsoever, without our consent, (saith he) to raise any part of the Militia of this Kingdom. Nor hath the like been ever commanded by either or both Houses, since the first foundation of the Laws of this Land.’ And though he produce Proclamati­on of Jun. 18. 1642. Acts of Parliament for his power, as 7 Edw. 1. and divers others, together with the known practise of the Nation.

SECT. VI. No means of Preservation.

SIxthly, they object, If no resistance be permitted to a State, Senate, or inferior Magistracy, ‘then is there no means left of preservation oftentimes, which is against the Law of Nature, when force is offered, for that teaches and allows, vim vi repellere, to resist force by force.’ But this rule is applicable to particu­lar Answ. 1 persons, (and so indeed admitted by these Authors) and to private men; self-preservation from violence, is as much granted by the Law of nature to them of right, as to a State, Senate, or Inferior Magistrates. And what a gap is this to all disorder, if the bellua multorum ca­pitum should find this to be its strength?

2. Again, Id possumus quod jure possumus, if God and Answ. 2 the Laws deny us help, Naz. Orat. 1. we have onely Nazianzen's way of victory left, [...]. i. e. ‘I have one medicine against all maladies, one way to ob­tain victory, viz. to die for Christ; Du [...]lies of the profess. of Aberdeen to the Br. Answ. dupl. 2. n. 12. Matth. 26. which he spake, when in the time of Julian's persecution, the Christi­ans were more in number, and stronger of hand than the Heathens.’ Our Saviour could have prayed for twelve Legions of Angels, but he had no means to save himself from ruine. Neither had the ten Tribes, when Jeroboam and others oppressed them; for the means of [Page 102] resistance which they used proved at all no remedy; nor had the Kingdom of Juda, 2 King. 16. when mancipated and made subject by Ahaz unto the King of Assyria, which it seems God owned; for afterward when his Successor, and the posterity of that generation, rebelled under He­zekiah, 2 King. 18. they smarted for it, and confess'd it; though af­terward, upon a barbarous demand, they had a just cause of defence against him. All conveniences have their in­conveniencies. In a free Monarchy, there is more safety, but there is danger of some oppressions. Matth. 19. ‘If the case be so with the husband and wife, Object. it is not good to marry, and better in a free state. Resp.’ First, capiat qui capere potest, those who are free may do so; but we are obliged even by natural b [...]rth-right to this subjection, 24 H. 8. c. 12. as the Act of Parliament saith, and to the Laws of a free Monarchy. But secondly, Hom. I [...]. B. Arist. Eth. l. 8. c. 12. Plat. de Regno. Plu­tarch. de unius in Rep. Domin. Tom. 2. I say with Homer, Aristotle, Plato, Plu­tarch, and other Antients, and Modern, yea, and with God himself, (who never govern'd his people any other way, not by Aristocracy, or a popular State, but by some One, either temporary, as the Judges were, or permanent, who according to the Laws exercised sole government, even Samuel himself) that 'tis both the greatest safety, as well as the greatest Honor, not onely to a Church, but also to a Common-wealth, Isa. 49. that Kings should be its nur­sing fathers, and Queens its nursing mothers. Quod enim praestabilius est, Plin. Panegyr. Trajan. d [...]ct. à principio. aut pulchrius munus deorum, quàm ca­stus & sanctus & diis simillimus princeps. ‘For what, saith mine author, can be a more profitable or honourable gift from heaven, than a moderate, religious, and God-like Prince, &c.’ But of this else-where. But to be sure, Note. after God did establish a setled government among his people, it was that of a Monarchy, and that a free one too, as Ut humana gubernatio di­vinae quàm si­millima sit. Ficin. Arg. in Plat. de Regno. 3. coming nearest to the image of his own govern­ment. Lastly, It is very rare, if at all truly to be ex­emplified (except perhaps in Caligula or Nero) that a Prince will endeavour the ruine of the Common-wealth; of the Government indeed he may, but not of the Common-wealth; for then, over what shall he reign, and whom [Page 103] shall he govern? King John King John. would have subjected the Kingdom to the Pope, as Ahaz did his unto the King of Assyria; but both of them thought they did it to preserve, 2 King. 16. not onely their own interest, but also their Kingdoms, which they conceived would be in peril to be ruined else. This for their sixth mistake.

SECT. VII. This will tempt Princes to become Tyrants.

I Come now to the last, viz. ‘That if Kings do know their subjects are so principled, as not to dare in conscience to resist; no, nor the State or Parliament, it will open a wide gap to Tyranny and all oppression.’ But first, it is certain, that God set up this Government Answ. 1 as best among his own people, to whom he gave no power of resistance, and the Princes knew the people so to be principled; surely the Lo [...]d foresaw a greater mischief in any other government than this hazard. Again, The Answ. 2 Roman Emperors did know, that the Christians were principled not to resist, both by the Scriptures, Justin. Mart. Apol. 2. Tertul. Apologetic. and their profession and practise; insomuch that Julian jeers them for it, and says, they must turn the other ear. Yet Christ, who gave this precept, and the Apostles, who also ex­emplified it, did foresee what ill use might be made of it, but not so bad as of the contrary, viz. the permission of resistance. Thirdly, Some Princes that knew their absoluteness, and professed it in reference to accomp­tableness Answ. 3 unto their subjects; yet have professed, and ge­nerally practised the obligation of themselves unto the the Laws. King James for example; Law of Free Monarchies, Edit. Lond. 1616. pag. 200, 201. ‘Their obedience (the subjects) I say (saith he) ought to be to him (their lawful King) as to Gods Lieutenant in earth— acknowledging him a Judge set by God over them, having power to judge them, but to be judged onely by God, whom to onely he must give count of his judg­ment [Page 104] —following and obeying his lawful com­mands, eschewing, and flying his fury in his unlawful, without resistance, but by sobs and tears to God, &c.’ But yet in the same work he saith, Law of Free Mon [...]rch. ‘Albeit I have at length proved, that the King is above the Law, as both the Author and giver of strength thereunto; yet a good King will not onely delight to rule his subjects by the Law, but even will conform himself in his own actions thereunto, &c.’ So this Prince. And why should we think, that the Author of such power, putting this consi­deration into the heart of him, doth not the same to Answ. 4 others also, where he seeth good? A fourth answer to the objection some would give from the practise of Princes themselves, both Antient and Modern, who might seem by assistance to subjects to have thereby declared, that though subjects may not resist, yet may they call for help of other Princes, as the case may stand. And that the reason of the difference is, that in calling for aid to other Princes no order is broken, being those powers are co­ordinate, though not in the same dominions, and not sub­jects. And that one end and use of the power of Princes is, that besides the protection of their own people, they might be the Lord's Captain for the relief of other of his people, and hath so in all ages been put in practice, though sometime with not so desirable success; causes, and carriages, and divine Providence swaying otherwise. But because this answer doth necessarily imply the law­fulness of resistance, indirectly, and by consequence, for they are obliged to assist such help, therefore I shall not rest upon it; but add to the former replies another an­swer, Answ. 5 viz. ‘That he who hath established these bounds to the Mount, Exod. 19. that the people break not through, doth also by his providence so rule the hearts of Princes, which he hath in his hands as the rivers of water, Prov. 21.1. to turn them as it pleaseth him, that the thunder and lightning shall not break out upon an obedient people; or if it do, it shall work together for their good, Rom. 8. even the trial of their faith and patience, 1 Pet. 1. that they may be found for praise, and [Page 105] honor, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ.’ Let no man therefore say, this is a putting the sword into the hand of Princes to destroy their people, for then so did Peter, even in those times when Masters had power of life and death; yet he bids them not to resist, 1 Pet. 2. no not for conscience-sake, though they were afflicted for well-doing. He saith indeed afterward, Who will harm you, if you follow that which is good? Parallel to that of Paul, Paul expound­ed by Peter. He is the Minister of God for good unto thee; that is, by in­stitution: but if he prove otherwise, yet he is Gods Mi­nister to try our graces, to correct our vices. We should believe God will stand by his own Ordinance in publick, as he doth in those private ones betwixt wife and husband, betwixt servant and master, so betwixt subject and So­veraign, though he suffer oppressions for just causes in all. 6. And further, as none of the pleaders for resistance would have their own subjects, wives or servants, do it to themselves by force, unless in some personal acts of violence, to restrain them at the present from some sud­den attempt, so neither ought they admit it in themselves unto their superiors. 7. And lastly, the contrary being known unto subjects, will open a more wide gap to sedi­tion and rebellion, by how much less wisdom, and more temptations and inclination they have to change than Princes; 'tis mobile vulgus. I conclude this with that Te­trastich, touching the Legion of 6666 Soldiers, Venant. Fortu­nat. Carminum. lib. 2. Carm. 15. Biblioth. patr. To. 6. edit 1618. part. 2. that with­out resistance suffered:

[Page 106] Wisdom heweth her self out seven pillars, Prov. 9.1. so hath her opposite, which being ruined, the fabrick wholly sinks; Script. & Reas. for de­fensive Arms. this, and such books I mean, which run chiefly on the former reasonings.

SECT. VII. Of obedience to Ʋsurped Powers.

ANd now for conclusion of this first part of the civil controversie, these Cautions may be noted. First, That our dispute concerning the war being such as hath been shewed, Cautions con­cerning the premises. 1. What may be done under illegal power. doth not impede, but that we may under even an illegal power be instrumental for the prevention of publick ruine, and for the preservation of the beeing of a Nation: provided that he do it without all engagement or real efficacy to the upholding of the usurpation. The reason is, that such things the lawful Magistrate ought, were he in place, to do; and is presumed in reason willing to have them done. Such as are, 1 the preservation of Religion, 2 ex­ecution of Justice according to Law, 3 suppression of Tumu [...]ts against Law, 4 and opposition of forreign ene­mies, properly so called. Although for my self, I have not acted, though impowered, in any of them, that I know of, except appearing once to understand the matter, when in effect I did declare against it, and never appear­ed after. Again, it impedeth not (under correction) but that unto irregular powers may be yielded such impo­sitions, 2. What may be suffered. as the denial whereof would bring apparent ruine, and the solution whereof no way recognize the authority exacting. Such, I suppose, was the obedience, that Je­hoiadah and other loyal subjects to the King, 2 King. 11. rendred unto Athaliah, during those six years of her usurpation; and of some of David's friends, 2 Sam. 15. in the time of Absa­lom's rebellion.

And thus I have rendred an account of the motives of my access and recess to, The conclusi­on of the first Argument. and from the civil Contro­versie. I shall conclude it, with that place out of the Doctrine of the Church of England, wherewith I was so much affected; 'tis this: ‘Though God doth oftentimes prosper just and lawful enemies, Homil. of dis­obed. part 4. p. m. 300. which be no SƲB­JECTS, against their forreign enemies, yet he did NEVER LONG prosper subjects against their PRINCE, Note. were they never so great in AUTHORI­TY, or so many in NUMBER.’

SECT. I. The occasion of the Authors Lapse into it.

AS touching the other Controversie, viz. about Church-Government, and my prolapsing into Independency, the Oc­casion was one, the Motives another. The Occasion was, 1. The occasi­on. that being by means of the former actings constrained, as I thought, to leave the place of my employment, Cambr. remain­ing [Page 110] idle (upon the matter) in that, London. then, (sentina malorum) common-shore of corrupt opinions, I fell into that snare. Often since reflecting on that of Solomon, Prov. 27.8. ‘as a bird that wandreth from her nest, [...]o is a man that wandreth from his place, obnoxious to every snare of the fouler, to every bolt of the shooter.’ I have known several formi­dable examples in the Ministery of those, who, not with­out very probable g [...]ounds, and weighty advice, have re­ceded from their places; provided, that they could eat their bread in them (though perhaps but course) or not over-powered with other temptations or distractions. Considerable are the words of Calvin to this purpose, Ita respicienda est vocatio tua ut ab omnibus avocamentis sensus tuos omnes avertas. In Epist. ad Philip. cap. 2. 21. Licet alibi opulentiùs vivere: At Deus te alligavit Ecclesiae, quae tenuitur modò te alat. Alibi plus honoris; sed eum tibi locum attribuit Deus, in quo humiliter vivas. A ibi salubrius coelum, aut amoenior Regio, sed hîc tibi statio ordinata est. Optares tibi cum hu­maniore populo esse negotium: offendit te vel ingratitudo, vel ferocitas, vel superbia: deni (que) cum genio & moribus Gentis minimè convenit. Atqui luctandum est tibi tecum, & vis quodammodo contrariis votis est afferenda, ut spartam quam nactus es, colas. Which passage truly, I left un-Englished; but remembring it may do some good unto the The Wives of Ministers. weaker sex, 'tis this,. ‘Thou art so to observe where God hath called thee, that thou must shut thine eyes from all enticements thence. Elsewhere thou maist live more plentifully, but God hath bound thee to a Parish, which will but keep thee sparingly. There is more credit to be had else where; but God hath assigned thee a place, wh [...]re thou must live ob­scurely. The aire is better at such a place, and the Country far more pleasant; but here thou are appointed Sentinel. Thou couldst wish thou hadst to deal with a better natur'd people; thou art troubled at their ingra­titude, at their rudeness, at their pride and insolency; in a word, thou canst not away with the spirit an [...] dis­position of the people. But thou must wrastle with thy [Page 111] self, and offer a kind of force to all opposite affections, that so thou maist adorn that Spouse to which thou art engaged.’ Th [...]s far there. But the Sauce is not all Vine­ger. He ther [...]fore adds in the same place. Idem. ibid. Eatenus concedendum est Ecclesiae ministris sua quaerere; ut non impediantur à quaerendo Christi Regno: sed hoc modo, jam non dicentur sua quaerere, quoniam à prae­cipuo scopo aestimatur vita hominis. ‘Thus far (saith he) it must be granted unto Ministers to seek their own, so as they may not be hindred from seeking the King­dom of Christ. But on this account, they are not now to be said to se [...]k their own, because we are to judge of a mans way by the scope and end he aimes at.’ Thus he. Conc. Nice Can. 16. And the Council of Nice [...]ath this Canon. Ne de civitate inferiori ad majorem Ecclesiam transire quis ambiat, sive Episcopus, sive etiam aliùs Clericus. ‘That no man, be he Bishop or other Clergy-man, should endeavour to go from a meaner to a greater place or people. Concil. Trid. Sess. 3. sub Jul. 3. Can. 5.’ And there is reason for it, seeing it is seldom that he can sine magno suo & Ecc [...]esiae incommodo gregem sibi concre­ditum relinquere, ac non sine Episcopalis dignitatis diminu­tions: ‘Leave the flock entrusted to him, without great inconvenience both to himself and them, and without disgrace to his ministerial function, Psal. 92. as the Council of Trent hath it.’ But to return. God hath promised to keep us in all our ways, whilst we are in our way, 2 Sam. 11.1, 2. we are under protection. Now, as was implyed above, this de­gree of spiritual fornication, is occasioned sometime as the other was in David. Desidosus erat.

This for the occasion of my Lapse.

SECT. II. The Causes Privative.

BUt the Causes were, as in the former Controversie, partly general and privative, partly positive and particular. The general was, that, as I had in the former, through zeal without knowl [...]dge resisted the Spirit of God, so I committed here the same error upon the same grounds, against the Word of [...]od. For why may I not call it the Word of God, which was first in it self a truth, and that one of main concernment; and then spoken, when I was leaving my relation, and, as it were, at Farewell (when words use to be of most weight) and lastly ut­tered by Dr. Laud Arch-bish. of Cant. my ho­nourable Lord and Master. one, whose place was in solemn manner to declare it. Although his person should have been as bad as his; who prophesied, being the Joh. 11.51. High-priest. It was this, viz. An Admonition to adhere unto the Church of England, without turnig unto the right-hand or unto the left. To which most Sovereign counsel, if the Author's self, did not in all things correspond (as some have published) he had therein, no servant of me; and yet he did confer upon me no common favours. By vertue whereof I enjoyed the benefit of the best part of my education, and preparation for the Ministery. Unto whom, living or dead, I have not return'd evil wil­lingly. But on the contrary, being sollicited, and that with some kind of intermination, to be, and afterward cited, as a witness against him, I appeared not. When the Lord Cromwel in Henry the eighth's time, Fox Acts & Mon. in the life of Cromwel was glan­ed at by one, for having been servant unto Cardinal Wol­sey, he not onely did acknowledge it, but professed also his grateful memory of the benefits he received from him. Because his Lordship may have with some, though not meriting, the like resentment with the Cardinal. This for the occasion and cause privative.

SECT. III. Causes Positive.

THe Causes Positive. First, 1. Of Recess from the Church. I took offence at some things in the Church, in the Assemblies, the Wor­ship, and the Discipline; neither perceiving the beam in my own eye, nor the beauty of that Spouse, that seemed black, Cant. 1.4, 14. but was comely in the eye of Christ; no, nor the defor­mity of the Concubine, that was but painted over. An adulterous spirit sees beauty in any, but his own wife.

Next, 2. Of Access unto Indepen­dency. I was taken (not undeservedly) with the good gifts and preaching that I perceived in certain of the In­dependent way. And I did not well apply then, what I had sometime done, viz. ‘To mark those that caused divisions and offences, Rom. 16.17. contrary to the doctrines which I had received, and avoid them; because they that are such, serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own bellies; and with sweet preaching (so Mr. Tindal) and flattering words, deceive the hearts of the Innocents.’ But the main was, a love to that beauty of holiness, in Or­der and Ordinances, which they predicated and spake so much of. Now, Aug. de utilit. cred. cap. 1 [...]. Quis non his pollicitationibus non allice­retur, praesertim adolescentis animus cupidus veri. ‘Who would not have been inveigled with these promises, especially the mind of a young man thirsty for truth?’ As Austin once of himself, in refeference unto the Manichees.

SECT. IV. Of the Contents of Independency, and in particular of the second and third of them, viz. congregation, and non subjection.

The Ingredi­ents of Indep. coll g ble out of the Apolo­getic. Narra­tion of the 5. Br.BUt to come neerer, and to particulars. There are three things in Independency especially. First, se­paration, viz. from full and constant fellowship and com­munion with the Parochial Assemblies. Secondly, Con­gregation, or collecting and constituting themselves into another body. Lastly, Independency and assuming or usurping of intire Ecclesiastical power into that body, so as to be judicially and of right, subject unto none other; which is the esse and [...], of Independency. Of the two latter ( viz. Congregation and non subjection) I shall speak here, because I shall have occasion of much more large Discourse about the former, namely, separation. And now for the [...], and that they do so congregate, that is visible; for they do by a certain covenant constitute themselves into a distinct body. And that they arrogate an Independency also, Apologet. Nar­rat. pag. 23. although in words they reject the name, saying, That proud and insolent title of Indepen­dency was affixed unto us: yet in as much as they do in terminis affirm; first, that any other particular Church ‘hath only power to declare non communion with an of­fending Church. pag. 19. Secondly, that a Classis or combina­tion of Churches have no juridical power over any particular one. Pag. 15. pag. 17. Thirdly, that the Magistrates power, is of another nature, though of use over the Church; doth it not follow (They also rightly denying a Ca­tholick visible Church) unavoidably, that as a Church, and as to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction they depend on none, and therefore are Independent.’ That therefore such they are, as to congregating and Independing, is be­yond [Page 115] all contradiction. Now then for the [...], and their grounds why they are so, to shew the unsufficiency of them, or which is all one, that they ought not so to do, is the next thing to be evidenced. And 'tis not so hard, nor needs so long a proof, if we consider their own grounds already yeilded, and the unlawfulness of separation, which shall, the Lord assisting, be cleared in the consequent, and which themselves also seem to damn. ‘For we had likewise the fatal miscarriages and ship­w [...]a [...]ks of the separation (say they) as Land-marks to forewarn us of those rocks and shelves they ran upon. Apologetic. Narrat. pag. 5.’ And would God it had done it, for the Independents have split upon the very same divisions. First, then for their concessions.

‘If it be true, that all that conscience of the defile­ments 1 (say they) we conceived to cleave to the true worship of God in them; pag. 6. Concessions of Indepen­dents against Independen­cy. or of the unwarranted power in Church Governours exercised therein, did never work in us any other thought, much less opinion, but that multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congrega­tions thereof, were the true Churches and body of Christ, and the Ministry thereof a true Ministry.’ Then doubt­less, first, their habitual Separation from such, (though in some acts rarely they did communicate with some of them) was ipso facto unlawful, and a Schisme evident. This, the foundation falling, their superstructure of con­gregating into a body, and binding themselves to that society (which implies a constant renunciation of the for­mer Churches) is as drunkenness to thirst; and their ar­rogating of a self-sufficient and independent power, is as the fastening their iniquity with cords of vanity. So that there seems no more needful for this place, then that ex ore tuo serve nequam, Matth. 25. ‘out of thy own mouth thou shalt be judged. Dost thou confess, that notwith­standing any defilements in the worship, any usurpation 1 in the Church-Governours, any pag. 6. mixture in the Con­gregations, 2 that yet multitudes of them were the true Churches and body of Christ: and wilt thou separate 3 [Page 116] thy self constantly, and draw others from the true body of Christ? Joh. 15. Are not the branches, when broken off from the true Vine, cut off from the Quicquid à matrice disces­serit, seorsim vivere & spi­rari non pote­rit, substantian salutis amittit. Cypr. de Sim­plic. prolator. p. edit. Erasm. 1520. 173. juice, sap, and life of the tree? must they not needs wither, and in the end be gathered to be burned? I end this with that knock of the Hammer of this headless Schism, (for they are Inde­pendent)’ St. Austin, Hoc ergo Ticho [...]ius cùm vehementer copiose (que) dissereret, & ora contradicentium multis & mag­nis ac manifestis sanctarum scripturarum testimoniis op­pilaret; non vidit, quod consequenter videndum fuit: —Parmenianus autem ceteri (que) Donatistae, viderunt hoc esse consequens, & maluerunt suscipere obstinatissimum animum adversus apertissimam veritatem — quam eâ concessâ superari ab Africanus Ecclesiis. Aug. contr. Ep. Parm. l. 1. c. 1. Independents. ‘This (that the Church was not in Africk onely, 1. their Incon­siderateness. but diffused through the whole world) when as Ticonius had earnestly and copiously discoursed; and, by many, weighty and evi­dent arguments of the holy Scriptures, stopt the mouthes of the gain-sayers: yet did not see, that which by conse­quence did clearly follow. 2. Or their Obstinacy. On the other side, Parme­nian and the rest of the Donatists (the separation) saw the consequence, and would rather assume a most stub­born resolution against manifest truth, than by yielding to it, be overcome of the African (I may add in refe­rence to those we speak of, the English) Churches.’

2 But secondly, toward satisfaction unto others, if not to them, What kind of Independency is here con­demned. I must explain my self. All Independency of Churches is not denyed. For then we must condemn the Church of England, and other reformed, who do not act, as acknowledging any superior body, on whom they do depend. ‘But according to the confession of this Church, every particular or National Church, Artic. 34. hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish Ceremonies, or rites of the Church, ordain'd onely by mans authority; so that all things be done to edifying. So Article 57 The Queens Majesty hath the chief power, —unto whom the chief government of all estates of of this Realm —in all causes doth appertain, and ought not to be subject to any [Page 117] foreign jurisdiction.’ It speaks of causes Ecclesiastical. Vindiciae Catho­licae, or the Rights of par­ticular Chri­stian Church­es asserted. Which kind of Independency I have elsewhere sufficiently, if I mistake not, vindicated. But the Independency here opposed, is that; whereby Christians being before incor­porated as members into Congregations (such as them­selves also acknowledged to be true Christian Churches and bodies of Christ) do read off themselves, and incor­porate into new ones of their own, for the most part small and inconsiderable. For the detecting further of which error, we are to note one or two particulars. First, Ecclesiasti­cal power may be lost. we must distinguish between the original state of a Church, as it might be at its first collection, and the after-condition of it, and present being. When it was first ga­thered it might be free, as was the family of Jethro; Numb. 10. but not so afterward, when incorporated with another Church. All the several Heptarchies in this Nation, and many Provinces else-where, were once free and Inde­pendent; doth it follow they must be so still, or rend them­selves from the Kingdom, if they could, to be so again? By this, the 120 names that were the Church in the beginning, should still have assumed their first liberty. Act. 1. For we must note, that Ecclesiastical power, is as well dis­seasable as civil, and may be lost (so, as it is not lawful to resume it) and that not only by a voluntary concession, or providential falling in with other Christians, or Churches; but even by force also. As if by publick Edict, two or more Churches should be constrained to unite into one. As in England, all the Christians in one Parish are made members of that Church; and all the Parishes of that Diocess one Diocesan Church; and all the Dioce­san Churches one Metropolitical; from whence they are aggregated, yea, incorporated into one Natio­nal Church. Now being thus joyned together by God and good order, it is not lawful for themselves again to put assunder. This is one of their fundamental errors, A fundamen­tal error of In­dependency. to fan­cy a reducement of the Churches to their first infancy. Why attempt they not the same in civil Societies, Common-wealths, and Kingdoms, yea, and families al­so? [Page 118] there is the like reason, rule, and example, for the one as for the other. The strange consequences of it. And so this flabel of Schism in the Church, shall also be the bellows of Sedition in the Common-wealth. For if Ecclesiastical original right of liberty and independency cannot be taken away, neither can Civil; and then the with-holding it is but usurpation, no title; Conference at Hamp. Court, pag. 82. 1 King. 12. and then, as there must be no Bishop, so no, &c. King James his inference. To conclude, Look what right the ten Tribes of Israel had to separate from the Church of their brethren, and to congregate and incor­porate into one of their own, and to make themselves In­dependent from any other; the same have these Brethren. Neither do they seem to have any better, if so good, for there was an appearing divine approbation of their re­cess from the Kingdom of Judah, and their own reason prompted them to think, that this must imply a with­drawing from the Church also. Now that they became Idolaters, first, that was accidental. Again, they went not so far, Ezek 16. as utterly to non-Church themselves, for God did still acknowledge them for his people. Thirdly, the occasion of their separation seems to be more just from the Church than the Common-wealth, 1 King. 11. and 12. for by Solomon's apostacy it was fill'd with all manner of Idolatries. Lastly, some of those that have begun at Independency, have proceeded as far in re and deed, if not farther than they. For they have apostatized from all communion with our Churches, or any Reformed; from thence to Anabaptism; from that to Quaking; and so not onely denying the Lord that bought them, Jude vers. 5. as the Apostle speaks, but also the whole Scripture, and are become worse, some of them, than Infidels and Idolaters, even plain Atheists. Whereof perhaps some instances and examples of this kind might be given, if it were requisite to name places and persons. By which things, and through their ho [...]rid shipwracks by sub-divisions, providence asketh the que­stion now, as it did once in another case of Apostacy from the Church, and their unsuccessfulness thereupon; Jer. 2.17. ‘Hast thou not procured this unto thy self, [Page 119] in that thou hast forsaken the Lord?’ And, ‘Is it not of the Lord, that the people weary themselves in the fire for very vanity? And in them is fulfilled that; They bite and devour one another, Gal. 5. till they be con­sumed one of another.’ And as he said of such Christians of old: Nullae tam infestae hominibus bestiae, Am. Marcell. ut sunt sibi ferales plerique Christiani. ‘There are no beasts unto man so mortal enemies, as are most of that sort of Christians, implacable one unto another.’ I conclude this with that of the Father, concerning their Ancestors; Sic, sic necesse est, ut minutatim secti conscissi (que) despereant, Aug. contr. E­pist. Parmen. lib. 1. cap. 4. in fine. qui surorem animositatis suae, Catholicae pacis sanctissimo vinculo praetulerunt. ‘So, so is it just that they should, crumbling and cut in mamocks, perish and come to nothing; who have before the most holy band of the Churches general peace, preferred the swelling of their own high stomachs.’ Which leads me to the first point of Independency, but last to be spoken to, viz. Sepa­ration.

SECT. I. Unnecessary.

TO begin with the first, viz. That many things in them are unnecessary. For answer. Answ. It should be considered, that 'tis easie for private men, Private men. and those in a lower station, to mistake in judging of the motions of superior Orbs and Intelligences. A man that stands upon the Watch-tower (and such are publick persons) sees what those should do, who are beneath him, Ezek. 3.17. and what is necessary, better than a wiser man that is below. The reason is, that men of inferior place are not assisted with the advantage of so much information, with the presence and general view of so many things, nor ordinarily with that measure of the Spirit, (as being to act both in a narrower and a lower sphere) which God doth usually, Publick per­sons. and as it were pro formâ communicate unto men of higher [Page 122] place: who for the good of mankind, and of his Church, doth commonly furnish men according to the places he calleth them unto. 1 S [...]m. 10.6. Saul being appointed King, was forth­with indued with another spirit. So the High Priest, that crucified the Lord Jesus, Joh. 11.51. uttered a mysterious and most precious Oracle, touching the extent of the death of Chr [...]st, for all the children of God, scattered abroad in all Nations. And 'tis expressly added, ‘Being the High priest that year, as representing the cause. And, a divine sentence (saith Solomon) is in the mouth of the King, Prov. 16.10. his lips do not transgress in judgment.’ Now if he assisted the former, and such like; ‘How much more then is he the Author of those Laws (injoyning what is ne­cessary in his Church) which have been made by his Saints, indued further, with the heavenly grace of his Spirit, and directed, as much as might be, with such instructions, R Hook. Ec­cles. pol. lib. 3. sect. 9. as his sacred Wo [...]d doth yield, saith my Author.’ And I may add, and several of whom have laid down their lives for his truth.

SECT. II. Inconvenient, and of ill consequence.

A Second general Exception against the premises is, that they are Inconvenient, and of evil conse­quence; first, scandalous to the weak, occasions of silenc­ing able Ministers, and of troubling many good people. To the first, Answ. Scandal, what? Rom. 14.21, 13. 1 Cor. 8.9. scandal is not that, which some persons may be offended at, but properly that which makes our bro­ther to offend and stumble, as it is implicitely described by the Apostle. Now the things we speak of, are for the keeping of them from falling, and in the right way. If any will censure before he see and understand the matter, we must object unto them the Apostles own practise; who did bo [...]h circumcise, Act. 16.3. with Gal. 2.3, 5. and refuse also to circumcise; yea, and sacrifice too, as he saw it made for more gene­ral [Page 123] edification: Though it could not be without offence to some, both Jews and Gentiles, Act. 21.26. and seem'd unto them scandalous; insomuch that the Apostles at Jerusalem perswaded him to use certain of the legal Ceremonies, and to sacrifice, for the satisfying of some that were so pre­judiced against him. To the second. 2. Able Mini­sters silenced. That the premises are occasions that some able Ministers not conforming are silenced: They must remember, that it is not the goodness of the timber, nor bigness of the piece that makes it useful for the building, but its fitness. If it be knotty, or crooked, or otherwise unproportionable; a less and of meaner stuff may do better. When the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 11. that certain Ministers were transformed into An­gels of light, doth he not imply, that they were men both of parts great, and piety very specious; and yet for the rents that they made in the Churches, calleth them the ministers of Satan; and else-where wisheth, Gal. 5. that they were cut off. It is not the skill of a soldier, nor his cou­rage, but his obedience unto government, that makes him capable of an Office. Metall without breaking, makes the Horse to cast h [...]s Rider. And St. Austin, Contra Par­men. l. 1. c. 1. when he commends Tichonius the Donatist, as hominem acri in­genio praeditum & uberi eloquio: ‘himself a man in [...]ued with a sharp wit, and fluent eloquence; Rom. 16.1 [...]. would not yet have had him his Colleague at Hippo, for men by sweet preaching (as was noted before) may cause such divisions in the Church, that the brethren may be warned to be­ware of them.’ And it will lie at their own, and not at the Churches dore, if their Talent have been wrapped up in a napkin. And it had been better both for this Church and Nation, and for some of our selves likewise, if, whilst we had such principles, we had been silenc'd, and asleep also. To the last, v [...]z. That conscientious men are, 3. Conscienti­entious men troubled. for their unconformity unto these things, mo­lested and troubled; I answer, And well they may, both for their own good and others, whom by their ex­ample or perswasion they might mislead: For if God may justly plague his people for neglecting his good and [Page 124] wholsome Law, Act for the u­niformity of Common-prayer. (in these cases provided) as the Queen and Parliament imply, he will; It is as good service done to men by penalties, to compel them to their duty in the [...]e particulars, as to scourge a child to keep him from the fire. St. Austin being once of the mind, that Schismaticks and Hereticks should not be punished; on better advice, acquaintance with the Scripture, and by experience, Epist, 48. and 50. was brought to be of another mind, and wrote two large and elaborate Epistles, to defend the lawfulness of the use of Laws to that purpose.

SECT. III. Humane Inventions.

THe third general Exception is, against the things we treat of, that they are inventions humane, and from man onely, Answ. several of them. First, ‘The light of natural understanding, wit, and reason, is from God; he it is, which thereby doth illuminate every man entring into the world. Rich. Hook. Ec­cles. pol. lib. 3. sect. 9. If there proceed from us any thing after­ward corrupt and naught, the mother therof is our own darkness, neither doth it proceed from any such cause whereof God is the Author. He is the Author of all that we think or do, by vertue of that light which himself hath given. And therefore the Laws which the very Heathens did gather, to direct their actions by, so far forth as they proceeded from the light of nature, God himself doth acknowledge to have proceeded even from himself, and that he was the writer of them in the table of their hearts. In the second place, How much more then is he the Author of those Laws, which have been made by his Saints? &c. saith that praise worthy Author. When the Disciples would have had our Sa­viour to put the man to silence who cast out devils in his name, Mar. 9.38. and followed him not with them, our Savi­our rebuking of them, gives us this useful Maxim in [Page 125] religious matters, viz. That he that is not against us is on our part.’ Things not opposing of the Scripture, and intended for, and tending to the furtherance of Religion, they are not humane notions; but the inventions of men directed by Scripture in the general touching such things ( viz. 1 Cor. 14. That all things be done to decency and edification) and guided by the Spirit of God in such particulars. Ob­servance whereof, rather then opposition thereto, would represent a Christs Disciple. The Feast of Dedication of the Temple, was no injunction from the Lord; 1 Maccab. 4.59. Joh. 10.22. But so useful an invention of man, that our Lord himself ob­served it. Remarkable also to this purpose is the profession of the Learned Zanchy touching things of this nature. viz. Zanch. Observ. in confess. suam. cap. 25. Aph. 10, 11. ab ini­tio. Credo ea quae â piis patribus in nomine domini Congregatis, communi omnium consensu, citra ullam sacrarum litera­rum contradictionem definita & recepta fuerunt, ea etium (quanquam haud ejusdem cum sacris literis authoritatis) A SPIRITƲ SANCTO ESSE. ‘Those things (saith he) which have been concluded and received by the holy Fathers, gathered together in the name of God, Canons of the Church, of what authori­ty. agreed on by common consent, and without any contradiction to the Scripture, (although they are not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures) yet I believe even those things to be from the HOLY GHOST. Thus he. Joh. 14. cap. 15. cap. 16. And it is not in vain that Christ hath promised his Spirit to his people, to guide them into all truth.’

SECT. IV. Of the Apocrypha.

TO the fourth, that many things in the premises are but Apocryphal, and so not Scriptural nor obliging. Now Touching the Apocrypha and its injunction to be read in some parts in the Church, although all the Scripture be not read: ‘First, which Books in case my self did think as some others do, safer and better to [Page 126] be left publickly unread; R. Hook. Ec­cles. pol. l. 5. sect. 20. nevertheless, as in other things of like nature, even so in this, my private judgment I should be loth to oppose against the force of their re­verend authority; who rather considering the divine ex­cellency of some things in all, and of all things in cer­tain of those Apocrypha, which we publickly read, have thought it better to let them stand as a list or marginal border unto the Old Testament. And though, with di­vine, yet as humane compositions, to grant at the least unto certain of them publick audience in the Church of God. And if in them there happen any speech, that soundeth towards error; should the mixture of a little dross, constrain the Church to deprive her self of so much gold, rather than learn how by art and judg­ment to make separation? To this effect very fitly from the counsel that St. Jerom giveth unto Laeta, of taking heed how she read the Apocrypha; as also by the help of other learned mens judgment we may take direction.’ And let me add, that without such directi­ons, Confer. Hamp. Court. pag. 61. King James said well, ‘he would not have all the Canonical Scripture read.’

But because some there are, who seem better to relish forreign judgments, than those of their own Church; Expositio de sacr. libr. dig­nitate praefix. ante Biblia Ti­gurin. sive Leon: Judae. I shall recite first Bullingers opinion of those Books, and the publick reading of them, one of the Pro­fessors of the Church of Tigur; his words are: Ego verò arbitror, salvo aliorum judicio, istos libros (Apocryphos) re­ctissimè Hagiographa dici posse, nimirum a sanctis viris de rebus Scriptos sacris — quos quanquam non fint in Canone Hebraeo, Ecclesia tamen, quia sancta tradunt, & Canonicis non contradicunt, recipit ac in sanctorum coetibus legit. ‘I do think, saith he, saving other mens judgments, that these Apocryphal Books may very justly be called holy writings, as being written by holy men touching holy things: which though they are not in the Hebrew Canon, yet, because they treat of religious matters, and do not contradict the holy Scriptures, the Church doth receive them, and reads them in the [Page 127] Assemblies of the Saints.’ Then he produceth the judgment and relation of Cyprian, Cyprian. expos. symb. or Russinus (for the work is ascribed to both) in his Exposition of the Creed to the same purpose. Where it is, by the way, to be noted, (out of the Text of Cyprian or Ruffinus) first, that he reckons the Books of the Old and New Testament, The Church of England re­ceiveth the Canon of Scripture ac­cording to the antient Church. ex­actly as the Church of England doth. Secondly, that he saith, that is secundum majorum traditionem, & ex pa­trum monumentis: ‘That it is according to the tradition of the Church, and out of the writings of the Fathers.’ Whereby we see the Church of England follows anti­quity in reception of the books of holy Scripture, more truly than the Church of Rome doth. But this obiter, and the way.

Again, Bullinger citeth the judgment of Bibliander, Bibliander. de opt. genere interpretandi Hebraica, whose words are: Ecclesiasticos libros, etiam Hagiographa nominant & sancta scripta. Quae etsi non habent idoneam authoritatem roborandi ea quae in contentionem veniunt, ut Canonici Scriptores, non tamen rejiciuntur ut Apocrypha, qualis fuit prophetia Eldad & Medad, &c. — Ecclesiastici autem l [...]bri etiam in Scholam & auditoria fidelis populi adm [...]ssi sunt, & tam venerandi multis, ut Judith etiam in ordinem canonicae Scripturae à quibusdam repona­tur. Which having the same sense, I forbear to English. Onely he saith, that the Book of Judith was by some ac­counted Scripture (I suppose he meaneth Origen) which I think may as little claim that priviledge as any other.

Lastly, Bullinger goes over every book of them, and shews the benefit that the Church may reap by the read­ing of them. And saith, ‘We may better learn the form of Houshold-government out of Tobit and Judith; and the Ethicks or rules of good living, out of Ecclesiasticus and the book of Wisdom, than out of Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon: And the way of a religious Soldier out the Maccabees.’ And of the first book of them he saith. Ac tanti omnino hic liber est, ut boni illo non possent citra jacturam carere. ‘That it is verily of such worth, that [Page 128] a good man cannot without loss be without it.’ Which is consonant unto that of King James, speaking of the same book, Conf. Hamp. Court, pag. 61. viz. ‘Who shewed the use of the Maccabees to be very good, to make up the story of the persecution of the Jews, &c.’ And of the History of Bel and the Dra­gon Bullinger saith: Viderint autem qui eam historiam, pro fabula damnant, quibus nitantur Authoribus: Ego video Historiam refertissimam esse multiplici fructu & eruditione. ‘Let them look to it, saith he, what Authors they rest upon, who condemn it for a fable: I observe it to be a History full fraught with fruitful instructions:’ And he names what. In a word, his whole discourse on these books is worth reading. And it is to be noted, that this was with the allowance of the rest of the Ministers of Tigur, where this book was printed.

Necessit. Re­form. pag. 20. Basilic. Doron.But the authority of King James is by some Brethren objected against the Apocrypha, viz. ‘As for the Apo­crypha books, I omit them, because I am no Papist; and indeed some of them are not like the ditement of the Spirit of God. Answ. ’ Thus, say they, the King. But, it seems, time and reading had further ripened the Kings judg­ment in that point. For afterward when he upon great occasion solemnly delivered his judgment, Confer. Hamp Court, second. day confer. p. 61. è Cathedrâ, in reference to the satisfaction of his whole Kingdom, this was the result. His Majesty in the end said; ‘He would take an even order between both. Affirming that he would not wish all Canonical books to be read in the Church, unless there were one to interpret; nor any Apocrypha at all, wherein there was He explains himself pre­sently, in al­lowing the book of Mac­cabees, where­in he acknow­ledgeth some errors. any error. But for the other, which were clear and correspondent to the Scripture, he would have them read; for else (said he) why were they printed? and therein shewed the use of the book of Maccabees very good to make up the story of the Persecutions of the Jews, but not to teach a man to sacrifice for the dead, or to kill himself.’ Thus far the King, wh [...]ch if the Brethren knew, they did not well to cover; and if they knew it not, and were not vers'd in the most authentical books and writings of this [Page 129] nature, as that Conference is a special one, they were not fit to deal in such an Argument. So also in the same place of the same Conference, pag. 61, 62. the King opened and de­fended a passage in Ecclesiasticus, one of the Apocryphal books, objected against as unsound, and closes all with this salt quippe to the opposers: ‘What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus? by my saul I think he was a Bishop, &c. You see with what judg­ment the Brethren have quoted the King against the Apocrypha, and yet as a crowing argument they insist upon it.’

Again, Object. 2 Hierom. Ep. ad. Laetam. Tom. 1. St. Hieron is also produced as a witness against these books, viz. ‘That he should advise a Lady, say they, caveat omnia Apocrypha; that she should take heed of all the Apocrypha. Answ. ’ There are several causes of mistaking, and mis-representing of an Author; as, ¹ That men rest on Quotations, Causes of mis­understanding and mis-repre­senting of an Author. and read them not them­selves. ² That they understand not the language and Idiom of the writer. ³ That they weigh not his scope and drift. ⁴ That they ponder not the context. ⁵ That they compare not one place with another. ⁶ That they con­sider not the circumstances, time, place, &c. ⁷ That they consult not others that may illustrate him. Then for misrepresenting him. ¹ That they make no bones of it. ² That they conceit, they shall not be seen by every eye. ³ And that when they be, they have a brow to bear it, so what they say may serve the turn at present. It so fares here. For if the Brethren read the place they quote in Jerom, it is sure they understood not what he meant by Apocrypha. Erasmus therefore on the place shall teach them. Inscribuntur Petro, Paulo, nonnulla ipsi Christo, Erasm. in Hie­rom [...]p. ad Lae­tam. num. 79. veluti epistola Jesu ad Abygarum regem. ‘They are, saith he, ascribed to Peter, to Paul, and some to Christ himself, as the Epistle of Jesus unto Agborus.’ Where you see, that Jerome did not mean by the Apocrypha onely the Books joyned with the Old Testament; but those also, yea, those especially, that were affixed to the New. Again, They did not weigh Jerom's scope; for it was [Page 130] onely to instruct a young Girl in reading in that place, not to shew what the Church might do, or did. Fourth­ly, They did not compare this passage with others, where he expresseth himself ex professo. As where he speaks of the Books which bear Solomons name (but are not his) used to be read in the Church, as Ecclesiasticus, and the Wisdom of Solomon, he addeth; Sicut ergo Judith & To­biae & Machabeorum libros, legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas, non recipit: sic & haec duo volumina legat; ad aedificationem plebis, non ad au­thoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. Hierom's testi­mony of the publick read­ing of the A­pocrypha. ‘As therefore (saith he) the Church reads the books of Judith (one of those the Brethren expresly except against) and of Tobit, and the Maccabees; yet not counting them among the Canonical Scriptures; so let it read these two Books ( Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon) for the edification of the people, though not for the establishing the Authority of the Doctrines of the Church.’ Where there are three things to be noted. First, that these Books are Apocrypha. Secondly, That they were read in the Church. Lastly, That they may be so done.

Fifthly, They suppress the whole sentence out of which they quote that particle; whence it would have appear'd that he did not forbid her absolutely the reading of them, but that she should do it warily, and with judgment. His words are: Caveat omnia Apocrypha. Et si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum reveren­tiam legere vo [...]uerit; sciat, non eorum esse, quorum titulis praenotantur; multaque his admixta vitiosa, & grandis esse prudentiae, aurum in luto quaerere. ‘Let her take heed of all the Apocrypha (but what he meant by them we heard above) but if at any time she will read them, not for the confirming of the faith of doctrine, but for the reverence unto the things intended in those writings, let her know; that they are not the works of those whose name they bear; and that many corrupt things are mixed with them; and that it is for the riper wisdom to [Page 131] seek gold out of the clay.’ Thus he. Even as Paul ad­viseth the Thessalonians, to ‘ prove all things, 1 Thess. 5. Matth. 23.3. chap. 16.6. and hold fast that which is good. So our Saviour commands his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees; but yet to take heed of their leaven.’ So Jerom allows her to read them, but with discretion; without which, 2 Pet. 3. even the Scripture proveth a snare to the weak.

Now, notwithstanding all this, I am of the judg­ment of St. Hierom, of Ruffinus (or Cyprian) above quoted, and of the Church of England, touching the nature and use of the Apocrypha; yet may I not per­haps, oppose the evidence of those Hieron. in prolog's variis. Whitak. de S. Script. Q. 1. Reynold. de lib. Apocryph. Junius in Apocryph. Chamier. de Canone. Alii (que). learn­ed men, who have endeavoured to prove some of them fictions; yet such as were intended, and are useful for Consicta sunt enim, sed in hoc consicta, ut sacrum aliquid sig­nificent. Erasm. in epist. Hieron. ad Laetam n. 78. edificati­on. In which regard, my self not long since heard a great man of the Separation SAY, (but he could not SEAL it by any evidence, though urged) that the Common-prayer was Popish; but Ro­mances were useful, though fictitious, be­cause they express vertue and vice to the heighth. If so, why then may not the Apocrypha pass for Religious Romances, wherein the like is performed. Of one of which St. Jerom. Hieron. prefat. in Judith. Tom, 3. Accipite Judith viduam castitatis ex­emplum, & triumphali laude, perpetuis eam praeconiis declarate. Hanc enim non solum foeminis, sed & viris imitabilem dedit, qui castitatis ejus remunerator, vir­tutem talem ei tribuit, ut invictum omnibus hominibus vinceret, & insuperabilem superaret. ‘Receive ye Ju­dith (saith he) the widow, an example of chastity, and with triumphant praise publish her with perpetual commendations; for he who was the rewarder of her chastity, hath propounded her to be imitated, not one­ly by women but by men also. Who gave her also such grace, that she overcame him that was unconquerable, and prevailed over him whom no man could vanquish.’ So that you see, if those writings be useful in the Church, [Page 132] [...] [Page 133] [...] [Page 132] as that noble person said, that express vertue and vice to the life; and that in the opinion of St. Jerom (no weakling) some of these books do so; even in that re­spect they should not be rejected wholly. And if the fore-quoted Authors please not; the next, I presume, will, and they are (the Abomination of the Brethrens soul) the Bishops; but yet in this point, and that's strange, will speak ad salivam, and to their palate. Viz. in the Admonition prefixed unto the second Tome of Homi­lies, done, no doubt, by the same Authors, that the Ho­milies were, Presat. in Tom. 2. Homil. and published by the same authority. In that admonition unto Ministers Ecclesiastical (and it is a grave and godly one) are these words: ‘And where it may so chance some one or other (here's room you see) chapter of the Old Testament, to fall in order to be read upon the Sundays or Holy-days, which were BETTER to be changed with some other of the New Testament, of MORE edification; it shall be well done to spend your time to consider well of such chap­ters before-hand, whereby your prudence and your di­ligence shall appear, so that your people may have cause to glorifie God for you, and be the readier to embrace your labours, to your better commendation, to the discharge of your consciences and their own.’ To explain that, they meant all that was to be read, ex­cept the New Testament, by the word Old Testament were needless. Now you see that the Liturgy, the Ka­lender, the Rubrick, doth not so tie the Minister, to syllables in every thing, but hath left something to his discretion and piety, and particularly in this, the reading of the Old Testament, and (if you distinguish, ne dum) of the Apocrypha. So much for the fourth head of the Exceptions, namely, that respecting the Apocrypha.

SECT. V. Of Popery, and the Mass-book.

To the fifth, viz. That the things mentioned do sa­vour of Rome, that they are Popish, superstitious, and taken out of the Mass-book. Answ. If we should here re­ply, That both the matter and form, the substance and ceremonies, of the Doctrine, Worship, and Go­vernment of the Church of England, is much more an­tient than Popery, in the main of it; Yet there are those that have a starting-hole for this, and a note beyond Ela, Reas. necess. Reform. p. 63. Instance. viz. ‘That albeit some of the Rites and Ceremonies now in use, may be mentioned in sundry of the Fathers, within the first six hundred years after Christ, yet such mentioning of them is no evidence that they are not Popish, forasmuch as Popery was in the egg, and the mystery of iniquity began to work, though under other disguises, and under other names, even in the time of St. Paul himself, 2 Thess. 2.7. Answ. 1 Tim. 4.1.’ But if Popery be truly defined by St. Paul to be a departing from the faith, it shall be evident, that these are no Popery. It is prudently uttered by King James, Conf. Hamp. Court. pag. 75. Answ. when the like was be­fore him objected of some of these matters; ‘That no Church ought further to separate it self from the Church of Rome, (I may add, or from any other Church) either in Doctrine or Ceremony, than she had departed from her self, and from Christ her Lord and head.’ And in­deed it is a Popish and superstitious principle, to take nothing of those Churches that are opposite to them, which is an issue of their pride and arrogance; R. Hook. Eccles. pol. l. 5. §. 68. p. 368. Calv. Epist. ad Socinum. 1549. vid. Et Insti [...]. lib. 4. cap. 2. § 11. which some now imitate on the other side. ‘Now it must be noted, 'Thot those that hold the head, the confession of faith, do all joyn in the root, though they separate above, and in the branches.’ Hence, Ecclesiam aliquam manere in Papatu: ‘There is some Church remaining [Page 134] in the Papacy, saith Calvin.’ Others I might name, but take Zanchy's (notable) word for all: Nescio quo sin­gulari beneficio Dei, hoc adhuc boni in Romanâ Ecclesia servari, nemo non vidit, nisi qui videre non vult. Quod nimirum sicut semper, sic nunc etiam constans & firma in verâ de Deo, de (que) personâ Domini nostri Jesu Christi, doctrinâ persistit. Et Baptizat in nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus sancti; Christumque agnoscit, & praedicat pro unico mundi Redemptore futuroque vivorum & mortuo­rum judice: qui veros fideles secum in aeternum vitam re­cepturus, incredulos autem & impios in aeternum ignem cum diabolo & Angelis ejus ejecturus sit. Quae causa est, cur Ecclesiam HANC, pro Ecclesia CHRISTI etia­mum agnoscam; sed quali? Qualis & ab Osea aliisque prophetis, Ecclesia Israelis sub Jeroboamo, & deinceps fuisse describitur, nunquam enim resipuit à suis fornica­tionibus. That is: ‘I know not by what kind of special mercy of God, Zanch. ep. dedic. ante confess. su­am. Tom. 8. but so it is, that thus much good re­mains in the Church of Rome, which every man sees, but they that will see nothing. Namely, that, as al­ways, The Roman Church, what remains found in it. so now, it persists firm and constant in the true doctrine concerning God, and concerning the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ: And Baptizeth in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. And doth acknowledge and preach Christ for the one­ly Redeemer of the world, and he that shall be the Judge of the quick and the dead. Who also shall re­ceive unto himself all true believers unto eternal life; and who shall reject unto everlasting fire, with the de­vil and his angels, all unbelievers and wicked men. For which reason I do in some sort acknowledge THIS for a Church of CHRIST. But what kind of one? namely, such as the Church of Israel is described to be under Jeroboam, and afterwards by Hosea and other Prophets, for she never repented of her fornications.’ Thus he. Some kind of Church of Christ then, it being; Hence it follows, first, that all things in Popery are not superstitious; for if a Church, there must be somewhat [Page 135] of the Spirit of God, and of Christ, in them, Joh. 1. Joh. 16. to guide and keep it in these truths. Else why do these Brethren read the Popish writers, the Jesuites and Schoolmen, as some of them have the best spoak in their cart from thence, and preach much of their matter and notions to their people.

The superstition may be either in the opinion that they had of them, or the abuse they made of them; 4 which being removed, the thing may be lawful, even in individuo. As the flesh that had been consecrated to an Idol, 1 Cor. 8. even that very flesh might have been bought or eaten, by the strong and those that knew the truth. As, God be praised, our people do in the things excepted against; no man putting any confidence in them, but in Christ alone, observing them onely for order, edification, and decency.

Secondly, 2 Some kind of respect must have been given to that Church (as a Church of Christ in some sense) by the Reformers; both for preventing offence in respect of them abroad, and for the regaining of the brethren of this Nation amongst us, misled that way, as the Apostle saith: ‘I become all things to all men, 1 Cor. 9. ad fin that I might by all means win some.’ If therefore, what could not be th [...]n, or cannot be now, without danger in those respects left off, be retained still; the doctrine of the Church in the mean time being fully opened and professed; it is charity, not Popery; and wisdom (godly) not supersti­tion. 'for we must have respect unto the weak. 1 Cor. 14. Object. Before we leave this. If it be objected, that the Church of Homily on Whitsunday, part 3. Homily of Rebel­lion in several places, and in other Homilies. England doth seem to hold the Church of Rome the seat of Anti-Christ, and the Pope to be his very peson: It is answered, suppose it do so; Answ. yet doth it not therefore follow, but that the Church of Rome hath something in it of a true Church; 2 Thess. 2. else how should Antichrist sit in the Temple of God, which is his Church, if the seat of Antichrist were not in some re­spects [Page 136] a Church. And that the Church of England doth acknowledge, that Rome hath something of a Church in it; its retaining the Baptism and Ministery of that Church, its not re-baptizing or new-ordaining those that come to it from that, 2. The Mass-book. doth plainly shew. This for Popery and the Church of Rome in general. Secondly, for the Mass-book in particular. Cic. Joh. 1. De Justific. lib. 5. cap. 7. sit tertia propo­sitio. Missale Rom. edit. Paris 1787. The Mass-book against merits. Let us see whether any gold be in Ennius dung, whether any good thing can come out of Nazareth, and whether any truth and piety out of the Mass-book. Bellarmine, who knew its meaning well, and in a cause wherein, if any where, he should have pass'd it by, proves out of the Mass-book, that we can have no trust nor confidence in our own work, and merits for salvation, but onely in the mercy of God. In which, as in the Master-vein, doth run the life-blood of all Reli­gion. The words are: Collectâ in sexagessimâ. Deus qui conspicis, quia ex nulla nostrâ actione confidimus. Item Collect. secreta dom. Adven­tus. 2. ubi nulla suppetunt suffragia meri­torum, tuis nobis succurre praesidiis. Item In canone post consecration. in orat. prox. post comemorat. pro defunct. —de multi­ [...]udine miserationum tuarum spe­rantib. &c. intra quorum, nos consortium, non aestimatur meriti, sed veniae quae­sumus largitor admitte. ‘That is; first, O God, which seest, that we trust in no act or work of ours. Again; Where we have no help of merits, do thou succour us with thy assistance. Again, Admit thou us into their (the blessed Saints) company, who art, not the esteemer of merit, but the vouchsafer of mercy.’ Thirdly, It having been often evidenced by Jewel, in defence of the Apolog. and others. ours, that our Do­ctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, is much more antient than Popery, (properly so called) al­though also usurped in some things by Papists; what hindreth, but as the vessels of the Temple, defiled by Belshazzar both in drunkenness and idolatry, Dan. 7. might re­turn to their pristine use; so those things that were Christs before, De doctr. Christ. l. 2. c. 40. but usurped by them, we may, tanquam ab injustis possessoribus in nostrum usum vendicare; take [Page 137] our own goods out of theevish hands, as Austin, Austin. of the truths uttered by the Heathen.

But lastly, (because the victory over Goliah was the more remarkable, the last blow being given by his own sword) we shall retort the argument, viz. 4. Because the Liturgy de­stroyeth Po­pery and Su­perstition. ‘ That there ought to be no separation from the Worship and Liturgy, because whilst the Common-prayer-book is of force, and neither deserted nor transgressed; Popery, and that su­perstition on the one hand, as a flood; nor Anabaptism and Separation, as a rotting distillation, on the other; can ever come in upon the Church.’ And for this, though I have neither strength nor armour, so specious or so massy, as they perhaps may have; yet I shall not doubt to cast the Gantlet to any Champion of the Philistines. Such was the judgment of that learned Prince, King James, related to by the Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury, Lord Abbot Arch-bishop of Cant. Letter, with K. James instructions concerning Preachers, Sept. 3. 1622. in these words: ‘His Majesty therefore calling to mind the saying of Tertullian; Id verum quod primum. (That is true which is first) And remembring with what do­ctrine, the Church of England in her first, and most happy Reformation, did drive out the one, and keep out the other, &c.’ He had nam'd before, Popery, Ana­baptism, and Separation. I am not ignorant that Sancta Clara hath endeavoured to reconcile even our Articles of Religion, with the doctrine of the Church of Rome. ‘But what communion hath light with darkness, 2 Cor. 6. and what concord hath Christ with Belial, and what agree­ment hath the Temple of God with Idols?’ The new Jerusalem is four- square, the Harlot sits upon Circles, ( Apoc. 17.9. seven hills) can they quadrare circulum? But to re­turn to the former. For proof (at present) touching Anabaptism and Separation, there is no doubt of that. And for Popery, the chief points thereof (as opposite un­to the Protestant Religion) are countervened there, as may appear by the Council of Trent, by Bellarmine, and our Rhemists (the true Interpreters of that Council, as [Page 138] our De S. Scripturâ in presatione. Quia novus Papismus â vetere multum dif­fert, quod de omni causa Tridenti­num concilium statuerit, imprim [...]s quaeramus, tum hujus concilii fideliss. interpretes Jesuitas, & nostros etiam Rhemenses; & quia Bellarminus has causas accurate, tractavit, illum quasi scopum proponemus. Whitaker hath it) if com­pared with it. To instance in a few particulars. The first shall be that; Traditiones ipsas— pari pietatis affectu & reverentiâ susci­pit & reveretur. ‘That the Tra­ditions of the Church are to be received with the same affection and reverence, Concil. Trid. Sess. 4. decret. 1. as the holy Scrip­tures themselves.’ And so the worship of God may be farced with them, 1. Traditions. as well as with the reading and preaching the holy Scripture. Now the Liturgy assigneth nothing to be put into the wor­ship but the Scriptures, either those that are undoubt­edly so, or else such as have been of great veneration and antiquity in the Church, though not received into the Canon, R. Hook. Eccles. pol. l. 5. § 19. and which in regard of the divine excellency of some things in all, and of all things in certain of them, have been thought better to stand as a list or mar­ginal border unto the Old Testament; yet with this li­berty, that where the Minister shall perceive some one or other chapter of the Old Testament to fall in order to be read, Admonition to all Mini­sters Ecclesi­astical, prefix­ed before the second Tome of Homilies. 2. Intercessi­on of Saints. which were better to be changed with some other of the New Testament of more edification; he may do it. As was noted above.

The next may be, the Medium or Mediator of our worship, by whom it is to be commended unto God. The Church of Rome joyn in commission with Christ the blessed Virgin, the holy Apostles, the Angels, and the Saints departed. Our Common-prayer, as our Sa­viour in another place, Luk. 1. Apoc. 5.8. Heb. 5. shuts out all this crowd, and with the High-Priest when he was to offer Incense, which represented the prayers of the Saints, suffers no man to take this honor to himself but Christ alone, in the close of the prayers adding this basis to the sup­port of all, and naming no where any other; and some­time [Page 139] expresly excluding them by that bar [only] affixed unto Christ through our only Mediatour and Advocate Jesus Christ our Lord. Second Col­lect in the Letany, and elsewhere. 3. Merits.

A third, the merit of our prayers and worship. The Papists we know, do attribute so much to that, such a kind and number of them being said at such a place, they shall merit the very merits of Christ, and properly de­serve a reward. And that not ex congruo, and of con­veniency only, but ex condigno, and of strict justice. Good works (say the Rhemists, On Heb. 6.10. and prayer and divine worship, is a principal one even with them also) be me­ritorious, and the very cause of salvation, so far that God should be unjust, if he rendred not Heaven for the same. But our Liturgy teacheth us, that when we have offered our alms, our prayers, yea, and have performed the very highest of divine worship, the celebration of the holy Communion, in the close of all to say: Thanksgiving after the Com­munion. ‘And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, NOT WEIGHING OUR MERITS, BUT PARDONING OUR OFFENCES, &c.’ and many the like passages. 4. The Sacri­fice of the Mass. Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. sub pio 4. c. 2. A fourth particular shall be the Mass, wherein is pretended that the Bread after Consecration being trans [...]ubstantiated into the very flesh of Christ, and that elevated by the Priest with certain words; there is offered up a real sacrifice expiatory for the sins of the living and the dead. Non solum pro si­delium vivorum peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus & aliis necessitatibus; sed & pro defunctis in Christo nondum ad plenum purgatis ritè offertur. And again, Can. 1. Si quis dixe­rit in Missa non offerri Deo verum & proprium sacrifi­cum, Anathema sit. ‘That is, In the Mass is offered rightly, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfa­ctions and other necessities of the living, but for the dead in Christ also. And, if any man shall say that in the Mass there is not a true and proper sacrifice, let him be accursed.’ Contrary to this idolatry, blasphemy [Page 140] and superstition; In the publick form of Administring the Sacrament, in the Prayer (Consecratory) in our Liturgy, whereby the Bread and Wine is set apart for that holy use; Prayer before the distributi­on of the Sa­crament. The entrance is this: ‘Almighty God our Heavenly Father, which of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our Redemption; who made THERE, BY HIS ONE OBLATION OF HIM­SELF ONCE FOR ALL, a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue a perpetual MEMORY of that his precious death, until his coming again. Transsubstan­tiation. Artolatria. Communion in one kind, Concil. Con­stant. Sess. 13.’ What should I speak of Transsubstan­tiation, and of the worshipping of the Host, whereas the Prayer-Book teacheth us to believe it is Bread and Wine still, and to lift up our hearts to worship Christ in the Heavens. The defrauding of the people of one half of the Sacrament, the Cup; (licèt Christus post coenam instituerit, & suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque specie panis & vini hoc venerabile sacra­mentum, tamen hoc non obstante, &c. that is) ‘though Christ instituted this after Supper, and administred it unto his Disciples under both kinds of Bread and Wine, yet this notwithstanding; They forbid the Priest to give it so, under the penalty of Excommunication.’

7. Sacram. Corruption of Bapt. &c. 5. Prayer for the dead. Concil. Trid. Sess. 9. sub p. 4. Decret. 1.The multiplying of the Sacraments, the vitiating of Baptisme by superstitious ceremonies, of exorcising, with Cream, Spittle, &c. All which foul Spirits are cast out by the Liturgy from our worship, with multitude of others. I shall but name one more, (that you may tell them on your fingers.) And that is prayer for the dead. Whereas the Church of Rome it self doth teach, that there is no use of Prayer for the damned, because Purgatorium pro eis tantum esse, qui cum venialibus culpis moriuntur, Bell. de purgat. lib. 2. cap. 1. ad fin. A wise distin­ct [...]on. & rursum pro illis qui discedunt cum reatu poenae, culpis jam remissis: ‘Purgatory is for those only that dye in smaller sins, or in guilt of punish­ment, [Page 141] the offence being pardoned. Now our Church excludeth the use of Prayer for any deceased.’ For those who dye excommunicate, they have no solemn Burial. And for others who dye in the Faith and Fel­lowship of the Church, it prayeth not; Form of Bu­rial, whilst the earth is cast upon the body. but first pro­fesseth its Faith of their happy Resurrection. ‘Foras­much as it hath pleased Almighty God, to take unto himself the soul of our dear Brother here departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground in sure and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life, &c.’ Then professing against Purgatory, it saith; ‘Almighty God, The Thanks­giving before the last Col­lect at Burial. with whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord, and in whom the souls of them that be elected, after they be delivered from the burden of the flesh, be in joy and felicity.’ Lastly, it giveth therefore thanks: ‘We give thee hearty thanks, for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful world, &c.’ Where by the way, let it not offend, that this form is applyed to all. Why the same form is apply­ed to all that are buried. For first, it useth the word hope, not knowledge. Se­condly, it is applyed only to those who dye visible mem­bers of the Church, and not excommunicated. So that charity doth not interpose its private judgment, where the Church hath not pronounced hers. To con­clude the Br. must consider, that the Liturgy was di­rected on purpose to oppose Popery: as was noted a­bove. ‘His Majesty remembring with what doctrine the Church of England in her first and most happy re­formation, did drive out the one, and keep out the other, namely, Popery and Separation, saith his Grace of Cant.’ And thus much in answer to the fifth general Exception, viz. Popery, Superstition and the Mass-Book.

SECT. VI. Of the Non-establishment of the premises by law.

COme we to the sixt, viz. That the doctrine, the worship, the discipline and government are not esta­blished by law in this Church and Nation. This I shall reply unto in reference unto them all in general first, and then descend unto the severals. 1. The Au­thors of the Book intitu­led, Reasons shewing the necessity of Reformation, &c. And here, before I come to the matter it self, I must take leave to speak a word unto these objectors. And it shall be in their own Lan­guage; namely, that they are like to give a sad account unto God; or in a more Authentick one, that they must look unto it for this their writing, As they will answer before God, for such evils and plagues, wherewith Al­mighty God may justly punish his people, for neglecting this good and wholesome Law, Act for uni­formity of Common-Prayer. vîz. the Act 1 Eliz. 1. establishing the form of Gods worship. The obedience unto which, and other (tending to the setling of Religion among us) hath been so much shaken by the form and appearance of truth and godliness, which their Treatise hath, without the power thereof, seemed to have. This to their persons. 2. Their scope. Next for their scope, they express it, not to be a reformation of the things they except at, but a plain abolition of them; Z [...]nch. Epist. ad Cardin. Le­tharing ib. 2. whereas our Lord Christ (saith the Car­dinal approved by a chief man of our own) did not destroy the Temple, but only purge it. Christus non destruxit Tem­plum sed repurgavit; ita ecclesiae in quas irrepserunt ali­quot errores, abusus, superstitiones, non sunt convellendae sed repurgandae; So the Churches, saith he, ‘into which some errors, abuses and superstitions are crept, are not to be plucked up, but purged.’ But it seems ubi dolor ibi digitus; the Kitchin of the chief (supposed) Au­thor of that Treatise, is like to be cooler for the late re­stitution; having lost the Revenues of a good part of a Bishoprick, as 'tis said, which he had purchased. And [Page 143] it may be others of these Brethren are ejected as they had ejected others. For these times are like those. Ruffin. Hist. eccl. l. 1. c. 21. Ea tempestate, foeda facies ecclesiae, & admodum turpis erat; non enim sicut prius ab externis, sed à propriis va­stabatur. Fugabat alius, alius fugabatur, & uterque de ecclesia erat— praevaricatio erat, & lapsus & ruina multorum. Similis poena, sed impar victoria; similiter cruciabantur, sed non similiter gloriabantur, quia dolebat ecclesia etiam illius casum, qui impellebat ad lapsum. ‘At that time the face of the Church was foul and un­comely indeed; for not now, as formerly, the Church was destroyed by enemies, but by her own; One is dri­ven, the other drives him away, and both of them of the Church. Offences, and falls, and ruines there were of many. All were like sufferers, but not all like conquerors. All were tortured alike, but all could not glory alike; for the Church did lament even his fall, that forced another to miscarrry, saith the Historian.’

But to leave the men, and to come unto the matter. 3. Their mat­ter. The premises are not established, they say, because there is Addition, Detraction, and Alterations made in them, since the Originals and first establishment. For Answer, Object. 1 Addit. Sub­stract. Alte­rat. Answ. we may note here a twofold distinction: 1. Of per­sons, private or publick. 2. Of things, lighter or more material; to apply these. If the Alterations, Additions, or Detractions alledged, be done by private hands, and in things of lesser moment, Misprisions in lesser things by private hands. the main continuing unvio­late; It would be better thought on, whether such a misprision (be it casu or consilio, unwittingly or wil­lingly) ought to invalid a publick act. For then perhaps 1 neither the Brethren have an authentick Bible, nor any Lawyer a true Statute-Book, because there are many faults do happen by the pen, and by the press, which may have happened in the things we speak of. But se­condly, 2 if such alterations, In more ma­terial ones, and by pub­lick persons. &c. be made by publick persons, or in things material; it must be considered what powers the Laws do give unto them in these af­fairs; now it is certain, and the Brethren acknowledge [Page 144] it, that until 17 Carol. 11. The King had freedome by Law to appoint under his Broad Seal Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical, Reasons for Reform. p. 51. to amend whatsoever might be reformable in the Church. And in the Act for uni­formity of Common-Prayer Act for uni­formity of Com. Prayer. at the end of it, it is gran­ted unto the Queen, ‘that if there shall happen any irreverence in the service of God, by the mis-using the orders appointed in the Common-Prayer-Book; she may by her Commissioners, or by the advice of the Metropolitan, ordain further rites or ceremonies for the advancement of the glory of God, &c. Several Acts in K. Hen. 8. Edw. 6. Q E­liz. particu­la [...]ly that of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Necessit. of Reform. p. 50.’ Now by this and other particular Acts, that restored all Ecclesi­astical power from the Pope unto the Crown; And par­ticularly by the Act of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. ‘wherein having first united and annexed all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom, (they are the words of the Brethren) it addeth what power shall be given by commission under the Great Seal to exercise the same in this following clause, viz.’ ‘And that your Highness, your Heirs and Successors, Kings or Queens of this Realm, shall have full power and authority by vertue of this Act, by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England, to assign, name and authorise, when, and as often as your Highness, your Heirs and Successors shall think meet and conve­nient, and for such and so long time, as shall please your Highness, your Heirs or Successors, such person or persons (being natural born Subjects to your High­ness, your Heirs or Successors) as your Majesty, your Heirs or Successors shall think meet to exercise and use, occupy and execute, under your Highness, your Heirs and Successors, all manner of jurisdictions, pri­viledges and preheminencies in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within these your Realms of England and Ireland, or any other your Highness Dominions and Countries. And to visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all such errors, heresies, schismes, abuses, offences, con­tempts [Page 145] and enormities whatsoever, which by any man­ner spiritual or ecclesiastical power, authority or juris­diction, can or may lawfully be reformed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of vertue, and the conservation of peace and unity of this Realm.’ Now howsoever the Brethren would make this Act void, after the Act of 17 Car. 1. (of which anon) yet the things we speak of being transacted before, remain in force by vertue of that Act. And certain it is, that not only the Kings themselves; but the Parliaments also, the Judges, the Ministry, have always thought that by the King, some alterations might be made by vertue of these Acts, without violation of Law, pro­vided nothing were done contrary to any thing in the Book contained, Preface to the Com. Praye [...] Book. especially when the King shall be sup­plicated by his people thereunto. Hence the King in his Proclamation for the Authorizing of the Book of Common-Prayer, by occasion of the Conference at Hampton Court, (which having reflected on) saith: Kings Procla­mat. for esta­blishing the Book of Com. Prayer. ‘And for that purpose, (namely, to satisfie the scruples of some tender consciences) gave forth Our Commis­sion, under Our Great Seal of England to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and others, according to the form which the LAWS of this Realm in like case prescribe to be used, to make the said EXPLA­NATION, &c.’ And it is also certain, that the same, not only Kings successively, but also Parliaments and Judges, with all the other Magistracy, have taken all the premises, viz. The Doctrine or Articles of Religion, the Worship or Common-Prayer-Book, The Discipline and Government to be established by Law. Or else how will the Brethren, or how can any other free the Kings from Arbitrary Government; the Par­liaments from betraying the publick liberties; the Judg­es from perjury and perverting Law; and other Magi­strates from oppressing of the people; if men have been punished for disobedience to these, if not established by [Page 146] Law. But surely, we may more safely confide in the judgment of so many Acts of Parliament and Laws; of so many Princes, By divers Mi­nisters of sundry Coun­ties, so in the title. K. Ja. Instru­ctions to Prea­chers, 1622. Artic. 4. Parliaments, Judges, Magistrates, then in the conjectures of certain Country or County Ministers, what is Law. The rather, because this being a Prerogative (Ecclesiastical jurisdiction) belonging to Soveraign Princes, is expresly forbidden Ministers to meddle with, ‘further then they are presidented in the Homily of Obedience, and in the rest of the Ho­milies and Articles of Religion. And besides that the declaring of Law in general is proper to the Judg­es; for to you (saith our [ Kings Speech at the Dissolu­tion of the Parl. after his assents unto the Petition of Rights.] late Soveraign, speaking to the Judges in Parliament) only, under me belongs the interpretation of Law.’

But Thirdly, should we grant that according to the punctilio's and formalities of Law, they should not be established by that of the Land; yet the Church hath its Law also; that whatsoever is imposed by the Gover­nors thereof for edification, Note. agreeable or not repugnant to the Scriptures, especially if God and experience have set their seal thereunto (as the premises have had) and that custome and tract of time have given them prescri­ption (which the Apostle after all reasoning flies unto) if such things should be excepted against by others, 1 Cor. 11.16. yet doubtless very improperly by those; 1 Cor. 9.1, 2. whose seed of gene­ration, and milk of infancy, and strong meat of riper age, they have been in the Lord. Yea, I add and who by their profession and subscripsion have been particularly obliged to them. But oftentimes it cometh to pass, that the watchmen themselves, who were appointed for ‘the Safeguarding of the Church, Serm. before the H [...] Com. Feb. 18. 1620. prove in this kind to be the smiters and wounders of her, saith the Primate of Ireland.’ And no marvel; for, veteres scrutans his­torias, invenire non possum, scidisse ecclesiam, & de domo Dei populos seduxisse, praeter eos, qui Sacerdotes à Deo positi fuerant & prophetae, id est speculatores. Searching the antient Records, Hier. in Hos. 9.8. Tom. 6. I cannot find, ‘that any other have rent the Church, and have seduced the people from the [Page 147] house of God, but they, who have been appointed Priests by God, and Prophets, thar is, Watchmen, saith St. Jerome.’ I have done with the first Exception against the premises, viz. their non-establishment in general.

SECT. VII. Of the Obligation of the League and Covenant.

AGain, it is objected, that there is an engagement for the Reformation of the Doctrine, Worship, As­semblies, Discipline and Government in the solemn League and Covenant; therefore they are not to be ad­hered unto.